SB 253 rewrites the rules for affinity programs tied to State Bar membership: it preserves short‑term State Bar offers but makes long‑term program administration the province of a non‑Bar entity and prescribes how revenue is divided among legal services, discipline/Client Security Fund uses, and two lawyer organizations. The bill creates a multi‑year, phased distribution schedule and builds in approvals, administrative cost caps, tax adjustments, and reporting obligations.
The policy effect is twofold: it creates a dedicated revenue stream to support access‑to‑justice and diversity efforts while removing the State Bar from permanent program administration to reduce real or perceived conflicts between member benefit programs and the Bar’s public protection mission. The law also constrains the California Lawyers Association’s future participation in similar affinity programs and requires regular reporting on use of the funds.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill allows the State Bar to operate affinity discounts short term and to transfer program administration to Cal Bar Affinity (a California ChangeLawyers subsidiary) with board approvals. It prescribes how gross revenue — after limited administrative deductions and taxes — is allocated among several recipients over separate time windows.
Who It Affects
Affected parties include the State Bar (as current program host), California ChangeLawyers/Cal Bar Affinity (as potential administrators and recipients), the California Lawyers Association (as an eligible recipient with participation limits), qualified legal services projects and support centers, and the Client Security Fund and discipline functions of the State Bar.
Why It Matters
This is a funding and governance change: it channels membership‑affinity revenue toward legal services, organizational programs, and disciplinary/public protection uses while shifting long‑term administration to an outside nonprofit — a structural change with implications for accountability, program design, and who sets priorities for grantmaking.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute keeps short‑term membership benefit offerings in place but phases the State Bar out of permanent administration. It sets separate distribution rules for three windows: revenue received in calendar year 2018; revenue received in calendar year 2019; and revenue received on and after January 1, 2020.
In each window the bill prescribes specific recipients and proportions or mechanisms for allocating the money, and it allows program administration to move to Cal Bar Affinity if the board and the named organizations approve.
When the State Bar transfers administration, the law allows deduction of administrative costs for the State Bar and Cal Bar Affinity up to a stated cap, and it requires Cal Bar Affinity to account for taxes incurred in operating the programs before distributions. The transfer path creates a split in how noninsurance and insurance affinity program revenue are handled during the transition year and then consolidates distribution rules for later years, with a built‑in portion reserved for access‑to‑justice priorities and organizational support functions.Starting in 2020 the statute locks in a structured allocation and a grantmaking regime.
The first $150,000 in 2020 and another $150,000 in 2021 are earmarked to the California Commission on Access to Justice and paid on a defined schedule. After that, remaining funds are split into three equal shares for California ChangeLawyers, the California Lawyers Association (or an affiliated 501(c)(3)) to support DEI/access/civic engagement work, and a California ChangeLawyers‑administered pool that funds qualified legal services projects per an established formula.
The law requires California ChangeLawyers to use a competitive grant process with a minimum grant size, a preference for rural or underserved providers, and an option for recipients to redirect their allocation toward fellowships for law students and graduates.
The Five Things You Need to Know
For revenue received during calendar year 2018, the bill directs 50% to assist the California Lawyers Association’s transition to independence, 25% to qualified legal services projects/support centers, and 25% to State Bar discipline functions or the Client Security Fund.
For revenue received in calendar year 2019, the statute splits receipts 50/50 between qualified legal services projects/support centers and State Bar discipline functions or the Client Security Fund, unless administration transfers under the bill’s approval provisions.
If the State Bar transfers administration to Cal Bar Affinity (with required approvals), administrative costs for the State Bar and Cal Bar Affinity are deductible up to a combined maximum of 12% of revenue, and taxes incurred by Cal Bar Affinity are also deducted before distributions.
On and after January 1, 2020: the first $150,000 in 2020 and the first $150,000 in 2021 go to the California Commission on Access to Justice on a specific quarterly payment schedule; remaining funds are split one‑third to California ChangeLawyers, one‑third to the California Lawyers Association (or an affiliated 501(c)(3)) for DEI/access/civic work, and one‑third to California ChangeLawyers to regrant to legal services projects, with a $10,000 minimum grant and a preference for rural/underserved providers and for serving clients regardless of immigration status.
The California Lawyers Association may not create, operate, participate in, or solicit members for competing affinity or royalty programs; if it does, funds that would have gone to it instead flow to California ChangeLawyers (which will split them between its programs and legal services). The CLA (or its affiliated 501(c)(3)) must also file an annual January 31 report on fund use and compliance, with the first report covering calendar years 2023–2025.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short‑term program operation and initial revenue allocation windows
This subsection preserves State Bar offers of discounts and benefits initially and creates two early allocation regimes: one applying to revenue received in 2018 and another for revenue received in 2019. Practically, it establishes the legislative baseline for how early revenue is split among a CLA transition fund, legal services grantees, and the Bar’s discipline/Client Security Fund, which requires accounting systems that can segregate revenue by calendar year.
Conditional transfer to Cal Bar Affinity and 2019 transitional rules
Subdivision (b) lets the State Bar transfer program administration to Cal Bar Affinity if the board, California ChangeLawyers, and Cal Bar Affinity approve. It contains the mechanics for that transfer year: noninsurance program revenue would be retained by California ChangeLawyers and split internally, while insurance program revenue would be split between California ChangeLawyers and Bar discipline/Client Security Fund uses. The subsection also authorizes deduction of administrative costs (capped) and taxes before distributions — an important implementation constraint for budgeting and vendor contracts.
Post‑2020 allocation formula, Commission payments, and grant rules
This is the long‑term distribution regime. It requires an initial earmark of $150,000 in 2020 and $150,000 in 2021 to the California Commission on Access to Justice on a set payment schedule, then divides remaining revenue into equal thirds: one for California ChangeLawyers’ own programs, one for the California Lawyers Association or its 501(c)(3) to fund DEI/access/civic activities, and one for California ChangeLawyers to regrant to qualified legal services projects under a competitive process. The subsection sets grant minimums, priorities (rural/underserved and services regardless of immigration status), and permits grantees to elect fellowship redirection.
Legislative intent to remove long‑term administration from the State Bar
The Legislature signals that, consistent with the Bar’s public‑protection mission, long‑term program management should sit outside the State Bar. This statement of intent informs procurement choices and governance review — it is not merely rhetorical because the statute’s transfer pathway operationalizes that intent.
Restriction on California Lawyers Association competing affinity activity and remedy
Subdivision (e) restricts the California Lawyers Association from creating or soliciting members for affinity or royalty programs that would replicate revenue streams it accepts under this section. If the CLA violates this restriction, funds that would otherwise flow to it are redirected to California ChangeLawyers, which must then split that revenue between its programs and qualified legal services projects. This creates an enforcement mechanism that effectively conditions CLA’s share on abstaining from competing fundraising.
Annual reporting requirement and first‑report period
The California Lawyers Association or its affiliated 501(c)(3) must file an annual report by January 31 documenting use of funds designated for DEI/access/civic engagement and certifying compliance with the noncompetition restriction. Notably the statute sets the first report to cover three prior calendar years (2023–2025), which requires retrospective accounting for those years.
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
- Qualified legal services projects and support centers — receive a defined share of affinity revenue and access to competitive statewide grants, with priority for rural and underserved providers and eligibility to direct allocations toward fellowships.
- California ChangeLawyers — gains a stable revenue stream in multiple scenarios (especially if program administration transfers) and direct funding for its programs and grants administration.
- California Commission on Access to Justice — receives dedicated payments in 2020 and 2021, improving immediate funding for statewide access initiatives.
- Law students and recent graduates — gain an explicit fellowship pathway when qualified projects elect to redirect allocations toward fellowships.
Who Bears the Cost
- State Bar — loses a long‑term administrative role and related fee revenue; must manage transition details and forego ongoing program administration.
- Cal Bar Affinity and California ChangeLawyers — if they operate programs they must absorb administrative responsibilities, cover taxes, stay within the 12% administrative cap, and run competitive grant processes.
- California Lawyers Association — accepts restrictions on running or soliciting similar affinity programs as a condition of receiving funds, limiting its future revenue options and requiring compliance processes and public reporting.
- Affinity vendors and insurers — must adapt contract terms and revenue sharing to the new allocation and deduction rules, and may face more complex settlement and accounting procedures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between removing the State Bar from ongoing commercial fundraising (to protect public‑protection impartiality) and preserving public accountability and fiscal oversight when private nonprofits administer and allocate funds that support both public‑interest programs and organizational missions. Shifting administration reduces one conflict but raises governance, transparency, and control questions about who decides priorities and how funds are spent.
The bill creates a layered and somewhat brittle revenue architecture. Moving program administration to a nonprofit subsidiary reduces the State Bar’s direct involvement, but that shift transfers operational and compliance risk to California ChangeLawyers and Cal Bar Affinity: they must adhere to the 12% administrative cap, manage tax liabilities, run competitive grant processes, and execute retrospective accounting for the initial report period.
Those operational constraints can squeeze funds available for grants and may complicate vendor negotiating positions, especially for insurance carriers used to simpler affinity arrangements.
The statute’s enforcement approach toward the California Lawyers Association (redirecting funds if it runs competing programs) resolves one conflict risk but substitutes a blunt remedial tool that could chill legitimate collaborative activity or lead to disputes about what counts as a competing program. The payment schedule for the Commission on Access to Justice and the retroactive first reporting period impose tight compliance deadlines and create auditing challenges: recipients and administrators will need robust recordkeeping to track revenue by calendar year, identify deductible administrative costs and taxes, and support distributions that may reference prior periods.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.