2024-030 The State Bar of California
It Must Continue to Achieve Cost Savings and Reduce Its Growing Backlog of Disciplinary Cases
Published: February 27, 2025
Audit Recommendations Disclosure
When an audit is completed and a report is issued, auditees must provide the State Auditor with information regarding their progress in implementing recommendations from our reports at three intervals from the release of the report: 60 days, six months, and one year. Additionally, Senate Bill 1452 (Chapter 452, Statutes of 2006), requires auditees who have not implemented recommendations after one year, to report to us and to the Legislature why they have not implemented them or to state when they intend to implement them. Below is a listing of each recommendation the State Auditor made in the report referenced and a link to the most recent response from the auditee addressing their progress in implementing the recommendation and the State Auditor’s assessment of auditee’s response based on our review of the supporting documentation.
The Legislature
Recommendation 1
To improve its financial position, the State Bar should complete its implementation of the modified bar exam and especially its reduction-in-workforce measure, which should help it achieve the Legislature’s mandated vacancy rate goal and achieve savings.
Status:
pending
The State Bar
Recommendation 2
To improve its financial position, the State Bar should complete its implementation of the modified bar exam and especially its reduction-in-workforce measure, which should help it achieve the Legislature’s mandated vacancy rate goal and achieve savings.
Status:
pending
Recommendation 3
To measure the effectiveness of changes to OCTC’s operations and support potential future requests for OCTC staffing, the State Bar should adopt the proposed case processing standards by August 2025 as benchmarks against which to measure OCTC’s progress in shortening timelines and reducing backlog.
Status:
pending
Recommendation 4
To ensure consistency in its setting of law school oversight fees, the State Bar should by August 2026 reexamine its methodology for determining all fees for CALS and for unaccredited schools and set supportable fees for all law schools. In developing the fees, the State Bar should conduct a fiscal analysis to ensure that the fee amounts charged to law schools reflect the State Bar’s actual cost of its oversight, unless it determines that doing so would limit the public’s access to the services.
Status:
pending
