AB 1939 amends the statutory petition requirements for conservatorships by formalizing a supplemental information filing and adding specific disclosure obligations for licensed professional fiduciaries. The bill directs the Judicial Council to develop a separate form that asks petitioners to explain the proposed conservatee’s functional needs, residence, prior services, financial vulnerabilities, and alternatives to conservatorship, and it limits who may see that supplemental filing.
For professional fiduciaries licensed under California’s Professional Fiduciaries Act, the bill requires pre-appointment disclosure of a proposed hourly fee schedule or other compensation statement, license information, and a declaration about who retained them and any prior relationship with the conservatee or their circle. Those requirements aim to increase courtroom visibility into costs and potential conflicts of interest, with likely implications for fiduciary practice, court administration, and families considering conservatorship.
At a Glance
What It Does
Mandates a Judicial Council supplemental information form that petitioners must complete addressing five categorical assessments about the proposed conservatee, and requires licensed professional fiduciaries to disclose fees, licensing, and who engaged them when filing a conservatorship petition. The supplemental filing is confidential but available to parties and the court may release it in the conservatee’s interest.
Who It Affects
Licensed professional fiduciaries, petitioners who are not banks or trust companies, probate courts and clerks, court investigators, public conservators, and lawyers who represent proposed conservatees or petitioners. Regional centers and service providers will be asked to supply or verify prior service history when available.
Why It Matters
The measure pushes transparency earlier in the conservatorship process—showing judges concrete attempts at less-restrictive alternatives and exposing potential fee arrangements or recruiting sources for professional fiduciaries—affecting how courts evaluate necessity and conflicts and how fiduciaries price and market services.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a structured, confidential supplemental information requirement into conservatorship petitions. Instead of a single general petition narrative, petitioners who are not banks or trust companies must answer five focused categories: the proposed conservatee’s inability to meet basic physical needs, the details of their residence and capacity to remain there, what less-restrictive alternatives were considered or tried and why those failed, health or social services provided in the prior year, and financial mismanagement or susceptibility to fraud.
The Judicial Council must build a standalone form to capture these facts after consulting stakeholders including public conservators, court investigators, the State Bar, and service providers.
That supplemental form is distinct from the public petition and is treated as confidential: it is accessible to parties, noticed persons who request it, attorneys of record, and the court. The judge retains discretion to release the supplemental material to others when doing so would serve the conservatee’s interests, and court clerks must limit disclosure to entitled persons.
The confidentiality structure aims to protect sensitive medical and financial details while still getting them in front of decisionmakers.For professional fiduciaries who are required to hold a license under the Professional Fiduciaries Act, the bill adds near-term disclosure duties when they file petitions. They must attach a proposed hourly fee schedule or other statement of compensation from the estate, and state their license information.
If there is no simultaneously filed temporary conservator petition that contains these statements, they must also declare who engaged them to file or accept appointment and describe any prior relationship with the conservatee or the conservatee’s family and friends. The statute expressly preserves the court’s authority to reduce fees later, so the disclosure is not a binding approval of compensation.The bill preserves existing exemptions and cross-references: conservatorships for developmentally disabled adults that are filed under certain Health and Safety Code provisions can rely on regional center reports instead of the Judicial Council supplemental form, provided those regional center guidelines are publicly available and cover the same facts.
The petition must also include traditional procedural details—due diligence to identify relatives, creditor status of the petitioner, whether the proposed conservatee is institutionalized in state hospitals or developmentally disabled services, veterans’ benefits estimates, and tribal affiliation information when known—so courts receive a fuller factual baseline for assessing necessity and appropriate scope of powers.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Judicial Council must design a separate supplemental information form covering five specific factual categories (physical needs, residence, alternatives tried, prior services, and financial vulnerability) after consulting public conservators, court investigators, the State Bar, and service providers.
The supplemental information is confidential: available to parties, noticed persons who request it, attorneys of record, and the court; the judge may release it to others if it serves the conservatee’s interests.
Licensed professional fiduciaries must file a proposed hourly fee schedule or other compensation statement with a conservatorship petition; the statute clarifies courts may still reduce fees later.
If a professional fiduciary is not concurrently filing a temporary conservator petition that contains the required statements, they must also disclose license information and who engaged them and describe any prior relationship with the conservatee or their family/friends.
Conservatorships filed under the Health and Safety Code for alleged developmental disability can substitute regional center reports for the supplemental form if the regional center guidelines are publicly accessible and provide equivalent information.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Supplemental facts checklist and Judicial Council form
This subsection forces petitioners (except banks/trust companies) to answer five narrow factual buckets rather than relying on a broad petition narrative. The Judicial Council must craft a distinct form after stakeholder consultation—meaning the final questions will reflect input from public conservators, court investigators, the State Bar, and community-based assessment specialists. Practically, this turns amorphous courtroom testimony into a standardized record judges can compare across cases and should reduce variance in the depth of factual presentation.
Confidentiality and controlled disclosure of the supplemental form
The statute segregates the supplemental form from the public petition and restricts access to parties, noticed persons who request it, attorneys of record, and the court. Clerks must limit disclosure and judges retain discretion to release material when it benefits the conservatee. This creates a protected evidentiary channel for sensitive medical, financial, and social information while still letting courts and counsel see the details necessary for an informed decision.
New disclosure obligations for licensed professional fiduciaries
When the petitioner or proposed conservator is a professional fiduciary who must hold a license, the bill compels disclosure of a proposed fee schedule or compensation statement and, unless that information is included in a concurrent temporary conservator petition, the fiduciary’s license details and a statement describing who engaged them and any prior relationship. The requirement aims to surface potential conflicts and give judges a baseline for scrutinizing proposed fees; the provision also explicitly notes that fee disclosure does not foreclose subsequent judicial fee reductions.
Due diligence, petitioner status, institutionalization and benefits
These provisions codify procedural facts that must accompany any petition: a declaration of due diligence to locate relatives and ascertain the proposed conservatee’s preferences, a statement whether the petitioner has creditor or debtor status relative to the conservatee, disclosure of state institutionalization when known, and an estimate of VA benefits when applicable. Those mechanics assist courts in identifying interested parties, potential conflicts, and the conservatee’s financial picture before appointment.
Developmental disability filings and regional center reports
The bill exempts conservatorships filed under specific Health and Safety Code provisions for alleged developmental disability from the supplemental form if regional center reports already supply equivalent information and the regional center guidelines are publicly available. That recognizes institutional assessment practices and avoids duplicative documentation where a robust administrative record exists.
Tribal affiliation reporting
Petitioners must state known information about federally recognized tribal membership, the tribe’s location, whether the proposed conservatee lives on tribal land, and whether they own property on tribal land. This mechanic flags federal Indian law and jurisdictional issues early in the proceeding and gives courts a concrete prompt to consider tribal status when shaping orders.
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
- Proposed conservatees and their attorneys — receive a more structured set of facts presented to the court, including documented attempts at less-restrictive alternatives and a confidential repository for sensitive medical and financial details, which can improve judicial determinations of necessity and scope.
- Probate judges and court investigators — get standardized, comparable information that eases fact-finding, reduces ad hoc testimony, and helps spot gaps, conflicts, or insufficient attempts to use alternatives to conservatorship.
- Family members and notice recipients — gain clearer evidence about why conservatorship is being pursued and who the conservator is, including fee expectations and any prior relationship that could indicate conflicts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Licensed professional fiduciaries — must prepare and attach fee schedules, provide license and engagement disclosures, and potentially face greater fee scrutiny and marketing limitations; smaller fiduciary firms may see higher compliance costs.
- Individual petitioners who are not banks or trust companies — must complete the supplemental form, gather service histories and alternative-therapy documentation, and may need legal help to prepare the confidential submission.
- Court clerks and probate departments — must implement controlled-access procedures for the supplemental form, manage the new Judicial Council form, and absorb additional administrative work; judges may also face more contested pre-appointment hearings as disclosure brings issues to light.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting vulnerable adults through transparency—requiring courts and families to see who stands to benefit and what less-restrictive options were tried—and the risk that increased procedural and disclosure burdens will raise costs, discourage providers, and complicate access to necessary fiduciary services; the bill improves visibility but imposes frictions that may reduce availability or slow urgent appointments.
The bill tightens transparency but raises immediate implementation questions. The Judicial Council’s consultation process will determine how granular the five categories become; overly detailed questions could increase filing complexity and lawyer dependence, while too-brief prompts will defeat the statute’s purpose.
Courts must balance confidentiality against the need for interested parties (adult children, public guardians, service providers) to access material; giving judges broad release discretion risks inconsistent practices across counties.
The mandated fee disclosures and engagement statements aim to surface conflicts, but they do not create an enforcement mechanism beyond existing probate fee review processes. That means inaccurate or incomplete disclosures may persist without clear sanctions beyond judicial skepticism.
Smaller fiduciary firms face a compliance cost and possible market pressure to lower fees; at the same time, greater transparency could reduce opportunistic appointments. Verifying the accuracy of assertions about alternatives tried or services delivered will fall largely on opposing counsel and court investigators, potentially lengthening pre-appointment discovery and hearings.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.