FOLLOW US

State Bar Judges Are Selected, Not Elected 

Since 1989, the court has utilized full-time judges appointed by the California Supreme Court, the Legislature, and the governor. It is divided into two departments: the Hearing Department and the Review Department, both overseen by a presiding judge.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—or Division?

The State Bar openly champions diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). On paper, that sounds like a noble goal. Achieving an attorney population reflective of California’s demographic richness is, in theory, a step toward justice. But how do you achieve such a goal without tipping the scales against certain groups?

Here’s the hard truth: to admit more from underrepresented groups, you might have to limit admissions from overrepresented ones. That’s not equality; it’s a redistribution of opportunity, one that leaves some feeling sidelined. DEI policies can and should be a force for good, but not when they compromise fairness or foster division. Critics argue that the State Bar’s DEI efforts cross this line, using opaque processes to prioritize some while disadvantaging others.

Unchecked Authority in the Shadows

The California State Bar Court’s structure grants it near-total control over lawyer admissions, making it an outlier even among regulatory bodies. The lack of meaningful independent review turns the entire process into what some describe as a “modern-day Star Chamber.” For those unfamiliar, the Star Chamber was a 15th-century English court infamous for its secrecy and oppression. That’s not exactly a flattering comparison for an institution tasked with upholding justice.

Adding fuel to the fire is the cloak of confidentiality that surrounds these proceedings. It’s a system ripe for abuse, where decisions can be influenced by bias—racial, religious, or ideological—without fear of accountability.

Legal Trends and Challenges

Legal observers like myself see parallels between California’s State Bar and the broader administrative state. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, such as SEC v. Jarkesy;  Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and its companion case, Relentless v. Department of Commerce, have begun to dismantle administrative overreach. These cases challenge in-house adjudication and hint at a possible reckoning for systems like California’s State Bar Court.

Despite these legal trends, challenges to the State Bar’s authority have largely been unsuccessful. Cases like Dale Laue v. State Bar of California highlight just how impenetrable this institution has become. The case, which reached the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket, serves as a stark reminder of how little room there is to contest the State Bar’s decisions.