Proposed Amendments to Rules Governing Mandatory Fee Arbitration

The State Bar seeks public comment on proposed amendments to the rules governing mandatory fee arbitration consisting of revisions to existing rules and the creation of new rules to address the appointment and qualifications of fee arbitrators.

 
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
 
Deadline to submit comment is: Monday, July 17, 2023, 11:59 p.m.
YOUR INFORMATION










Are you an attorney? * 🛈
Commenting on behalf of an organization 🛈
BACKGROUND

The State Bar mandatory fee arbitration (MFA) rules consist of rules 3.500 through 3.566 located in Title 3, Division 4, Chapter 2 in the Rules of the State Bar of California. The last comprehensive update of the MFA rules occurred in 2013.

The MFA rules are silent on the topic of arbitrator appointments, but the Guidelines and Minimum Qualifications of Arbitrators for the State Bar of California Fee Arbitration Program (Guidelines and Minimum Qualifications) outline the appointment procedure for new arbitrators, lists the qualifications of attorney and lay arbitrators, and specifies the ongoing requirements for all arbitrators while volunteering for the MFA program. For the November Board of Trustees meeting each year, staff recommends for appointment qualified new arbitrator applicants and the reappointment of all eligible current arbitrators based on the criteria in the Guidelines and Minimum Qualifications, and either the appointment or reappointment of the program’s presiding arbitrator and two assistant presiding arbitrators. Currently, each of these appointments is for a one-year term.

DISCUSSION

Proposed amendments to the MFA rules consist of clarifying edits, revisions to existing rules intended to increase the efficiency of the program’s daily operations, and the creation of new rules formalizing the appointment and qualifications of fee arbitrators to the program, adapted from the Guidelines and Minimum Qualifications.

Staff proposes revisions to existing MFA rules intended to increase the efficiency of the daily operations of the program, primarily through the use of technology, including electronic service and remote hearings by videoconference.

Staff also propose the creation of four new rules to govern the appointment and requirements of fee arbitrators. These new rules incorporate and build upon the criteria outlined in the Guidelines and Minimum Qualifications of Arbitrators, state arbitrators’ ongoing educational and reporting requirements, and seek to create a staff-driven appointments process for new fee arbitrators. Under the proposed rules, the Board of Trustees would continue to appoint the MFA program’s presiding arbitrator and assistant presiding arbitrators but for a longer term of four years instead of the current one-year term.

More information on these proposed changes can be found in the following agenda item:

  • Agenda Item 60-3 Proposed Amendments to Rules Governing Mandatory Fee Arbitration Program (Title 3, Division 4, Chapter 2): Request to Circulate for Public Comment
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
On which amendments or proposed rules do you wish to comment? *
POSITION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3.500
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed amendments to rule 3.500 (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3.507
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed amendments to rule 3.507 (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3.511
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed amendments to rule 3.511 (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3.512
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed amendments to rule 3.512 (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3.513
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed amendments to rule 3.513 (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3.531
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed amendments to rule 3.531 (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3.534
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed amendments to rule 3.534 (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3.537
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed amendments to rule 3.537 (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3.539
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed amendments to rule 3.539 (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3.540
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed amendments to rule 3.540 (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3.541
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed amendments to rule 3.541 (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3.545
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed amendments to rule 3.545 (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3.561
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed amendments to rule 3.561 (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3.562
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed amendments to rule 3.562 (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 3.564
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed amendments to rule 3.564 (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED NEW RULE ON APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed new rule on appointment of arbitrators (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED NEW RULE ON ARBITRATOR QUALIFICATIONS 
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed new rule on arbitrator qualifications (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED NEW RULE ON REQUIREMENTS OF ARBITRATORS 
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed new rule on requirements of arbitrators (This is a required field.) *
POSITION ON PROPOSED NEW RULE ON REMOVAL OF ARBITRATORS 
From the choices below, we ask that you indicate your position on the proposed new rule on removal of arbitrators (This is a required field.) *

Please note that comments and materials received will, in full, become part of the public record. View the State Bar's Public Comment Policy.