Board of Trustees Swears in First Public Member as Chair in State Bar History

Board of Trustees Swears in First Public Member as Chair in State Bar History

The State Bar of California Board of Trustees marked a historic leadership transition at its September 19 meeting, as Board Chair José Cisneros, Vice-Chair Mark Toney, PhD, and new Trustee David Jargiello were sworn into office by the California Supreme Court Associate Justice Martin J. Jenkins. All three were appointed to their new roles by the California Supreme Court.

Cisneros, who previously served as vice-chair to outgoing Chair Brandon Stallings, becomes the first nonattorney and public member to serve as chair in State Bar history.

Appointed to the Board by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2019, Cisneros chaired the committee that helped create the Client Trust Account Protection Program, which requires nearly all licensees to report to the State Bar on whether they oversee client trust accounts, and if so, provide relevant background on those accounts.

Since 2004, Cisneros has served as the elected Treasurer of the City and County of San Francisco, serving as the City's banker and Chief Investment Officer, managing all tax and revenue collection for San Francisco.

A Trustee since 2020, Vice-Chair Toney serves as chair of the Board Audit Committee.

"As someone who has immersed himself in public service for decades, as much as I am honored by this appointment, I know the responsibility of it is immense, significant, and profound," said Chair Cisneros. "I thank the California Supreme Court for appointing me as the first public member chair of the State Bar Board of Trustees. The Supreme Court's appointment of two nonattorneys as the chair and vice-chair signals an incredible commitment to and focus on public protection and underscores our evolution as a regulatory agency. I look forward to continuing the Board's work to protect the public, strengthen accountability in the legal profession, and expand access to justice."

In other actions at its September 18-19 meeting, the Board:

• Heard an Admissions update on the July 2025 California Bar Exam, which had 9,859 applicants (7,740 who attended), of which 1,210 were granted at least one testing accommodation (TA). While the post-exam survey had a low response rate (20 percent), 58 percent of respondents expressed satisfaction with their exam experience; 74 percent of TA respondents were satisfied with the implementation of their accommodations; however, 73 percent of respondents said some multiple-choice questions appeared to have several correct answers.

• Heard related legislative updates on SB 253 (implements time notifications before transitioning from the Multistate Bar Exam multiple-choice questions and offering remote testing or other functionality changes that affect the user experience), SB 47 (an audit of the February bar exam), and AB 484 (requires a report by November 2026 on whether the National Conference of Bar Examiners' NextGen UBE is more efficient and lower cost to administer). The Board and Committee of Bar Examiners will discuss and approve a cost-benefit analysis in subsequent meetings through fall 2025 and the first half of 2026, with a final analysis submitted to the California Supreme Court anticipated in June 2026.

• Approved a 30-day public comment period for proposed amendments to Rule of Professional Conduct 7.3 (Solicitation of Clients). The proposed changes, developed by the State Bar's Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC), would add a new paragraph and comment to prohibit lawyers from soliciting professional employment from respondents in domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) proceedings until after the respondent has been served and proof of service appears on the court docket. This amendment is intended to protect petitioners from heightened risk of abuse, violence, or death that may result from premature solicitation, in alignment with the State Bar's public protection mission.

• Approved amendments to the Rules of Procedure related to the Alternative Discipline Program (ADP), which addresses the substance use and mental health problems of attorneys against whom formal disciplinary proceedings have been initiated in the State Bar Court. The amendments eliminate moral turpitude as grounds for ineligibility for the ADP, set a minimum disciplinary sanction for ADP participants whose offenses involved moral turpitude, clarify the ADP rules, and give the State Bar Court greater flexibility to control the timing of the evaluation process. The changes are intended to expand access, reduce barriers to ADP participation, and shorten the time needed to evaluate whether an attorney should be accepted into the program-all while maintaining strong public protection.

• Heard a report on the Client Trust Account Protection Program (CTAPP), established to safeguard client funds and detect attorney trust accounting misconduct. The program completed its first voluntary compliance reviews in 2025 with 18 firms, revealing common deficiencies in recordkeeping, notifications, distributions, and supervision, but receiving universally positive feedback from participants who valued the education, corrections, and transparency provided. Surveys showed 100 percent satisfaction and calls for continued training and tools. Building on these results, the State Bar will launch mandatory compliance reviews on September 29, 2025, beginning with 100 attorneys and expanding to up to 800 annually, with refinements to the process, preliminary findings for review, educational resources, cost exemptions for those with annual gross incomes of $150,000 or less, and statutory protections to maintain confidentiality.

• Approved a 30-day public comment period for proposed amendments to the State Bar's Mandatory Fee Arbitration rules and new rules establishing a voluntary fee mediation program. The amendments are designed to increase efficiency and clarity in existing arbitration procedures, while the new fee mediation rules would provide an alternative to arbitration and help divert fee disputes from the Office of Chief Trial Counsel, which can then focus on complaints more likely to result in discipline.

• Heard presentations on the performance metrics for the State Bar discipline system, from the State Bar Court, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel, the Special Deputy Trial Counsel, and the Complaint Review Unit overseen by the Office of General Counsel.

###

Follow the State Bar online
LinkedIn, X, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube

The State Bar of California's mission is to protect the public and includes the primary functions of licensing, regulation and discipline of attorneys; the advancement of the ethical and competent practice of law; and support of efforts for greater access to, and inclusion in, the legal system.