Immigration services.
Summary
Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. This bill would make it a violation of specified provisions of law relating to the unauthorized practice of law for any person who is not an attorney to literally translate from English into another language the phrases "notary public," "notary," "licensed," "attorney," "lawyer," or any other terms that imply that the person is an attorney. The bill would prescribe penalties, not to exceed $1,000 per day for each violation, for a person who violates these provisions. The bill would authorize these penalties to be allocated to a specified fund for purposes of providing free legal services related to immigration reform act services to clients of limited means, or to a fund for the purposes of mitigating unpaid claims of injured immigrant clients, as specified, as directed by the Board of Trustees of the State Bar. The bill would require the Board of Trustees of the State Bar to annually report any collection and expenditure of these moneys to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary. This bill would require, when a contract for legal services is required in writing pursuant to specified provisions of law, that an attorney providing immigration reform act services, as defined, provide a written notice informing the client that he or she may report complaints to specified entities. The bill would make these provisions operative when the State Bar posts the form and specified translations of the form on its Internet Web site, but no later than 45 days after the effective date of the bill. Existing law provides for the regulation of a person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of an immigration consultant, and provides that a violation of these provisions is a crime. Existing law requires an immigration consultant to provide a client with a written contract containing specified information prior to providing services. Existing law requires an immigration consultant to file a bond of $50,000 with the Secretary of State in accordance with specified provisions of law. This bill would, commencing July 1, 2014, increase the amount of this bond to $100,000. The bill would require that the written contract contain additional information relating to an explanation of the purpose of each service to be performed. The bill would require an immigration consultant to establish a client trust account and to deposit in this account any funds received from the client prior to performing immigration reform act services, as defined, for that client, and would impose certain requirements relating to the expenditure of funds from this trust account. The bill would prohibit an attorney or an immigration consultant from demanding or accepting the advance payment of any funds from a person before the enactment of an immigration reform act, as defined, and would require any funds received after the effective date of this bill, but before the enactment of an immigration reform act, to be refunded to the client promptly, but no later than 30 days after the receipt of any funds. The bill would require any funds that were received before the effective date of the bill for services not rendered before the effective date of the bill to be either refunded to the client or deposited in a client trust fund in accordance with specified provisions. The bill would prescribe penalties, not to exceed $1,000 per day for each violation, for immigration consultants who violate these provisions. Existing law prohibits an immigration consultant from literally translating the phrase "notary public" into Spanish. This bill would provide that a violation of these provisions constitutes a violation of specified provisions of law relating to the unauthorized practice of law. The bill also would prescribe penalties, not to exceed $1,000 per day for each violation, for immigration consultants who violate these provisions. Because a violation of these provisions by an immigration consultant would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2013
Committee Review
Sep 2013
Assembly Passage
May 2013
Senate Passage
Sep 2013
Signed into Law
Oct 2013
Introduced Feb 22, 2013
Signed Oct 5, 2013
Floor votes · Senate Sep 12, 2013 · Assembly May 9, 2013
How they voted
35–0
Passed
Total votes 35
Sep 12, 2013
D
Democratic25
100% Yea
R
Republican10
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
47
Key actions
16
Committee
20
Amendments
7
Oct 5, 2013
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Sep 12, 2013
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (35-0)
senate
Sep 12, 2013
Lower · Passed
Urgency clause adopted. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 3345.).
lower
Sep 12, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: That the Senate amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (September 12).
lower
Sep 12, 2013
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.
lower
Sep 12, 2013
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
lower
Sep 11, 2013
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Sep 11, 2013
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10.
upper
Sep 10, 2013
Upper · Passed
Measure version as amended on September 6 corrected.
upper
Sep 10, 2013
Upper · Passed
From committee: Return to Senate floor for consideration. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (September 10).
upper
Sep 9, 2013
Committee
From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on JUD. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Sep 9, 2013
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(b).
upper
Aug 30, 2013
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 30).
upper
Aug 27, 2013
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Aug 22, 2013
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Aug 21, 2013
Upper · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
upper
Aug 20, 2013
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (August 19). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Aug 15, 2013
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.
upper
Aug 14, 2013
Committee
Re-referred to Coms. on B., P. & E.D. and JUD.
upper
Aug 12, 2013
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Jul 11, 2013
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Jul 10, 2013
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jun 24, 2013
Upper · Passed
In committee: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
upper
Jun 12, 2013
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (June 12). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
May 23, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on ED.
upper
May 9, 2013
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (42-19-3)
assembly
Apr 10, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (April 10).
lower
Apr 4, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 3). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Mar 7, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on ED.
lower
Feb 24, 2013
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 26.
lower
Feb 22, 2013
Introduced
Introduced. To print.
lower
1 primary · 15 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Lorena Gonzalez
DDemocratic
Co
Ben Hueso
DDemocratic
Co
BM
Brian Maienschein
DDemocratic
Co
BN
Brian Nestande
RRepublican
Co
Donald Wagner
RRepublican
Co
Ed Hernandez
DDemocratic
Co
Eric Linder
RRepublican
Co
HP
Henry Perea
DDemocratic
Co
Joel Anderson
RRepublican
Co
Ken Cooley
DDemocratic
Co
Luis Alejo
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 1159
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 1159. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline