California Chief Justice Discusses Public Trust, Budget Cuts During Pivotal Time for Judiciary - �鶹��Ƶ Law San Francisco (Formerly �鶹��Ƶ Hastings)

California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero speaks with David A. Carrillo of �鶹��Ƶ Berkeley’s California Constitution Center at �鶹��Ƶ Law San Francisco, discussing challenges facing the state’s judicial system, including budget cuts, bar exam reforms, and efforts to enhance access to justice.

Less than two years into her tenure as California’s Chief Justice, Patricia Guerrero is tackling a wave of challenges—from significant funding cuts to bar exam reforms—all while championing her vision for California’s courts.

“My mission is to work hard and always improve access to justice,” Guerrero said at �鶹��Ƶ Law San Francisco during the annual Supreme Court of California (SCOCA) Conference. The Nov. 8 event was organized by �鶹��Ƶ Berkeley Law’s California Constitution Center and sponsored by the �鶹��Ƶ Law Journal.

Navigating Fiscal Challenges in California’s Courts

The challenges facing the state’s judiciary are daunting. This year, trial courts absorbed a $97 million funding reduction, alongside an almost 8% cut to the state-level judiciary, which includes the Supreme Court, six courts of appeal, and the Judicial Council, California’s judicial policymaking body.

To manage the fallout, the Judicial Council implemented proactive cost-saving measures: hiring freezes, reduced travel, and shifting meetings online. Some 39 trial courts froze hiring, and 13 adopted furloughs to stay afloat. Guerrero emphasized the courts’ relentless efforts to minimize delays and preserve public access, despite the strain.

Building Legislative Allies

As California’s judicial leader, Guerrero works with other state government branches to secure support for the state’s court system. She recently invited California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas to visit the Monterey County Superior Court, offering a firsthand look at court operations. By showcasing how funding for innovations like remote proceedings benefits constituents, Guerrero hopes to build legislative allies.

“Being good stewards, being transparent, and having an ongoing dialogue with the [governor’s] administration and the legislature has proven to be beneficial,” she said.

Fostering Public Trust and Transparency

On a broader stage, Guerrero highlighted Californians’ high confidence in the state Supreme Court compared with its federal counterpart, attributing this trust to transparency and robust ethical standards. She pointed to the court’s efforts to publicly adopt conflict-of-interest rules as a model of integrity.

“I think that’s what really fosters the confidence and can lead to ensuring people have an appreciation for the work that we do,” she explained.

Reforming the Bar Exam

Guerrero also addressed groundbreaking changes to the California bar exam. Responding to concerns about racial disparities in bar passage rates, the Judicial Council has tasked the state bar with investigating factors that can affect performance, such as financial hardship and psychological stress.

In 2025, the bar exam will undergo a major transformation, shifting entirely online. Guerrero said the new exam will focus less on rote memorization and more on assessing practical lawyering skills like negotiation and client interviewing.

“We’re trying to focus on areas where it’s really designed to see if you have the minimum capacity to serve as an attorney,” Guerrero said.

Personal Reflections and Resilience

Guerrero, the first Latina to lead the state’s highest court, also reflected on the prejudice she has encountered as the daughter of Mexican immigrants. She recounted dismissive comments questioning her qualifications and moments of overt sexism, like being referred to as a stewardess in court.

Yet Guerrero sees her story as a source of empowerment. She hopes to inspire others from similar backgrounds to rise above bigotry and seize opportunities.

“I think our stories of our families’ struggles, starting off with very little and being where we are now, I think that resonates with people,” she said. “That’s just a reflection of the people whose shoulders we stand on and the opportunities we have in this country.”

Perspectives From a Legal Scholar and Former Chief Justice

The Nov. 8 conference also featured a lecture by �鶹��Ƶ Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and a conversation with former California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakayue.

Chemerinsky explored how constitutional law and past U.S. Supreme Court rulings are poised to influence brewing legal clashes between states and the incoming Trump administration. He highlighted a doctrine that states that the U.S. Supreme Court should not review state court decisions that are based solely on state law and independent of federal issues.

“This gives states a powerful tool to insulate their rulings from Supreme Court review and to enhance individual rights,” Chemerinsky said.

Cantil-Sakayue reflected on her tenure as chief justice from 2011 to 2022 and discussed her new role as president and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), a nonpartisan think tank that analyzes state laws and policies. She shared that she enjoys examining laws from a different perspective—assessing their effectiveness in solving problems rather than how they apply to court cases.

“It looks at policy before it turns into law, and it has an opportunity to influence the policy by pointing out the gaps and the needs,” she said, adding that PPIC also evaluates laws after they’re enacted to see if they achieve their intended goals.

SCOCA Conference Sponsors

In addition to the �鶹��Ƶ Law Journal, which is �鶹��Ƶ Law SF’s oldest law review, the conference was sponsored by the California Supreme Court Historical Society, Northern District of California Historical Society, Bar Association of San Francisco, Alameda County Bar Association, San Mateo County Bar Association, Los Angeles County Bar Association, Sacramento County Bar Association, California Academy of Appellate Lawyers, the Citrin Center, Institute of Governmental Studies, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, California Law Review, �鶹��Ƶ Davis Law Review, �鶹��Ƶ Irvine Law Review, University of the Pacific Law Review, University of San Francisco Law Review, Chapman Law Review, University of San Diego Law Review, Santa Clara Law Review, and �鶹��ƵLA Law Review.