AB 2305 amends Section 6155.1 of the Business and Professions Code to change how civil penalties for violations of the lawyer-referral rules (Section 6155) are defined and collected. The bill removes a prior cross-reference that pointed to the provision containing a $2,500-per-violation penalty and instead identifies other statutory sections as the sources for civil penalties and enforcement procedures.
This is a technical but consequential change for State Bar enforcement and for entities that operate or own lawyer referral services. By excising the specific cross-reference to the lower penalty provision and restating which penalty statutes govern assessment and collection, the bill alters the statutory penalty framework and clarifies how recovered penalties are allocated for further investigations and discipline work by the State Bar.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 2305 revises Section 6155.1 to remove an explicit cross-reference to a provision that set a $2,500 cap per violation, and it identifies the remaining statutory authorities (Sections 17206, 17206.1, and 17536) as the bases for civil penalties and enforcement procedures. The section continues to allow the State Bar to bring civil enforcement actions, recover investigation and prosecution expenses, and deposit penalties into a special fund used for future enforcement and attorney discipline.
Who It Affects
Entities that operate lawyer referral services or persons with ownership interests in those services face a changed statutory penalty landscape. The State Bar, which prosecutes violations and receives recovered penalties, and enforcement counsel (both public and private) are directly affected by the clarified enforcement and funding mechanics.
Why It Matters
Removing the explicit $2,500 reference alters the statutory cues that courts and practitioners use to calculate penalties and could change the effective maximum or method of penalty computation tied to Section 6155 violations. It also locks in the allocation of penalties to a State Bar special fund, which affects funding for investigations and attorney-discipline work.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 6155.1 makes any person or entity — including owners of lawyer referral services — liable for civil penalties when they violate the lawyer-referral rules in Section 6155. AB 2305 rewrites that provision to change which penalty statutes the section points to as the source of the civil penalty and enforcement procedures.
Rather than citing the prior provision that included an explicit $2,500-per-violation figure, the amended text directs readers to other specified penalty and enforcement statutes.
The practical mechanics retained by the section are: the State Bar may bring civil enforcement actions under the listed penalty authorities; if the State Bar brings (or is a party to) such an action, the court will determine reasonable investigative and prosecutorial expenses and those expenses are to be paid to the State Bar before any remaining penalty funds are distributed; and when the State Bar brings the action, recovered penalties are paid into a special fund to be used first for similar State Bar investigations and, after that, for attorney-discipline prosecutions.Although AB 2305 is framed as a targeted amendment to cross-references, that technical change can affect penalty calculations and enforcement strategy. Removing a direct citation to the provision with the $2,500 cap leaves the penalty framework governed by the remaining cited statutes, which differ in scope and remedy structure.
For regulated entities and defense counsel, this changes which statutory ceilings and procedures will control enforcement and may require updated compliance risk assessments and litigation planning.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2305 amends Business and Professions Code Section 6155.1 to alter the statutory cross-references that define civil penalties for violations of Section 6155 (lawyer-referral rules).
The bill deletes the explicit reference to the provision that had a $2,500-per-violation penalty, redirecting penalty authority to Sections 17206, 17206.1, and 17536 instead.
The State Bar retains express authority under the section to bring civil actions to assess and recover penalties and to recover its reasonable investigation and prosecution expenses from defendants.
The statute continues to require that the State Bar’s reasonable expenses be paid to the Bar before any penalties are distributed, and it requires penalties recovered by the State Bar to be deposited into a special fund used first for similar investigations and then for attorney discipline.
The change is narrowly drafted as a statutory cross-reference amendment but alters which statutory penalty regimes and procedural routes will control enforcement of lawyer-referral violations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Who is liable and which penalty statutes apply
Subdivision (a) continues to make any person or entity — including owners of lawyer referral services — liable for civil penalties for violations of Section 6155. The practical change is the list of statutory authorities the subdivision points to as the source of civil penalties, now naming Sections 17206, 17206.1, and 17536. That change directs courts and litigants to use those provisions when determining penalty amounts and procedures, rather than the prior provision that included a $2,500-per-violation reference.
Procedures for bringing enforcement actions
The subdivision preserves the two procedural paths for a civil action: the manner specified in subdivision (a) of Section 17206 or Section 17536, and enforcement brought by the State Bar itself. That means private or public enforcement can proceed under the referenced statutes’ procedural frameworks, while the State Bar also retains direct enforcement authority under the same subsection.
Recovery of State Bar expenses before penalty payout
Subdivision (b) requires the court to determine and award reasonable expenses incurred by the State Bar in investigating and prosecuting the action. Those expenses must be paid to the State Bar before any recovered penalty amounts are paid out under the referenced penalty-distribution provisions. In practice this ensures the Bar recoups enforcement costs ahead of other distributions or remittances tied to the underlying penalty statutes.
Penalty deposit and use of funds when State Bar prosecutes
Subdivision (c) directs that penalties recovered when the State Bar brings the action be paid into a special fund and used first for investigation and prosecution of similar cases, with any excess directed to attorney-discipline prosecutions. This creates a statutory funding stream that ties penalty recoveries directly to enforcement and disciplinary capacity within the State Bar.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government 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
- State Bar of California — Gains clearer statutory footing for which penalty provisions govern Section 6155 violations and a guaranteed first-recovery stream (reasonable expenses) plus a special fund for investigations and discipline.
- Attorney-discipline system — Benefits from a designated funnel of recovered penalties into a special fund that prioritizes funding for investigatory and prosecutorial work.
- Consumers and prospective clients — Stand to benefit indirectly from strengthened enforcement resources and potentially higher deterrent penalties against referral-service misconduct, increasing compliance incentives.
- Enforcement counsel and public interest litigants — Gain clarity on which statutory mechanisms and procedures apply when pursuing civil enforcement under the lawyer-referral rules.
Who Bears the Cost
- Operators and owners of lawyer referral services — Face exposure to civil penalties under the statutes now cited, and may see larger or differently calculated penalties because the explicit $2,500 cross-reference is removed.
- Individual attorneys whose firms participate in noncompliant referral practices — May face higher enforcement risk, litigation costs, and potential penalties tied to the revised penalty framework.
- Defendants in State Bar enforcement actions — Will bear the immediate requirement that the State Bar’s reasonable investigative and prosecutorial expenses be paid before any other distributions, increasing net financial exposure even if penalties are later reduced.
- State Bar (short-term) — While reimbursed after successful enforcement, the Bar must still front investigatory and prosecutorial costs, exposing it to uncompensated risk if actions fail or recoveries are inadequate.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate objectives against each other: the public interest in robust, well-funded enforcement of lawyer-referral rules (and predictable funding for investigator and prosecutor work) versus the regulated parties’ interest in clear, predictable, and proportionate penalty limits; removing an explicit per-violation cap clarifies which statutes govern but risks producing less predictable or harsher financial exposure without additional statutory guardrails.
Although presented as a narrowly technical edit, deleting the cross-reference to the provision that contained the explicit $2,500-per-violation language reorients which statutory penalty regime controls Section 6155 enforcement. The immediate implication is procedural clarity about which sections to apply, but the substantive impact depends on how Sections 17206, 17206.1, and 17536 operate in practice — their ceilings, multipliers, and remedies differ from the excised provision.
That creates uncertainty for regulated parties and for courts tasked with calculating appropriate penalties until case law or guidance reconciles the interaction.
Implementation questions remain. The text does not provide express transitional rules, so it is unclear whether past violations already assessed under the old cross-reference could be re-opened or whether pending enforcement actions must adjust their penalty theories.
The overlap among the cited sections also raises the risk of multiplicative penalties or inconsistent remedies if litigants attempt to invoke different statutory mechanisms. Finally, while the special-fund routing strengthens funding for future enforcement, it creates an enforcement feedback loop — success funds more enforcement — which can be defensible on resource grounds but also invites scrutiny over whether penalty recoveries will be used in ways that preserve proportionality and avoid mission creep.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.