AB 1525 adds Section 6106.4 to the Business and Professions Code and creates an explicit class of “excluded events.” If an action (judgment, judicial sanction, indictment/conviction, or a finding or discipline by another professional board) is based on another state’s law that interferes with a person’s right to receive, provide, recommend, enable, or advocate for “sensitive services” that would be lawful in California, that out‑of‑state event cannot be used as a basis for California discipline, reporting to the State Bar, proof of culpability for California professional misconduct, or denial of admission to the California bar.
The measure applies to both admitted attorneys and applicants and operates regardless of where the underlying event occurred or where the attorney or applicant resides. It preserves a single carve‑out: excluded events remain actionable in California if the same facts would give rise to a similar claim, charge, or disciplinary action under California law.
The statute references Civil Code §56.05 for the statutory definition of “sensitive services.”
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill establishes a new statutory shield: four categories of out‑of‑state events are defined as “excluded” when they are based on application of another state’s law that interferes with rights to provide or receive sensitive services lawful in California. Those excluded events may not be used for suspension, disbarment, other discipline, reporting obligations, or to deny bar admission in California.
Who It Affects
This affects California‑admitted attorneys and applicants who practice, advise, or otherwise engage with services that California treats as protected (as defined in Civil Code §56.05), and it constrains the State Bar’s normal use of out‑of‑state judgments, convictions, board findings, or judicial sanctions in its disciplinary and admissions processes.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a statutory firewall between out‑of‑state enforcement based on restrictive laws and California’s licensing and discipline system, shifting the State Bar toward independent fact‑based inquiries and narrowing automatic reliance on foreign disciplinary determinations. That will change how cross‑jurisdictional discipline, disclosure, and credentialing are handled.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1525 inserts a focused protection into California’s attorney discipline law. It defines an “excluded event” to include four specific categories—(A) entry of judgment in a civil action, (B) judicial sanctions, (C) indictments/convictions (including guilty or no contest pleas), and (D) findings or discipline by another licensing board—when those actions are rooted in the application of another state’s law that interferes with a person’s right to receive or provide “sensitive services” that would be lawful in California.
The statute then bars the State Bar from treating such excluded events as grounds for discipline, from requiring attorneys or applicants to report them, from using them as proof of culpability for California professional misconduct, and from denying admission to applicants on that basis.
Practically, the law operates on two axes: substance and geography. Substance: the excluded event must be linked to the application of a non‑California law that interferes with the right to engage with services California protects.
Geography: the law applies regardless of where the out‑of‑state event occurred or where the attorney or applicant is located. At the same time, the statute contains a critical limitation: if the same underlying conduct would give rise to a similar claim, charge, or discipline under California law, the exclusion does not apply—California can still discipline or deny admission on conduct that violates California standards.Implementation will require the State Bar to triage incoming information differently.
Where previously an out‑of‑state conviction, judgment, or disciplinary finding could be treated as conclusive or presumptive evidence of misconduct, the Bar must now ask whether the action was premised on enforcing a law that interfered with rights to receive/provide sensitive services lawful here. If it was, the Bar cannot automatically rely on that event; it must either dismiss the matter or investigate independently to determine whether the same facts constitute misconduct under California law.
For applicants, admission forms and background checks will need revision because the Bar cannot demand reporting of excluded events.The new section intentionally defers to Civil Code §56.05 for the term “sensitive services,” anchoring the shield to an existing statutory definition rather than inventing a new list. That cross‑reference means disputes about the scope of protections will often turn on how California courts or agencies interpret Section 56.05 and on fact‑specific inquiries into whether an out‑of‑state enforcement action was actually based on the other state’s statute or policy that interfered with those protected services.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 1525 adds Business & Professions Code §6106.4 and defines “excluded event” to include four categories: civil judgments, judicial sanctions, indictments/convictions, and disciplinary findings from other boards.
The statute bars using an excluded event as grounds for suspension, disbarment, other discipline, reporting to the State Bar, proof of culpability for California misconduct, or denial of admission.
The protection applies regardless of where the out‑of‑state event occurred or where the attorney/applicant is located; location is not a limiting factor.
The excluded‑event rule does not apply if the same underlying conduct would subject the attorney or applicant to a similar claim, charge, or disciplinary action under California law.
The law ties “sensitive services” to Civil Code §56.05, meaning disputes over coverage will reference that existing statutory definition and related case law or agency guidance.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions: applicant, attorney, excluded event, and sensitive services
Subsection (a) lays the groundwork by defining the key terms the rest of the section relies on. It makes clear that the provision covers both applicants for admission and admitted attorneys, and it enumerates four categories of out‑of‑state actions that qualify as an “excluded event.” Practically, this forces anyone applying the rule to evaluate whether an out‑of‑state action fits one of those four buckets before proceeding with discipline or admission analysis. The subsection’s cross‑reference to Civil Code §56.05 delegates the content of “sensitive services” to an existing statute rather than listing services in the disciplinary code itself.
Substantive bar on using excluded events in California discipline and admissions
Subsection (b) does the heavy lifting: it explicitly overrides the listed provisions (including Sections 6049.1, 6101, 6102, 6103, and 6106) to prevent the State Bar from treating excluded events as grounds for discipline, from requiring attorneys or applicants to report them, from using them as conclusive evidence of misconduct in California, and from denying admission on that basis. Operationally, this changes investigatory practice: the Bar can no longer rely on another jurisdiction’s finding or a conviction entered under another jurisdiction’s law (if tied to interference with sensitive services) as an automatic trigger for California action. Instead, the Bar must determine whether the underlying facts independently violate California standards.
Carve‑out where California law would support similar action
Subsection (c) preserves California’s authority to discipline or refuse admission when the same facts would produce a similar claim, charge, or disciplinary action under California law. This is the statute’s safety valve: it prevents the rule from becoming an absolute immunity for misconduct simply because another state also acted. In practice, the Bar and courts will need to perform an equivalency analysis comparing the out‑of‑state grounds to California statutes, rules of professional conduct, and case law to determine whether the excluded‑event protection applies.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- California attorneys who provide, recommend, or advocate for services that California classifies as 'sensitive'—they avoid automatic discipline in California based solely on out‑of‑state penalties tied to those services.
- Applicants to the California bar who face out‑of‑state judgments, sanctions, or disciplinary findings related to sensitive services—those events cannot be used as a basis to deny admission unless they would violate California law.
- Clients seeking sensitive services in California—by insulating lawyers from discipline based solely on out‑of‑state enforcement, the law reduces the risk that California attorneys will be chilled from advising or representing clients on those matters.
- Public‑interest and reproductive/gender‑health legal providers that operate across state lines—staff and volunteers are less likely to face California licensing consequences for actions targeted by other states’ restrictive laws.
Who Bears the Cost
- The State Bar of California—must change investigatory and intake procedures, decline to treat some out‑of‑state findings as conclusive, and potentially perform more resource‑intensive independent inquiries.
- Out‑of‑state licensing and disciplinary boards that rely on California’s reciprocal recognition—may find California refuses to give effect to their actions when those actions are tied to laws that restrict sensitive services.
- Law firms and employers that screen attorneys—may need to develop new internal policies and background review practices because certain out‑of‑state events can no longer be treated as disqualifying in California.
- Victims or third parties who relied on out‑of‑state judgments or sanctions as evidence of professional misconduct—may encounter obstacles when seeking California enforcement or recognition of those determinations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill protects California lawyers and clients from being sanctioned under other states’ restrictive laws for engaging in services lawful in California, but it does so by limiting California’s ability to rely on out‑of‑state adjudications and disciplinary findings—forcing the State Bar to choose between preventing cross‑jurisdictional punishment for lawful California conduct and preserving an efficient, evidence‑based mechanism to police attorney misconduct.
The statute hinges on two fact‑intensive questions that will drive litigation and administrative interpretation: (1) whether an out‑of‑state action was “based on the application of another state’s law that interferes with” rights to receive or provide services covered by Civil Code §56.05; and (2) whether the same underlying conduct would support a similar claim or disciplinary action under California law. Both questions require close review of legislative intent, charging instruments, court opinions, and sometimes factual records from another jurisdiction.
That creates predictable uncertainty: the State Bar may need to litigate or seek foreign records to establish the basis for an out‑of‑state action, and respondents may litigate whether an out‑of‑state measure was genuinely tied to restrictions on sensitive services or to some other conduct.
The law also imposes operational burdens and potential public‑safety tradeoffs. By removing automatic reliance on out‑of‑state findings, the Bar gains independence but loses a source of vetted information.
The Bar will need to allocate resources to re‑investigate matters that previously might have been resolved on the basis of reciprocal discipline. Conversely, refusing to treat foreign punishments as conclusive could leave gaps where misconduct committed elsewhere is less easily policed in California, at least until independent proof is developed.
Finally, the cross‑reference to Civil Code §56.05 means that changes in how that section is interpreted—or in related statutory definitions—will materially affect the scope of §6106.4, potentially producing shifting boundaries over time.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.