Chief Justice Guerrero warns of court challenges, calls for reforms

Chief Justice of California Patricia Guerrero delivered a wonky and detailed State of the Judiciary speech to the Legislature on Tuesday morning. Her comments delved into the cuts her branch has endured and how Proposition 36 is burdening the courts. She also asked lawmakers to continue to expand laws allowing remote hearings and told them the CARE Court program was starting to deliver meaningful results.

Guerrero also delved into current issues around immigration law enforcement and issued a warning to the California State Bar over its botched February exam. She waded into a rumored fight between the State Bar Board of Trustees and the Committee of Bar Examiners, stating she was considering restoring "the examiners' importance."

"Much has happened since I addressed you last year," Guerrero began. "I decided to start with an understatement."

Just as her predecessor often did, Guerrero began by discussing the state budget. Former Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye's time in office was bookended by severe economic downturns. Delivering her third address, Guerrero spoke about how the trial courts coped with a $97 million cut last year. She noted efficiencies like hiring freezes and shuttering underused courthouses, then thanked lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom for partially reversing some of the cuts.

These comments quickly led to a familiar sales pitch to extend and expand remote court access.

"You didn't think I would get through this without mentioning remote proceedings?" Gurrero said. "Each business day, more than 6,500 remote hearings in both civil and criminal cases take place in our courts, saving court users an estimated 1.5 million trips to courthouses annually."

She briefly touched on Newsom's signature CARE Court effort, which seeks greater court oversight for some people with mental health and addiction problems. Recent media coverage has focused on the fact that usage of CARE Courts was far lower than court officials had predicted. But Guerrero said the numbers are starting to add up, with 1,258 CARE Act petitions and 2,092 hearings as of Feb. 21.

She only briefly mentioned Proposition 36. Legislators have been debating funding for the tough-on-crime ballot initiative for weeks. During a budget subcommittee hearing on Monday, San Bernardino County Superior Court Presiding Judge Lisa M. Rogan warned of a "a train wreck coming" because the voter-approved proposition was resulting in more and longer cases with increased need for judicial oversight.

Guerrero said Proposition 36 was "the will of the people." But she added that along with collaborative courts the Racial Justice Act of 2020 was increasing the complexity of managing caseloads. The Racial Justice Act requires judges to hold hearings to determine whether prosecutors, witnesses or police have implicit bias against a particular race when the defense files a motion requesting review.

In April, she said, the California Judicial Council will deliver its latest report on the weighted caseloads of the state's superior courts. This model seeks to assess not just how many cases a court has compared to its judicial resources, but the time and complexity of the matters faced by each court.

It took until the last third of the speech for Guerrero to address the elephant in the room--the February Bar Exam. The move to a new test led to thousands of complaints of technical difficulties, expensive retesting options being offered to hundreds of people, and at least one lawsuit.

Guerrero touched on familiar criticisms of State Bar, such as "high profile failures to address attorney misconduct." But rather than merely adding to the chorus of complaints, Guerrero dove into an obscure side plot unfamiliar to casual followers of the exam scandal: a rumored territorial dispute between the Board of Trustees and the Committee on Bar Examiners.

The committee officially oversees the Bar Exam. However, there are rumors that it was sidelined in recent years as the bar moved from the Multistate Bar Examination to a new test written by Kaplan Test Prep and administered for remote test takers by Meazure Learning.

She began this portion of the speech by talking about the "financial stability and the independence" that comes from passing the "life-changing" exam and the "stress and anxiety" endured by those taking the botched exam. Then Guerrero said she would use the California Supreme Court's "plenary authority to implement appropriate remedies."

"In response to these unfortunate circumstances, the court plans to enhance oversight over admissions, including the role of the Committee of Bar Examiners to ensure high standards and improve the administration," she said.

Guerrero added, "Even before the founding of our State Bar, the court depended on the Committee of Bar Examiners to set high standards for entrance into the practice of law. But in recent years, the examiners' role has been diminished."

Much of the final portion of the speech concerned the California government's tense relationship with the federal government. Guerrero did not mention President Donald Trump by name. But California's clashes with federal officials over immigration and civil rights featured prominently in her remarks. This included a warning for immigration officials against detaining people at state courthouses, which became a contentious issue during Trump's first administration.

"I would also like to address the considerable stress, anxiety and confusion surrounding the issue of immigration policies and enforcement as they relate to our courts," Guerrero said. "The federal government, of course, has the right and obligation to do its job. But it cannot, consistent with the 10th Amendment, compel states to enforce federal immigration law."