SCR 40 is a ceremonial concurrent resolution that designates April 2025 as "Women in Law Month" in California. The text honors historical milestones, cites recent gender-disparity statistics in the legal profession, and urges law firms, legal organizations, and educational institutions to organize events and initiatives to highlight the achievements of women in law and address ongoing barriers.
The resolution does not create rights, duties, or funding; it records findings (including historical references and statistics), encourages commemoration activities, and directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies. For practitioners and compliance officers, the main consequence is reputational: organizations can cite the resolution in DEI programming and outreach, but it imposes no regulatory obligations or budgetary mandates.
At a Glance
What It Does
SCR 40 proclaims April 2025 as Women in Law Month and includes legislative findings about women's contributions and persistent barriers in the legal field. It encourages—rather than requires—law firms, legal organizations, and educational institutions to commemorate the month with events, programs, and initiatives.
Who It Affects
The resolution primarily speaks to the legal sector: law firms, bar associations, law schools, legal aid organizations, and women practitioners (including women of color, LGBTQ+ women, and lawyers with disabilities). It also implicates legislative staff and the Secretary of the Senate for administrative transmittal duties.
Why It Matters
As a formal legislative statement, the resolution raises the profile of gender-equity issues in law and gives organizations a state-level reference point for DEI activities and communications. It sets no legal obligations but can strengthen advocacy, grant applications, and internal policy initiatives by providing an official endorsement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution opens with a set of findings that both celebrate historical pioneers and call out persistent disparities. It names Clara Shortridge Foltz as California’s first female attorney (1878) and cites Annette Abbott Adams as the first female presiding justice of a California Court of Appeal (1942).
The sponsors also record recent snapshot statistics—28 percent of law firm partners nationwide as of 2023 and roughly 50 percent of California law graduates in 2025—to frame the gap between entry-level parity and leadership representation.
Beyond the history and numbers, the text explicitly lists the obstacles the Legislature sees in the profession: gender bias, pay inequity, and work-life balance challenges, and it highlights the value of including diverse women—women of color, LGBTQ+ women, and women with disabilities—in the legal workforce. The resolution endorses mentorship programs and professional networks as useful tools to advance retention and leadership development, but it stops short of creating any monitoring, reporting, or funding mechanism to expand those programs statewide.Mechanically, the document is a concurrent resolution: both chambers adopt it, it is chaptered (Chapter 48), filed with the Secretary of State on April 29, 2025, and the Secretary of the Senate is asked to transmit copies.
Because it is a resolution rather than statute, it does not amend the California Code or create enforceable legal duties. Practically, its value lies in symbolic recognition and in offering a formal citation that organizations can use to justify events, publicity, or DEI-related proposals; its effectiveness will depend on voluntary uptake and any accompanying private or institutional investment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SCR 40 is chaptered as Chapter 48 and was filed with the Secretary of State on April 29, 2025.
The resolution cites Clara Shortridge Foltz (first female attorney in California, 1878) and Annette Abbott Adams (first female presiding justice of a California Court of Appeal, 1942).
The legislative findings record that, as of 2023, women represented 28% of law firm partners nationwide and that women comprised roughly 50% of law school graduates in California as of 2025.
The text expressly encourages law firms, legal organizations, and educational institutions to organize events and initiatives but contains no funding authorization or implementation timeline.
The resolution directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies for appropriate distribution and carried a 'Fiscal Committee: NO' notation—indicating no fiscal committee action or designated state spending.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Historical context and statistical findings
This section lists the Legislature’s factual predicates: it names pioneering women in California legal history, cites recent quantitative snapshots of representation in law firms and law schools, and identifies systemic barriers (gender bias, pay gaps, work-life balance). For practitioners, the importance is evidentiary: these findings frame the Legislature’s view of the problem but do not create regulatory standards or reporting requirements.
Proclamation of Women in Law Month
This clause formally proclaims April 2025 as Women in Law Month. Because the action is a concurrent resolution, it functions as a public declaration by both houses rather than a change in statutory law. Organizations can quote this clause for outreach or programmatic purposes, but it imposes no legal obligations.
Encouragement to commemorate
This clause encourages law firms, legal organizations, and educational institutions throughout California to commemorate the month through events, programs, and initiatives. The language is permissive—'encourages'—so compliance is voluntary; however, the clause signals state-level support that could be used to leverage partnerships, sponsorships, or internal DEI calendars.
Transmittal and administrative notes
The resolution asks the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies of the measure for appropriate distribution. The bill is chaptered and filed with the Secretary of State, and the legislative digest marks no fiscal committee action. The practical takeaway is that administrative steps are limited to distribution rather than program implementation or oversight.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Civil Rights across all five countries.
Explore Civil Rights 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
- Early-career and mid-career women attorneys: The official recognition creates a visible platform for mentorship, networking events, and leadership development programs that can raise profiles and open sponsorship opportunities.
- Law schools and student groups: Schools can use the resolution to justify programming, speaker series, and recruitment events aimed at retaining diverse graduates in the legal pipeline.
- Bar associations and affinity groups: The resolution gives associations a state-level citation to coordinate statewide events, apply for grants, or attract sponsorships for Women in Law programming.
Who Bears the Cost
- Law firms and legal organizations that choose to participate: Hosting events, panels, or training will entail staffing and budget costs—particularly for smaller firms with limited DEI resources.
- Legislative and administrative staff: The Secretary of the Senate and related staff must perform routine distribution duties and manage chaptering/filing, though the fiscal note indicates no substantive budget action.
- Advocacy groups and nonprofits: Groups that use the month for awareness campaigns will bear the opportunity and financial costs of programming without any state funding commitment.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is recognition versus remediation: SCR 40 raises awareness and gives formal recognition to gender-equity issues in law, but it does so without funding, enforcement, or measurement—so the resolution may increase visibility while leaving the underlying structural barriers largely intact.
The resolution trades symbolic recognition for no binding change. Its strengths are visibility and endorsement; its practical weaknesses are the absence of enforcement, funding, or reporting mechanisms.
By recording statistics and naming obstacles, the Legislature frames a case for action, but it leaves follow-through to private actors and voluntary institutional choices. That gap creates implementation uncertainty: the resolution can catalyze events where resources exist, but it provides no way to measure whether commemoration translates into higher rates of partnership, judicial appointment, or pay equity.
Another tension arises around substitutability: public acknowledgement can be politically satisfying and useful for public relations while allowing deeper structural issues—compensation policy, hiring and promotion criteria, access to childcare and flexible schedules—to remain unaddressed. The resolution references intersectional inclusion (women of color, LGBTQ+ women, women with disabilities) but imposes no metrics or targeted programs to ensure those groups actually benefit from subsequent activities.
Finally, because the resolution is expressly exhortatory, organizations may use it opportunistically for branding without committing to substantive changes, and there is no statutory mechanism to prevent that kind of box‑checking.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.