I doubt very seriously that the CA Bar has enough integrity to do anything about orly. They've had years and haven't bothered, why should that change now?

Because a certain line has been crossed. I could be more specific, but I won't.

The Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California is ordered to show cause before this court why its motion for admission of Sergio C. Garcia to the State Bar of California should be granted. The Committee of Bar Examiners and Sergio C. Garcia may serve and file opening briefs in support of the Committee of Bar Examiners' motion on or before June 18, 2012. Applications for permission to file an amicus curiae brief, either in support of or opposition to the motion, are invited. Such applications should comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f) and be accompanied by the proposed brief. The applications should be served and filed no later than 30 days after the filing of opening briefs by the Committee of Bar Examiners and Sergio C. Garcia, or 30 days after expiration of the time for the filing of opening briefs by the Committee of Bar Examiners and Sergio C. Garcia. In particular, the court invites such applications from the State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General (if appropriate under California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, subdivision (f)(8)), and the United States Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General. The Committee of Bar Examiners and Sergio C. Garcia may serve and file answers to the individual amicus curiae briefs, or a consolidated answer to multiple amicus curiae briefs, within 30 days after either the court rules on the last timely filed application to file an amicus curiae brief or the time for filing applications to file an amicus curiae brief expires, whichever is later. Any answer must be served on the amicus curiae.

The following are among the issues that should be briefed: 1. Does 8 U.S.C. section 1621, subdivision (c) apply and preclude this court's admission of an undocumented immigrant to the State Bar of California? Does any other statute, regulation, or authority preclude the admission? 2. Is there any state legislation that provides - as specifically authorized by 8 U.S.C. section 1621, subdivision (d) - that undocumented immigrants are eligible for professional licenses in fields such as law, medicine, or other professions, and, if not, what significance, if any, should be given to the absence of such legislation? 3. Does the issuance of a license to practice law impliedly represent that the licensee may be legally employed as an attorney? 4. If licensed, what are the legal and public policy limitations, if any, on an undocumented immigrant's ability to practice law? 5. What, if any, other public policy concerns arise with a grant of this application?

Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ.

As interim leader of the State Bar’s prosecution unit, Jayne Kim helped to wipe out a persistent backlog of attorney misconduct cases. In late May, she officially became the agency's newest chief trial counsel.

[...]

Under Kim's leadership, however, bar prosecutors eliminated a large and long-standing investigatory backlog of complaints pending for more than six months without leading to either dismissal or the filing of formal charges. At the end of 2010, more than 1,200 active investigations fell into that category. Within a year, there were just eight, all of which were being handled by outside examiners.

[...]

The office significantly reduced its backlog of post-investigation matters awaiting the filing of formal charges or resolution. At the end of 2010, there were 822 post-investigation complaints at least six months old. At the end of 2011, that number shrank to 188, a historic low.

[...]

“[The State Bar staff] really held their heads up,” she said. “There’s such a renewed energy and focus on public protection.”

Cal. Bar: Kim formally steps into top prosecutor’s job

So, apparently the way they reduced their backlog was by throwing all the disciplinary cases in the garbage. "Yep, we've cleared the backlog." Awesome.

So, apparently the way they reduced their backlog was by throwing all the disciplinary cases in the garbage. "Yep, we've cleared the backlog." Awesome.

Recent signs suggest that the discipline pendulum (which shifts every decade or two) is about to radically switch once again. On Thursday, June 21, in an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court of California, which by law has the last word in attorney discipline, referred 24 (yes, twenty-four) cases back to the State Bar Court. These cases represent many hours of heavily negotiated, fact-intensive, detailed stipulations, which were signed, sealed and delivered to them. The ink was already dry on these settlements, in which the respondents, trial counsel, and State Bar Court judges had all signed off. In the past, some in the legal profession had assumed the Supreme Court would merely "rubber stamp" these State Bar Court’s determinations. Obviously, that’s not true anymore.

Every year, hundreds of disciplinary stipulations are approved. This is a long, tedious process, involving the application of case precedents and the balancing of mitigating and aggravating factors. “The 24” were returned for "further consideration of the recommended discipline in light of the applicable attorney discipline standards. See In Re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 81, 89‑94; and In Re Brown (1995) 12 Cal. 4th 205, 220.)”

Both of those cases were returned for imposition of greater discipline. Silverton is iconic as one of the very few double disbarment cases. Inferentially, the sanctions in these 24 cases are insufficient. However, are there some discernable trends we can glean from these rejects? Obviously, because these cases are still “in play,” we can’t discuss the particulars, but some overarching trends appear to be clear. About half of the cases involved financial shenanigans or "loan modifications." This is to be expected when you consider that the State Bar allocated vast resources to the Loan Modification Task Force, and more importantly, that people were losing their homes because of these situations.

“The 24 cases” are sending a strong message that sharing fees with a non‑lawyer is not just going to be a slap on the wrist. Quite a few involve this circumstance, prohibited by Rule 1‑320 (Financial Arrangements with Non‑lawyers). This rule codifies the centuries-old concept that a lawyer’s independent judgment will be impaired if there is fee splitting with a non‑lawyer.

I don't really think the Cal Bar exists.

One subject this blog hasn't touched on is bar passage. The news that only 55% of test takers passed the Michigan bar exam in July (the typical passage rate on the Michigan July exam is around 75%-80%), along with a very interesting document that landed in the ITLSS in-box yesterday, reminds me that there are quite a few people who graduate from law school but never become licensed to practice law.

Just how many is hard to say, but here are some stats:
....
(2) Bar passage rates vary a great deal by state. 79 of the 84 people who took the South Dakota bar last year passed, while only 6,483 of 12,820 (51%) of California test takers passed.
...
(3) Speaking of California, the bar passage rates for graduates of non-ABA accredited California law schools are atrocious: only 18% for graduates of "conventional," i.e., brick and mortar, non-ABA schools passed the California bar (Curiously, the passage rate for graduates of correspondence law schools -- you can get a law degree via strictly "distance learning" in California -- was actually higher, at 22%. BTW professional lunatic and licensed California attorney Orly Taitz is a graduate of one of the latter institutions).
...

(2) Bar passage rates vary a great deal by state. 79 of the 84 people who took the South Dakota bar last year passed, while only 6,483 of 12,820 (51%) of California test takers passed.

Here is an example of what a real, functioning state bar does to a lawyer who levels baseless accusations against a judge: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/ ... o-5694.pdf

Missing filing deadlines
Failing to recognize substance abuse or stress
Poor client communication
Ineffective client screening
Failing to understand the law
Conflicts of interest
Inappropriate involvement with a client, such as becoming an investor or a creditor
Failing to document legal work
Suing a client to collect a fee
Failing to identify someone as a client