AB 2497 amends Business and Professions Code section 6140.14 to permit the State Bar of California to collect limited revenue to cover the actual cost of pilot disciplinary diversion programs and to report program outcomes to the Legislature. The change frames funding for diversion pilots as a fee-based mechanism tied to actual program costs rather than a general appropriation.
The bill matters because it creates a specific, time-limited revenue stream for experimentation in attorney discipline, shifts small incremental costs onto licensees, and requires outcome data intended to let lawmakers evaluate whether diversion reduces enforcement workload and repeat misconduct.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes the State Bar to levy per-license fees—separate from regular licensing assessments—to fund pilot disciplinary diversion programs, but only up to the programs' actual costs. It also requires the State Bar to produce a legislatively directed report with outcome metrics and a quantitative assessment of caseload reduction.
Who It Affects
All licensed California attorneys are in scope because the authority uses per-license assessments; the State Bar and its Office of Chief Trial Counsel will administer and measure the pilots. Law firms, compliance officers, and counsel advising licensees should track any new assessment on active and inactive licensees and the administrative procedures to implement it.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a dedicated, accountable funding mechanism for diversion experiments that aim to reduce formal disciplinary proceedings. Its combination of a statutorily defined report and a sunset date makes this a time-limited trial whose data will shape whether similar funding or programs expand.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2497 narrows in on one simple funding question: can the State Bar finance experimental disciplinary diversion programs by charging a small, dedicated fee to licensees rather than relying on the Bar's general revenue or a legislative appropriation? The bill changes section 6140.14 to permit the State Bar to collect revenue that does not exceed the ‘actual cost’ of the pilots; it distinguishes funding for the pilots from the ordinary fees collected under sections 6140 and 6141.
The legislature ties oversight to reporting requirements and a fixed expiration date for the fee authority.
Operationally, the statute establishes two per-license assessments (different rates for active and inactive licensees) and requires the Bar to track program performance and effects on enforcement work. The required legislative report specifies what the Bar must measure: number of attorneys referred, number of complaints leading to referral, reoffending rate among referred attorneys, and the total reduction in caseload for the Office of Chief Trial Counsel attributable to the pilots.
Those metrics are intended to show whether diversion alters the trajectory of cases and lowers formal disciplinary burdens.The authority to collect these fees is explicitly temporary. The statute includes a statutory repeal date that ends the fee-raising power unless the Legislature acts to extend it.
For compliance teams and Bar administrators, the bill creates immediate tasks: calculate and justify the ‘actual cost’ basis for the fee, set and collect the assessments separately from ordinary licensing fees, instrument data collection to capture the required metrics, and prepare the April 1, 2027 report. Those administrative requirements will determine whether the pilot yields usable evidence within the sunset window.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill caps the per-license assessments at $5.50 annually for each individual active licensee and $1.25 annually for each individual inactive licensee.
The fee authority is expressly limited to collecting revenue 'not to exceed the actual cost' of the pilot disciplinary diversion programs.
The State Bar must transmit a report to the Legislature on or before April 1, 2027, including: number of attorneys referred, number of complaints resulting in referral, reoffending rate among referred attorneys, and total reduction in Office of Chief Trial Counsel caseload attributable to the pilots.
The fee collection authority created by this section automatically expires and the section is repealed on January 1, 2029.
These assessments are in addition to fees collected under Sections 6140 and 6141 of the Business and Professions Code (i.e.
they are charged on top of regular licensing fees).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Authority to assess fees for diversion pilots
Subsection (a) gives the State Bar explicit authority to collect revenue to fund pilot disciplinary diversion programs, subject to the condition that total revenue may not exceed the pilots' actual cost. Practically, that requires the Bar to calculate expected and actual program costs and tie any per-license assessment to that calculation rather than setting an open-ended surcharge.
Active licensee assessment
This clause authorizes a per-year assessment on active individual licensees, fixed in statute at an amount not to exceed $5.50. Because the amount is statutory, the Bar will either set its assessment at or below that cap depending on the pilots' costs; the provision effectively sets the ceiling rather than mandating a specific annual charge.
Inactive licensee assessment
Parallel to (a)(1), this clause authorizes a per-year assessment on inactive individual licensees, with a statutory ceiling of $1.25. The separate, lower cap for inactive licensees reflects a policy choice to allocate costs differently based on licensure status, but it also requires recordkeeping to identify who qualifies as inactive for billing purposes.
Required legislative report with performance metrics
Subsection (b) mandates a report to the Legislature by April 1, 2027, and enumerates four discrete metrics the Bar must include: referral counts, complaints that led to referrals, reoffending rates for program participants, and quantification of caseload reduction for the Office of Chief Trial Counsel. The specificity forces the Bar to design data collection around those outputs and outcomes rather than producing a high-level narrative.
Sunset and repeal
Subsection (c) makes the whole fee authority temporary by stating the section remains in effect only until January 1, 2029, when it is repealed. That places a finite evaluation window on the pilots and requires the Legislature to act before repeal if it wants a longer-term funding mechanism.
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
- Attorneys who enter diversion programs — they may avoid formal disciplinary sanctions if diversion succeeds, making diversion a potentially less punitive and quicker resolution than traditional discipline.
- The Office of Chief Trial Counsel — diversion may reduce the number of contested proceedings and allow reallocation of investigative and prosecutorial resources to higher-priority matters, if the pilots demonstrably reduce caseload.
- The Legislature and policymakers — the mandated report provides concrete, legislatively specified metrics that enable evidence-based decisions about whether to scale diversion or modify discipline funding models.
Who Bears the Cost
- All licensed attorneys in California — active and inactive licensees face the new per-license assessments (subject to the statutory caps), meaning cost is spread broadly even though only a subset will participate in diversion.
- State Bar administrative units — the Bar must design, implement, and audit cost calculations and the data collection infrastructure required by the statute, creating operational and possibly upfront expenses.
- Firms and employers of attorneys — while individual licensees bear the statutory assessments, firms that pay or reimburse license fees may see higher aggregate costs and will need to track the separate assessment line item for internal accounting.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between funding innovation in professional discipline—testing diversion as a potentially less adversarial and resource-intensive path—and the fairness and accountability of funding that innovation through a broadly applied, time-limited assessment on licensees; the bill favors rapid, experiment-oriented funding but risks uneven burden allocation, accounting debates over 'actual cost,' and an evidence base weakened by a short evaluation window.
The bill ties funding to the pilots' 'actual cost,' a seemingly straightforward standard that raises practical complications. The Bar must decide which expenses count as program costs (staffing, contractor fees, IT, overhead) and over what time horizon; that accounting choice will determine the assessment level and could be contested by licensees or oversight bodies.
Because the statutory ceiling is expressed as a per-license dollar amount, the Bar must reconcile aggregate cost estimates with per-capita limits if program costs rise or the licensee base shifts.
Data and measurement present another set of implementation questions. The statute mandates four metrics, but it does not define 'reoffending' or prescribe methodology for attributing caseload reduction to the pilots rather than other reforms or cyclical changes in complaint volume.
Those definitional gaps create risks that the report will be incomplete or subject to multiple interpretations. Finally, the sunset creates a compressed window for pilots to demonstrate impact; short pilots can produce noisy data and may underrepresent longer-term effects, reducing the signal legislators need to decide whether to continue or expand the approach.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.