State high court says lawyers must pay for re-fingerprinting

Most licensed attorneys will need to re-submit fingerprints to the State Bar and pay the associated costs under a rule the California Supreme Court approved Wednesday.

The bar estimated the average cost per active lawyer will be $82.

The new rule becomes effective June 1 and calls for the bar to develop a schedule that requires fingerprint submission by Dec. 1, 2019.

Many of the state’s 190,000 active lawyers must be re-fingerprinted because for more than 25 years the bar did not keep the prints of all admission applicants as required by law.

Re-fingerprinting will permit the bar to comply with a 1989 law requiring it to ensure the retention of licensed attorneys’ fingerprints, so it can receive notification from the state Department of Justice about subsequent arrests or convictions. The information the bar receives, including about past offenses, could result in disciplinary action.

Failure to comply with the court’s fingerprinting rule could also result in the bar switching an attorney’s license to “involuntary inactive” status.

The court rule exempts active and special admissions attorneys for whom the bar is already receiving arrest notifications. In addition, it directs the bar to develop procedures for granting waivers of the processing costs for background checks for lawyers with demonstrable financial hardship.

“The State Bar will release instructions, FAQs, mandatory re-fingerprinting forms, a schedule, and other relevant information on June 1,” the agency said in a press release Wednesday.

“Attorneys should not undergo re-fingerprinting until this information is released on June 1,” the release continued. “The deadline to submit new fingerprints without penalty will be April 30, 2019.” Asked about the difference between the April 30 deadline and the court’s Dec. 1 deadline, bar spokeswoman Rebecca Farmer said additional details would be made available June 1.

Inactive attorneys must submit new fingerprints prior to being placed back on active status, the court’s rule states.