SB 605 directs the Department of Human Resources to annually survey specified state and local public law offices and set minimum salaries for state attorneys (State Bargaining Unit 2) and state administrative law judges based on those survey averages. The bill divides California into three regions, uses agency-level averages to set entry and senior nonmanagerial floors, pegs ALJ pay to a State Attorney IV maximum, and requires the department to make a good-faith parity offer in bargaining.
This matters because it converts selected local and state public-agency pay data into binding minimum salary floors for state legal workers, creating predictable upward pressure on personnel budgets, changing bargaining dynamics, and altering recruitment and retention economics for the state’s legal workforce and administrative judiciary.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires CalHR to survey specific courts and county legal offices each year, calculate regional and statewide averages for entry-level and top nonmanagerial attorney pay, and set state attorney and ALJ minimum salaries at those averages or higher. It also mandates proportional intermediate steps, a good-faith bargaining offer, and a phased implementation tied to budget appropriations.
Who It Affects
Directly affects state attorneys in State Bargaining Unit 2, state administrative law judges, CalHR, state departments that employ attorneys, and the Governor’s Budget (General Fund). It will also matter to exclusive bargaining representatives and the county and city legal offices whose pay is surveyed.
Why It Matters
The bill institutionalizes external parity as a salary-setting rule rather than a bargaining aspiration, shifting negotiation leverage and potentially driving multi‑year budgetary increases while limiting the state’s ability to rely on total‑compensation tradeoffs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 605 creates a mechanics-first approach to bringing state attorney and administrative law judge salaries into line with public-sector peers. CalHR (the Department of Human Resources) must classify every covered position by the county where the employee does most of their work and place them into one of three regions.
The statute then lists particular courts, county district attorney offices, city attorney and county counsel offices to be included in an annual survey.
The department’s survey must identify two anchors for each listed agency: the entry-level salary and the highest salary paid to the most senior nonmanagerial attorneys. CalHR must average those figures across agencies within each region and also compute a combined average across all three regions.
For each region the minimum entry-level floor (and separately the minimum for the most senior nonmanagerial classification) is the greater of that region’s average or the combined three-region average. The bill requires CalHR to preserve proportional relationships for intermediate classifications and between steps within classifications so the career ladder scales consistently from entry-level to senior nonmanagerial.Administrative law judges and senior ALJs receive a different rule: their minimum salary in each region must be no less than the maximum salary for the State Attorney IV level in that region.
The statute treats “salary” narrowly — it excludes benefits and negotiated differentials — and it adopts the managerial definition from Section 3513 when distinguishing nonmanagerial roles.Timing and enforcement are specific. CalHR must deliver the completed annual survey to the exclusive bargaining representative by March 1, using salaries in effect on January 15.
Implementation of the salary floors is subject to appropriation in the Budget Act and is phased in over three fiscal years (one‑third, two‑thirds, then full increases on July 1 of 2026, 2027, and 2028). The law bars any reduction in existing salaries as a result of applying the statute and gives superior courts exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising under the section.
CalHR must also make a good‑faith offer of parity in bargaining negotiations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
CalHR must annually survey the specific courts and county legal offices listed in the bill and deliver results to the exclusive bargaining representative by March 1, using salary data as of January 15.
The minimum entry-level salary for state attorneys in each region will be the greater of that region’s public-agency entry-level average or the combined average across all three regions.
The minimum for the most senior nonmanagerial state attorney classification uses the same greater-of (regional vs. combined) rule; CalHR must set all intermediate classifications and steps to preserve proportional relationships.
State administrative law judges’ regional minimum salary must be at least the maximum salary of the State Attorney IV level in that same region; the statute defines ‘salary’ to exclude benefits and negotiated differentials.
Increases are contingent on the Budget Act and phased: at least one-third on July 1, 2026, at least two-thirds on July 1, 2027, and the full amount on July 1, 2028; superior courts have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve disputes and the law forbids lowering current pay.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative intent and parity mandate
Sets the statutory purpose: to provide competitive salaries for state attorneys and administrative law judges by ensuring minimum good‑faith salary offers reflecting parity with other public-sector attorneys. Practically, this converts parity from a policy goal into a statutory directive for CalHR and frames all subsequent requirements as steps toward that objective.
Key definitions that determine scope
Defines terms that control application: ‘department’ (CalHR), ‘headquartered’ (county where a majority of work occurs), ‘nonmanagerial’ (uses Section 3513 managerial test), and a narrow definition of ‘salary’ that excludes benefits and other compensation. These definitional choices limit the scope of what counts toward parity (wages only) and affect who falls inside Unit 2 salary floors.
Three-region classification and list of surveyed agencies
Divides the state into Regions I, II, and III by county groupings and specifies which courts and county/city legal offices CalHR must survey in each region. The selection of particular large county offices and appellate/court salaries anchors the comparative pool and materially shapes the resulting averages used to set state floors.
Annual salary survey and calculation rules
Requires CalHR to calculate agency-level entry and top nonmanagerial salaries, then compute regional averages and a combined three-region average. The survey mechanics—what to average and how to combine agency figures—determine the numerical floors and create a repeatable process that updates annually based on Jan 15 salary snapshots.
Salary floors for entry and senior nonmanagerial attorneys; ALJ parity
Directs that minimum salaries for entry-level and most senior nonmanagerial state attorneys be no less than the greater of the regional average or the combined average, and requires CalHR to set intermediate classifications proportionally. For administrative law judges, subdivision (g) fixes their minimum at least at the State Attorney IV maximum for the region, effectively tying ALJ floors to a specific attorney pay point rather than to outside ALJ benchmarks.
Bargaining offers, delivery deadlines, non-reduction, phase-in, and enforcement
Obliges CalHR to make a good‑faith parity offer in negotiations, mandates annual delivery of survey results to the bargaining representative by March 1, and prohibits any salary reductions. Implementation of monetary increases is contingent on Budget Act funding and phased in over three fiscal years (one‑third, two‑thirds, full). The section declares that the statute operates notwithstanding other laws or MOU terms where applicable and assigns exclusive jurisdiction over disputes to superior courts.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment 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 attorneys in State Bargaining Unit 2 — They receive statutory minimum salary floors tied to public-agency averages, improving baseline pay and reducing the risk of falling behind local peers.
- State administrative law judges and senior ALJs — Their minimum pay is explicitly pegged to the State Attorney IV maximum, which can raise ALJ compensation where attorney IV maxima exceed current ALJ pay.
- Exclusive bargaining representatives for Unit 2 — The statute institutionalizes a data-driven baseline for negotiations, strengthening unions’ leverage by shifting the starting point toward externally derived parity.
- State legal divisions and hiring managers — Improved, predictable pay floors make recruitment and retention easier for high-demand specialties and reduce churn in legal teams handling enforcement and advice work.
Who Bears the Cost
- The State General Fund and the Governor’s budget — The parity floors create recurring salary obligations that increase personnel costs across departments employing Unit 2 attorneys and ALJs.
- Individual state departments and program budgets — Agencies must absorb or reallocate funds to meet higher wage floors, potentially forcing program tradeoffs or requests for augmentations in the Budget Act.
- CalHR and payroll administrators — They shoulder the administrative burden of conducting annual surveys, calculating averages, adjusting classification salaries proportionally, and implementing phased increases.
- Superior courts — Given exclusive jurisdiction for disputes, courts could see increased litigation over interpretation, timing, and implementation, adding case loads and creating litigation-related costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill forces a choice between two legitimate goals: guaranteeing external pay parity to retain and attract legal talent versus preserving fiscal flexibility and coherent internal pay structures across state classifications; achieving one reliably will put pressure on the other and there is no neutral way to fully satisfy both.
The statute ties salary floors to averages from a specified but limited set of public agencies; that choice both simplifies administration and anchors floors to large local offices, but it may distort parity if those offices do not represent statewide market dynamics or if private‑sector or smaller county pay is materially different. Excluding benefits and negotiated differentials from the definition of salary narrows the scope of parity, potentially leaving total compensation gaps unaddressed even when base salary parity is achieved.
The bill’s reliance on the county where a worker is “headquartered” to assign region may not map cleanly onto remote work patterns and multi-county practices, creating classification disputes.
Implementation is explicitly contingent on Budget Act appropriations, but the statute also sets fixed phasing percentages and effective July 1 dates; this mix creates timing friction between statutory expectations and annual budget negotiations. The “good‑faith” offer requirement gives CalHR a bargaining duty without a defined enforcement mechanism beyond superior court litigation, which could turn routine classification adjustments into contested court claims.
Finally, pegging ALJs to State Attorney IV maxima could create pay inversions or compressions within legal career ladders if local State Attorney IV rates rise unevenly across regions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.