State Bar OKs Plan to Fingerprint Lawyers—and Charge Them for It
Bar leaders say the agency doesn't have the estimated $15.5 million to pay for the new fingerprints and ensuing background checks, so they're passing along the costs to members.
March 09, 2018 at 06:05 PM
3 minute read
State bar leaders on Friday voted to require most active lawyers to get re-fingerprinted, at their own cost, so they can be added to the California Department of Justice's arrest notification system.
The state Supreme Court still has to approve the plan. But if all goes as scheduled, attorneys will be expected to get their digits scanned by April 30, 2019. Those who miss the deadline could be fined or face a license suspension.
Bar leaders blame past “administrative failures” for the decision to re-fingerprint upwards of 189,000 attorneys. For reasons that are unclear, the state bar did not ensure the original fingerprint scans were kept.
Would-be lawyers must submit fingerprints when they apply to join the bar. State law requires the bar to maintain those prints in a law enforcement database so the disciplinary unit can be notified of members' arrests. That did not happen.
Acknowledging the problem, bar officials finally contracted with the DOJ last year to scan and keep prints submitted after June 30, 2017. The bar also found and gave to the DOJ about 1,500 “hard copy” fingerprint cards provided by applicants over the last three years. Almost everyone else, though, will have to be scanned again.
Bar leaders say the agency doesn't have the estimated $15.5 million to pay for the new fingerprints and ensuing background checks, so they're passing along the costs to members. The average cost will run about $82, depending on how much a local scanning agency charges, according to the bar.
A recent 45-day comment period on the proposal attracted more than 2,600 responses. Not surprisingly, 73 percent of commenters disagreed with the plan. Another 17 percent said they would agree with the proposal if it was modified—to drop the self-payment requirement.
Bar executive director Leah Wilson acknowledged at a board of trustees hearing that the fingerprinting re-do “is not optimal.” She vowed to fix the agency's “infrastructure” so a similar lapse doesn't occur again.
“I want to recognize that the bar did not perform in the past as it should have and that's why we're here today,” Wilson said.
Michael Colantuono.Bar president Michael Colantuono has warned attorneys for months that they should report any criminal charges filed against them now—as required by law—before a new database scan alerts the agency.
“You are better off coming to us than waiting for us to come to you, because come to you we will,” Colantuono said in November.
Inactive attorneys and judges will not have to be fingerprinted. Active attorneys living outside the United States will have to be fingerprinted by a licensed agency abroad and submit a hard copy to the bar or notify the bar that such services aren't available. The bar will pay part of the fingerprinting costs for low-income earners.
The bar is expected to provide more information to attorneys in the coming weeks and announce formal procedures when the Supreme Court approves the fingerprinting proposal.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoalition of AGs Support Updates to ABA's Legal Education Diversity Standard
3 minute readCalifornia Supreme Court Rejects State Bar's Initial Plan for New Bar Exam
4 minute readGovernor Signs Legislation Raising Lawyers' Licensing Fees by $88 in 2025
3 minute readCalifornia Bar Wants to Offer Exam Score Boosts, Payments to Sample Test Guinea Pigs
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250