Legislative Intent Service's Engrossment

WE HAVE YOU COVERED WITH OUR MCLE PROGRAM

2006-07-21T10:49:00.000-07:00

We Have You Covered with our MCLE Program

Our MCLEs are available, FREE, to any groups of ten attorneys in the state of California.
We can address one of three subjects in the MCLEs as follows:
Appellate Procedural Considerations:
We discuss submitting legislative history materials before the court, the requirements of judicial notice, authentication, and whether you should offer a whole or partial submission of legislative history; we also discuss the plain meaning rule, ambiguity, and the primacy of legislative history in statutory construction.
Legislative Intent, Research and History:
We discuss what is legislative intent, where do you find it, how do you use it, and why it is important. We have documented over 700 cases using legislative intent materials and with the current surge of litigation, the use of legislative intent materials by today’s legal professional becomes an important legal consideration.
2005 Legislative Review:
We address the most recent changes to the laws passed in the 2005 Legislative Session. We can cover a variety of subject areas, which would include a brief legislative history on each bill, or we can address a bill in a subject area of interest to your firm if you let us know in advance. In January of 2007, we will offer our 2006 Legislative Review.
If you would like to schedule your free MCLE for your firm or law-related association, call us at 1-800-666-1917.

ARCHIVES SOON AVAILABLE

2006-07-21T10:47:00.000-07:00

Archives Soon Available On-line

Legislative Intent Service is working on launching a new program to be available at our on-line store located at store.legintent.com that will be aimed at researchers and attorneys who wish to receive legislative history materials at a reduced fee.
Our goal will be to create the Legislative Intent Service “Archives” as an economical alternative to our normal, thorough research for obtaining legislative histories for on-line clients.
Our “Archives” option will not come with our analysis reports nor our declaration that authenticates the materials. Also, the archived bill materials at our website will not be verified for completeness of research. Each of these facets, which our regular clients will recognize as what we usually include in our normal research production, can be individually ordered at specific rates, which will be also noted at the website. Of course, as we have done for 32 years, our normal, complete research can still be ordered. We hope our clients will find the archives option a useful opportunity to meet their research needs. Call us if you have any questions or suggestions regarding this new research option (1-800-666-1917).

Federal Research Orders Up

2006-07-21T10:45:00.000-07:00

Federal Research
Orders Up

Legislative Intent Service has nearly doubled its federal research projects ordered in the last two years. Our clients’ demands for federal statutory or public law research have ranged in time periods from the 1800’s to just last month and we can turn such research around in as few as two business days.
We believe we have been successful in providing effective federal research because over time we have learned how to research federal laws productively, where to find congressional materials, and, equally important for our clients’ needs, how to organize and package the federal legislative history research so that it makes sense to our clients as they review the complicated materials.

STATE BAR PANEL BACK

2006-07-19T15:09:00.000-07:00

State Bar Panel Back By Popular Demand!

At the State Bar’s Annual Meeting in Monterey this October, Legislative Intent Service will be presenting a two-hour Lawyering Skills Program entitled “Winning Strategies Using Legislative Intent” on October 6th, Friday, from 10a.m. to noon.
The speakers will be Ms. Dorothy Thomson, Esq., and Ms. Filomena Yeroshek, Esq., of Legislative Intent Service, and Mr. Robin Meadow, Esq., from Greines Martin Stein & Richland in Los Angeles.
These knowledgeable attorneys will address strategies to advocate legislative intent and win at the trial and appellate levels. Come join the group to learn about legislative intent and history as well as ask your questions either afterwards or at our booth.
This class qualifies for two hours of MCLE credit for those attending attorneys.

Researching Regulations?

2006-07-19T14:53:00.000-07:00

Researching Regulations?

If you have any questions about researching state regulations, Dorothy Thomson has prepared a quick California regulation research primer that our clients might find useful.
You can find it on-line if you Google: How to Research California Regulations
Or, you can log onto to our website (www.legintent.com), click on our “Points and Authorities” button and scroll down to Dorothy’s Regulation paper.
The paper covers “how to start,” “what documentation is available,” and “where does one find the regulatory record?” In her discussion regarding what documents are available, Dorothy provides tips of where you might find your regulation or language given the age of the regulatory action.
Legislative Intent Service researches regulations for a fee. Clients have discovered it is so much more economical to have us provide this research for them.

Winter Website Work

2006-01-26T14:52:00.000-08:00

Winter Website Work

Legislative Intent Service is in the process this Winter of updating its website. Log on to see the new look, fonts, and information. Our archives materials are noted, which lists over 30,000 bills that you may want to scroll through – we have approximately 9 million legislative research documents in our private collection. And, of course, every year generates new bills and accompanying documents to be preserved. The website will soon have a store (“LegIntentStore.com”) available for on-line ordering of digitized legislative history documents. Log on to legintent.com or give us a call at (800) 666-1917 if you’d like to learn more.

Digital Ave vs. Paper, Parchment and Onion Skin

2006-01-26T14:45:00.000-08:00

Digital Age vs. Paper, Parchment and Onion Skin

   On December 14, 2005, the Sacramento Bee reported on the loss of state and federal government documents that were once posted on the net and then cleaned out after a period of time.  Currently, there is no uniform or consistent procedure to avoid losing government materials.  According to the news article, a conservative estimate puts the loss at about half of whatever was posted on the net by the government.  An information officer noted that “We probably don’t even know what we’re losing.”  Another interviewee described this as “digital death” and the “digital dark ages.”  The complexities involved with publishing online by government agencies have helped to create havoc with timelines, security, costs, and preservation.  It turns out that “digital archiving” is more costly than expected because technicians must be paid to upload and maintain the documents, and “[s]oftware must be written or adapted to capture and authenticate the staggering amounts of data.”

   While others worry that our legislators are not thinking about the catastrophic loss of digital documents, we at Legislative Intent Service have been giving it some very serious thought for years now.  Our collection is mostly paper, gathered these 30 years, and is slowly, but surely, being digitized to meet our clients’ needs for online research services.  The Sacramento Bee noted that:

   “People come in from the agencies, from the Governor’s Office, from the Legislature wanting examples of what took place in 1950, in 1960, ’70 or ’80. . . .  They want to see what’s happened before so they can go forward.”

   Our collection includes a lot of these missing agency documents from the 50’s (and earlier!), 60’s, 70’s and 80’s as well as later digital materials (saved in paper form) that were collected on legislation enacted in the 90’s and into the 21st Century that may no longer be available online or from any other source.  The Sacramento Bee article concluded with the following quote by the chief of state library services for the California State Library:  “If we absolutely, positively want to ensure that we have the item in 150 years, . . . our best preservation is print.”  This is something we have at Legislative Intent Service – nearly 9 million documents worth of “print,” at your service in the 21st Century!

Notable Legislation Newsletter Launched

2006-01-26T14:44:00.000-08:00

Notable Legislation Newsletter Launched

For the first time, Legislative Intent Service has published a compendium of notable legislation from the 2005 legislation. You can find it at our website at legintent.com. The 2005 Notable Legislation bills are identified in chronological order and contain a short descriptive digest for your quick review.

If you see a bill in this 2005 Notable Legislation newsletter that you would like to have researched by us, please be sure to use the 20% discount coupon noted in the Newsletter. The coupon is good for the entire year of 2006 and is applicable only to any of the 106 2005 bills listed in the Newsletter. There is no limit as to how many times a law firm can use the coupon to order any of the 2005 bills noted, but there is a limit of one per individual from that firm ordering. Just tell us the coupon number and we’ll be happy to give you your discount!

Success at the State Bar

2006-01-26T14:41:00.000-08:00

Success at the State Bar Annual Meeting

Legislative Intent Service presented a MCLE-approved panel on legislative history and procedure
that was entitled: “Win Your Next Case Using Legislative History” at the State Bar Annual Meeting in September, 2005. We had an excellent turnout for this class and the comments by the attendees were laudatory and made some of us blush! So, we are encouraged to do it again at the October State Bar Annual Meeting in 2006. See you there!

Tri-Institute ALL Meetings in Sacramento

2006-01-26T14:39:00.000-08:00

Tri-Institute ALL Meetings in Sacramento

Regulations are challenging to research, requiring registers possibly traced to the early and mid-20th Century administrative codes, collecting Z-Notices and Secretary of State filings, and eventually tracking down rulemaking files from the specific agencies. You would be surprised how many agencies do not know where they have archived older materials and how long it can take to obtain such files. At the “California Joint Institute for SCALL, NOCALL, and SANDALL” to be held in Sacramento, California March 31 - April 1, Legislative Intent Service will be presenting a panel on this issue. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss regulations research with the law librarians attending the conference and are always happy to answer their questions, either at the meetings coming up or by telephone to our office.

Deconstructing 3rd DCA Ruling Addressing Legislative History Documents

2006-01-18T15:59:00.000-08:00

Deconstructing
Third DCA Ruling Addressing
Legislative History Documents

This summer, the 3rd DCA published Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. in response to a motion for judicial notice of selected documents in the legislative history of a 1998 bill. It drew the attention of litigation and appellate attorneys because it appeared to state it would no longer accept a motion for judicial notice of a complete, compiled legislative history where the documents are not segregated and no attempt was made in the memorandum of points and authorities to justify each request for judicial notice. This Court provided a laundry list of legislative history documents constituting cognizable legislative history and those not constituting legislative history for the 3rd DCA. We responded with an article published at our website that deconstructed the opinion and offered points and authorities in support of the opposite view espoused by the court. Our article noted that Legislative Intent Service has accumulated more than 700 cases in its unabridged points and authorities on Legislative History and Intent as Aides to Statutory Construction, and Authority and Procedure for Judicial Consideration of Legislative History and Intent, both of which are available free online at legintent.com. In the majority of these cases, courts, including the state Supreme Court and the 3rdDCA, have utilized legislative history materials found in both lists to construe statutory language, with some directly discussing the propriety of using a particular document type as an aide to statutory construction while most simply refer to and use the document type, demonstrating an inference that the document was found properly judicially noticeable. You can read the entire article at our website.

Electronic Eyeful

2005-09-30T18:53:00.000-07:00

Electronic Eyeful of Our Legislative Materials
Fall 2005

LEGISLATIVE INTENT SERVICE’s website is currently under major reconstruction, but one aspect that may be of interest to everyone is the LONG list of legislative measures that we have researched over the course of the last 31 years in business. You will find a wide range of bills spanning three centuries that include California measures, bills from other states, and federal legislative measures as well as administrative regulations. Go to www.legintent.com and click on the “Legislative Materials” button to review the list of tens of thousands of bills researched and available. Stay tuned for additional features soon to come to our website!

Hunting & Gathering in an Electronic World

2005-09-30T18:49:00.000-07:00

Hunting & Gathering in an Electronic World
Fall 2005

Since 1993, the Legislative Counsel has maintained an electronic platform from which to display legislative measures introduced and considered from that year forward. The materials listed by the Legislative Counsel as available on line are: the legislative calendar; the schedule of Legislative committee hearings; a list of matters pending on the floors of both houses of the Legislature; a list of the committees of the Legislature and their members; the text of each bill introduced, including each amended, enrolled, and chaptered form of each bill; the history of each bill introduced and amended; the status of each bill introduced and amended; all bill analyses prepared by legislative committees in connection with each bill; and any veto message concerning a bill.

Our own experiences with these same on-line materials are that not all of the analyses are included. Furthermore, there are no legislative bill files included for the legislative committees reviewing the bill, the author, the sponsor, nor the Governor at this website. These file materials contain valuable information identifying the sources and background of the legislation and the subsequent amendments to the legislation.

Our Points and Authorities, available at Legislative Intent Service, address over 700 cases in which legislative file materials were offered into court. Recent cases like Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering (Aug. 30, 2005), coming out of the Third Appellate District, remind attorneys of the important role that legislative history materials play when one or both sides argue that the statutory language is ambiguous. In 2004, the California Supreme Court stated the following regarding the enrolled bill reports found in the Governor’s legislative bill file:

"Uveges challenge Eisner's reliance on the enrolled bill report, arguing that it is irrelevant because it was prepared after passage. However, we have routinely found enrolled bill reports, prepared by a responsible agency contemporaneous with passage and before signing, instructive on matters of legislative intent. (Citations.) Although we do not give great weight to the report, it is instructive." (Eisner v. Uveges (2004) 34 Cal.4th 915, 934, fn.19)

The Legislative Committees’ and author’s bill files contain analyses, worksheets, press releases, committee and floor statements, as well as letters of support and opposition suggesting language changes that may show up later in amendments to your bill. The California Supreme Court, in a 2004 case, relied upon a committee bill analysis worksheet. (Martin v. Szeto (2004) 32 Cal.4th 445, 450) An appellate decision arising out of the Second District Court of Appeal (Division 5) similarly looked to a bill analysis worksheet. (Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2002, 2nd District, Division 5) 98 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1171-1172)

Also not included at the Legislative Counsel’s website are any interim hearing reports and background reports from other identified sources. These reports are rich with content as to the problems identified and the possible solutions probed by the members of the interim committees and their experts, which ultimately led to the introduction of a specific bill or series of bills.

Of important significance missing from the Legislative Counsel’s list of on-line legislative documents are failed or vetoed predecessor and competitor bills from which your language of interest may have developed. Whenever such legislation is identified in the materials, we make every reasonable effort to collect all surviving materials on that failed legislation. A full understanding of legislative intent is generally dependent upon knowing about the various proposals competing with or preceding the measure ultimately enacted. This can be especially true where the focus is on particular language; by contrasting that enacted with the unsuccessful proposals can afford insight as to the intended meaning.

The above summary of documents unavailable at the Legislative Counsel’s on-line site addresses only the main materials not included on the net. We have, over these 31 years of doing business, learned there are numerous other background documentation of significance to any particular legislation. Having the largest private collection of legislative documents that span three centuries, we can help you find the documents related to the enactment or amendment of any code section of interest to you.

Speaking of Electronic Legislative History

2005-09-30T18:43:00.000-07:00

Speaking of Electronic Legislative History
Fall 2005

LEGISLATIVE INTENT SERVICE is gratified to learn that electronic delivery is very popular with our clients. We provide two formats of electronic delivery: by CD or by a secured website downloadable by our clients. As we progress with changes updating our delivery systems over the next few months, we will have electronic deliveries more conveniently available to our clients. If you wish to obtain a CD or net delivery instead of a hardcopy and binder when you order, please let us know. The net posting and the CD still contain our Legislative History and Analysis reports and our declarations authenticating the materials. We also will include a Statutory Analysis of your particular research or section focus.

Everybody Wants to Know

2005-09-30T18:39:00.000-07:00

Everybody Wants to Know
Fall 2005

One of the most common questions asked by clients is whether there is any legislative history surviving on a particular section or bill. The correct answer is always that something has, indeed, survived and that LEGISLATIVE INTENT SERVICE will find it for them! The documents surviving for 1872 legislation and the earlier acts are different than the documents collected for 1895, 1905, 1945, 1975, 1995 and 2005, but, no matter the age of the legislation, we find the surviving documents on the measure’s consideration. So the next time you wonder whether there might be surviving legislative history on a code section or a bill, just say yes, and give us a call. We’ll be happy to tell you all about it.

Time Tunneling

2005-09-30T17:42:00.000-07:00

Time Tunneling
Summer 2005

It might be the lazy days of summer, but history still marches forward, always demanding us to look backwards. Because legislative history research never rests around here, it seemed like a good idea to bring up three specific historical events that might be of interest to our clients. This quarter’s SUMMER ISSUE focuses, albeit very briefly, on the early codification of federal and California laws, and on the Napoleonic Code. Relax, enjoy a glass of lemonade, and read. There’s no test at the end . . . .

Federal Codes

2005-09-30T17:40:00.000-07:00

Federal Codes
Summer 2005

For quite a few years, LEGISLATIVE INTENT SERVICE has been able to efficiently gather and compile surviving documents on federal public laws from Congressional Depository libraries in Northern California, which include House and Senate bills ranging from the late 1700’s to this moment being discussed in Washington. We have also learned during these years, that the legislative history of federal laws is not an exact science – it takes creative effort, research collaboration, and years of experience to lead us to a successful compilation and collection of all available relevant materials.

The challenges in federal research draw from a long history of inconsistent and disorderly legislation, acts, and case laws.

Our federal statutes were originally compiled and organized at the request of President Millard Fillmore in 1851, who appointed “a commission to revise the public statutes of the United States, arranging them in order, supplying deficiencies, correcting incongruities, simplifying their language, and reporting them to Congress for its action.” (December 2, 1851) As President Fillmore indicated in his Second Annual Message, “The public statutes of the United States have now been accumulating for more than sixty years, and, interspersed with private acts, are scattered through numerous volumes, and, from the cost of the whole, have become almost inaccessible to the great mass of the community. They also exhibit much of the incongruity and imperfection of hasty legislation. As it seems to be generally conceded that there is no ‘common law’ of the United States to supply the defects of their legislation, . . . .” (Id.)

However, organizing the federal acts and statutes did not occur quickly. For example, in 1861, President Abraham Lincoln said that “I respectfully recommend to the consideration of Congress the present condition of the statute laws, with the hope that Congress will be able to find an easy remedy for many of the inconveniences and evils which constantly embarrass those engaged in the practical administration of them. . . . I am informed by some whose opinions I respect that all the acts of Congress now in force and of a permanent and general nature might be revised and rewritten so as to be embraced in one volume (or at most two volumes) of ordinary and convenient size . . . .” (December 3, 1861, Washington, First Annual Message)

There were post-Civil War attempts to codify our federal laws and finally in 1926 the United States Codes were created, organized by Titles into fifty areas of federal law. In 1927, West Publishing Co. published the first unofficial, annotated edition of the U.S. Code, entitled United States Code Annotated.

For those who have ordered legislative history of public laws from us, you know that successful enactments are usually accompanied by years of failed bills that, like the enacting bill, generated reports, hearings, committee prints, debates, and secondary sources providing background articles and summaries, all of which becomes important to your search for answers to your issues regarding the federal statute.

California's Fields of Vision

2005-09-30T17:39:00.000-07:00

California's Fields of Vision
Summer 2005

Much of California’s current laws can be traced to the 1872 original adoption of the California Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Political Code, and Penal Code. When we research of these first four Codes, we look prior to 1872 for early New York or Louisiana laws, our 1850’s California Practice Acts, Fields Drafts of New York laws, and even the Napoleonic Code for their genesis. The 1872 effort followed the appointment of a Code Commission in the late 1860’s by the State Legislature. Stephen J. Field was an important contributor and, importantly, was one of the brothers of David Dudley Field, who drafted the New York codes and promoted the establishment of federal procedural rules. In 1849, Stephen brought Dudley’s drafts to California as he followed the glint of the gold rush.

The Fields brothers came from a family whose ancestors were pilgrims and whose other siblings were quite successful: Dudley was a leader in the New York legislature; Stephen, a leader in California, became a California Supreme Court Justice and later a U.S. Supreme Court Justice; Henry edited a Presbyterian newspaper; Jonathan led the Massachusetts legislature and revised its state’s statutes; Matthew built the longest suspension bridge at that time; and Cyrus laid the first transatlantic cable. Their sister, Emelia, married a missionary who was the first to introduce European education into the Turkish empire, and her son also became a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

Dudley Field was an extremely intelligent and intense individual, who seemed unable to endear himself to his professional peers but he persevered in his vision for reform of the judicial system and codification of all laws, both procedural and substantive. For all of this effort by Dudley, much of what he worked on was never adopted in New York. As observed in the 1895 ALBANY LAW JOURNAL, while Dudley served as chair of the New York Code Commission, he worked “substantially alone” and he was “only measurably successful” in New York. (ALB. L.J., Vol. LI, pp. 40 and 41) One of the reasons for his “measurable” success was discussed by Floyd Clarke, author of the 1898 “Science of Law and Lawmaking,” who explained that “For many years a discussion went on between two factions of New York lawyers. The point at issue concerned the proposed adoption by that State of a codification of Common Law known as the Field Civil Code. Year after year, the venerable author of that Code presented it to the Legislature for passage. Year and year, with equal untiring energy, the Champions of the Common Law system met him in public and private debate. The result has been that the Field Civil Code remains neither a text-book nor a Statute.” (p. 33) While not adopted in New York, Dudley’s Civil Code was adopted in the Dakotas, California, Idaho and Montana.

When Stephen Field brought his brother’s civil and criminal codes of procedure, he took the drafts as his guide, modifying and adding to these codes to conform to California. Prof. Carl Swisher, in his “Stephen J. Field, Craftsman of the Law,” noted that “[Stephen’s] ability to adjust the acts to the needs of California indicates that he had not been idle at the time when Dudley was working at the task of codification a few years earlier.” (p. 55)

French Influences

2005-09-30T17:36:00.000-07:00

French Influences
Summer 2005

Some of the 1872 California Codes contain references to early Louisiana case laws, which followed France’s Civil Code. On March 21, 1804, the Code Napoleon was voted into law. According to Cambridge’s Modern History, “The codification of French law . . . was the fulfillment of an aspiration, as old at least as the fifteenth century, and partially realised by the ordinances of kings and the textbooks of jurists—an aspiration for the legal unity of France, for ‘one weight, one measure, one law.’” (pp. 148)

Will and Ariel Durant’s “Age of Napoleon” stated that the Code Napoleon arose from “a nation in economic, political, religious, and moral disarray” after the coup de’etat of 1799. (p. 179) A Commission was formed and after 87 sittings, the Civil Code was taken up, title by title, with Napoleon presiding at 35 of the sittings. “The Code accepted and applied the basic principles of the Revolution: freedom of speech, worship, and enterprise, and equality of all before the law; the right of all to public trial by jury; the end of feudal dues and ecclesiastical tithes; and the validity of purchases made, from the state, of confiscated church or seigniorial property. But—following Roman law—the Code accepted the family as the unit and bastion of moral discipline and social order, and gave it a basis in power by reviving the patria potestas of ancient regimes . . . .” (p. 181)

The Code Napoleon completely replaced all prior French laws and customs to the point, as observed in 1928 by Sir Maurice Amos, that “it is remarkable to-day how rarely in the application and interpretation of the French Code, the attention of the judge is invited to any legislative text or judicial decision prior in date to 1804.” (page 224 of “The Code Napoleon and the Modern World”)

Make a Federal Law Out of It

2005-09-30T15:57:00.000-07:00

Make a Federal Law Out of It
Fall 2004

We are asked all the time if we research federal bills and our answer is: “Yes, we do!” At first glance, federal legislative history research of public laws seems simple. First, the materials are readily available in any Congressional Depository Library and university library collections. Second, the documents to research are easily identifiable: the bill, committee reports, hearing transcripts, congressional debates, and committee prints/reports or studies, along with miscellaneous presidential and secondary source documents.

While this material is well organized and indexed back to the 18th Century, the challenge is that a lot of public laws are omnibus or comprehensive in nature, being a product of a five- to ten-year history. Thus, the proposed bills prior to the bill enacting the public law may be addressed by six to 30 earlier bills carrying similar language. These early bills reveal the development of the language and their reports often provide helpful substantive discussion, history and debates. Also, omnibus bills generate congressional legislative documents that are equally very lengthy.

Hence, the challenge to “gather it all” may easily turn into a time-consuming effort, with some cases requiring us to review thousands of pages of documents. It helps when our clients have a point of focus in a code section or subdivision, which allows us to cull through the bills to find the pertinent origination of the focus and to gather the relevant bills and accompanying materials and reports. The file materials generated by the committees are not readily available from them or the National Archives, which imposes a 20 to 30 year hold on the files. We have developed the capacity to locate surviving and available materials through our local Northern California Congressional Depository libraries and the University of California government publications collection.

In the News!

2005-09-30T15:51:00.000-07:00

In the News!
Fall 2004

Recently, the Sixth District Court of Appeal rendered a decision in the case of People v. Connor, aided by materials collected by Legislative Intent Service. The court opinion noted that the declarations were executed by one of our directors, Dorothy Thomson. In a footnote, the court stated the following:

“[6] Courts may take judicial notice of relevant legislative history to resolve ambiguities and uncertainties concerning the purpose and meaning of a statute. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c) [permitting judicial notice of official acts of the Legislature]; Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998)19 Cal.4th 26 , 45, fn. 9.) Moreover, as a reviewing court, we must, and here do, take judicial notice of those materials properly noticed by the trial court, including enrolled bill reports to the governor and legislative committee and caucus reports, work sheets, and digests. (Evid. Code, § 459, subd. (a); In re J. W. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 200, 211; Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 257, 276, fn. 9; e.g., Lolley v. Campbell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 367, 375 [enrolled bill report to governor]; People v. Snyder (2000) 22 Cal.4th 304, 310 [party caucus reports]; People v. Neild (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1227 [committee report]; Forty-Niner Truck Plaza, Inc. v. Union Oil Co. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1273 [bill analysis worksheet]; Natural Resources Defense Council v. Fish & Game Com. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1118 [worksheet]; Wallin v. Vienna Sausage Manufacturing Co. (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1054 [bill digest].)” (115 Cal.App.4th 699).

Hit the Net, Get an Air Ball

2005-09-30T15:47:00.000-07:00

Hit the Net, Get an Air Ball
Fall 2004

Although Legislative Intent Service has been in business for 30 years collecting the surviving legislative history materials and documents on legislative measures, regulations, and constitutional provisions, the last few years have seen the availability of Senate and Assembly Bills on the net by the State Legislature (1993 to the present). However, we have noticed major gaps in these documents.

In all cases, the Committees’ legislative bill files, the author’s files, and the Governor’s post-enrollment files are not available. We regularly find more Committees’ analyses in the files than are posted on the public website. Furthermore, it would not be unusual that, prior to the introduction of a bill, the Legislature or other sources undertook studies of the subject, generating background documentation integral to a bill’s legislative consideration. Such reports from interim or joint committees or state departments or agencies or independent organizations such as the California Law Revision Commission or the California State Bar would also not be available on-line at this same site.

These gaps in the legislative history can be crucial, especially when clients are interested in
understanding the public policies or reasons for the development of specific language, or the identity of those who suggested specific amendments, or the rationale given by the sponsor for promoting the bill. Being properly prepared will require answers to these questions.

Digitized Delivery Drives Demand

2005-09-30T14:55:00.000-07:00

Digitized Delivery Drives Demand
Fall 2004

Delivery of a digitized format of our research by way of a net posting to a secured ftp site or a CD-ROM has met with great popularity. While there is a set-up fee per bill associated with digitization, the costs saved on copying charges associated with this delivery process is definitely an economic factor considered by our clients. Furthermore, the materials saved on a CD-ROM are always accessible and easy to store. So, if you are comfortable working on your computer, you may want to give this delivery format a try.

Taking Judicial Notice

2005-09-30T11:43:00.000-07:00

Taking Judicial Notice
Spring 2005

We have received numerous requests from our clients for advice on offering legislative history materials in court. This issue of Engrossment is dedicated to providing some of those answers.

Points and Authorities

2005-09-30T11:41:00.000-07:00

Points and Authorities
Spring 2005

Whether as a hardcopy binder or in a pdf electronic delivery format, in each research project we deliver to our clients, they receive, without charge, our firm’s compilation of points and authorities to assist their use of our materials as extrinsic aides to statutory construction for judicial consideration of legislative history and intent. We also drafted a sample motion that is posted on our website. Please call us and we will be happy to email to you a copy of our materials.

Offering Legislative History Documents to a Court

2005-09-30T11:38:00.000-07:00

Offering Legislative History Documents to a Court
Spring 2005

A. MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE: Judicial notice may be taken under Evid. Code § 452(c) of “Official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the United States, or any state of the United States.” (People v. Snyder (2000) 22 Cal.4th 304, 315 fn.5; Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 30; Post v. Prati (1979) 90 Cal.App. 3d 626, 634.)

1. DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE MADE MANDATORY: Under Evid. Code § 452(c) a court has discretion to take judicial notice. Evid. Code § 453 provides the means to make it mandatory for a court to judicially notice documents proffered under § 452(c). A party must give “each adverse party sufficient notice of the requests, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request;” and to furnish “the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.”

2. JUDICIAL NOTICE BEFORE APPELLATE OR SUPREME COURT: Evid. Code § 459 grants appellate courts the same right and power to take judicial notice as the trial court. (Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Group (2002) 29 Cal.4th 345, 359; People v. Connor (2004, 6th District) 115 Cal.App. 4th 669, 681 fn.3.) Rule 41.5, California Rules of Court provides for “a cause pending before the Supreme Court of a Court of Appeal, a request that the court take judicial notice under Evidence Code section 459 shall be made by a motion under rule 41 filed separately from a brief or other paper.”

B. No Judicial Notice Required for Published Documents: Several recent decisions of the California Supreme Court find judicial notice unnecessary; a simple citation to “published” legislative documents is sufficient to bring the legislative history to a court’s attention. (Sharon S. v. Superior Court (Annette F.) (2003) 31 Cal.4th 417, 440, fn. 18; Quelimane Company Inc. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 26, 46, fn.9.) “Published” legislative history documents appear to be legislative bills, committee and floor analyses or any other documents published in book format, or on the web by the Legislature. (Id.)

C. STIPULATION: Parties to a case may stipulate to the admission of documentary evidence a court’s use of legislative history materials. (Community Redevelopment Agency v. County of Los Angeles (2001, 2nd Dist., Div. 2) 89 Cal. App. 4th 719, 725.)

Issues to Consider in Requesting Judicial Notice

2005-09-30T11:25:00.000-07:00

Issues to Consider in Requesting Judicial Notice
Spring 2005

A. PRIMACY OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT: To construe or interpret a statute, the court’s primary objective is to determine the legislative intent of the enactment; all other rules of construction yield to this rule. “In the construction of a statute the intention of the Legislature. . .is to be pursued, if possible.” (CCP § 1859)

B. JUDICIAL FUNCTION: Paraphrasing from California Teacher’s Assn. V. Governing Board of Rialto United School District (1997) 14 Cal. 4th 627, the “touchstone of statutory interpretation” is the “probable intent of the Legislature.” The judicial role is “limited” in the process of interpreting legislative enactments of the political branch of government – “It cannot be too often repeated that due respect for the political branches of our government requires us to interpret the laws in accordance with the expressed intention of the Legislature.” (Id.)

C. RELEVANCE OF THE DOCUMENTS: Even where judicial notice is mandatory, there is a superseding requirement of relevancy to meet. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1136 fn.1; Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063-1065.) Relevant evidence is that evidence “having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence. . .” (Evid. Code § 210) There is no precise or universal test of relevancy; “The question must be determined in each case according to the teachings of reason and judicial experience.” (1 Witkin California Evidence (3d Ed., 1986) Circumstantial Evidence, § 309, pg 279; see also 1 Jefferson, California Evidence Benchbook (3d ed. 1998) § 27.21, pg 299.)

D. LIMITATIONS ON EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS: Evid. Code § 454 provides that “In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter . . . Exclusionary rules of evidence do not apply except for Section 352 and the rules of privilege [exclusion of evidence where prejudice outweighs probative value].” “. . .an adverse party may not object to a proper matter for judicial notice. Even before the abolition of the best evidence rule, a copy of a document, instead of the original, could be the source of information for judicial notice.” (1 Jefferson, California Evidence Benchbook (3d Ed. 1998) § 47.6, p. 1092.)

E. AUTHENTICATION: Judicial notice is a substitute for proof; judicially noticed materials are not evidence per se. “In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter, . . .(Ev. C. 454), the judge is free from nearly all of the restrictions of the rules of evidence.” (Witkin California Evidence (3d Ed.) Judicial Notice, § 118, page 101.) When documents are judicially noticed “. . .the judge does not proceed in accordance with the rule of . . .authentication of writings, nor is he restricted by the exclusionary rules (opinion rule, hearsay rule, best evidence rule, etc.) . . .” (Id., § 82, pgs 75-76.) Authentication may be seen as needed of “unpublished” documents of the Legislature. (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 46, fn.9.) Offering, in the alternative, to authenticate legislative history materials by declaration or affidavit, is a good practice. (Imwinkelreid, Wydick and Hogan California Evidentiary Foundations (3d Ed., 2000) pg 590-591.)

F. SUBMISSION OF PARTIAL OR COMPLETE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: Whether one submits a partial or complete legislative history is an exercise of discretion. For example, consider the significance of the issue of statutory construction in light of the overall case at hand, volume of legislative history available, quality of available discussion in all legislative documents, tenor of the court and opposing counsel, and so on. One case criticized counsel for not submitting a complete legislative history. (People v. Valenzuela (2001, 4th Dist., Div. 2) 92 Cal.App.4th 768, 776, fn. 3 & 4)

G. EXPERT TESTIMONY: Expert testimony can be used in the interpretation of a statute in light of its legislative history. “In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter, or the tenor thereof: (1) Any source of pertinent information, including the advice of persons learned in the subject matter, may be consulted or used, whether or not furnished by a party.” Evid. Code § 454(a). (Fallbrook Sanitation District v. LAFCO (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 753, 764; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 782.)

H. LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH FEES AS COSTS: Complete legislative history research is not readily available to the public. Thus, the costs of legislative history research fees is a recoverable cost. (Van De Kamp v. Gumbiner (1990, 2nd Dist. Div.5) 221 Cal.App.3d 1260, 1280

Surpise!

2005-09-29T16:20:00.000-07:00

Surprise!
Winter 2004

Celebrating anniversaries are extra fun when they are surprise parties, which is exactly what the staff at LEGISLATIVE INTENT SERVICE did for its founders, Bill Keller and Tom Stallard. On December 14th, the office staff hosted a surprise 30th Anniversary Party for them, with 85 guests present, who represented past employees, former Legislators, and members of the local communities of Yolo and Sacramento Counties, as well as our staff and their families. Happily, we pulled it off and Bill and Tom were genuinely surprised – this surprised us as well because it’s not easy pulling the wool over these two! A good time was had by all, the history of the company was talked about, we ate great food, and enjoyed the company of our wonderful guests.

Recent California Legislation

2005-09-29T16:13:00.000-07:00

Recent California Legislation

Summer 2004

The Legislature in the 2003-2004 Session enacted major legislation, three of which we address in this and next month’s Engrossment issues: 1) Senate Bill 899 of 2004, which enacted extensive changes to the state’s workers compensation laws, 2) Senate Bill 515 of 2003, which added section 425.17 to the Code of Civil Procedure, and 3) Senate Bill 796 of 2003, which added sections 2698 and 2699 to the Labor Code.

The enactment of Senate Bill 899 of 2004 appears to address a commitment by the new Governor to initiate workers compensation reform in this state. The bill was the result of a conference committee convened to improve the workers’ compensation system. This urgency legislation, which affects about 50 different Labor Code statutes, was introduced by Senator Charles Poochigian of Fresno, who was later joined by 38 members of the Senate and Assembly as co-authors by the time the bill came out of conference. Among the numerous proposals in the bill, the conference amendments gave immunity to entities that appropriately report suspected fraudulent activity, restored user funding and allowed for the cost of return to work programs to be funded out of user funding, allowed eligible small employers [up to 50 employees] to apply for reimbursement for workplace modifications necessary to return injured workers to work [operative as of July 1, 2004], repealed duplicate programs of supplemental job displacement benefit created in 2003, re-instituted vocational rehabilitation program for injuries occurring on or before December 31, 2003 [sunsetting in 2009], authorized parties in collectively bargained alternative dispute resolution programs to negotiate occupational and nonoccupational health care integration projects involving delivery of medical benefits and delivery of disability benefits, and required that all workers' compensation findings of fact be interpreted in an impartial and balanced manner so that all parties are considered equal before the law. These are just a few of the numerous changes to the law that were enacted by Senate Bill 899.

Digitized Format Welcomed

2005-09-29T16:12:00.000-07:00

Digitized Format Welcomed
Summer 2004

A short while ago, Legislative Intent Service launched a digitized delivery system that permits our clients to download our research from a secured web site. As we progress with this type of delivery, it seemed like a good idea to poll our clients recently as to their opinions.

The digitized format appears to be popular because it permits clients to receive the materials a day earlier than when delivered by overnight delivery. Also, there was the benefit of being able to deliver the materials to the attorneys on staff instantly, without any internal routing delays. Finally, cost was predictable because there was no copying and delivery charges; only the set-up fee to put the documents in pdf Adobe Acrobat format. Most of the clients found it to be “very easy” to retrieve the materials net posted and that it took very little time, while a few others needed help from our technicians, who offered successful telephone support. While no system is ever perfect, we believe that for clients comfortable with working from their computers and printing from their own sites that this is a viable and efficient alternative.

By the way! Would you like to try downloading legislative history materials just to see how it works? We have posted the “Caesar Salad” bill by Assembly member Carole Migden at our website: www.legintent.com. Give it a try and if you have any questions, give us a call!

Director's Comments

2005-09-29T16:11:00.000-07:00

Director's Comments
Summer 2004

Since 1974, when Bill Keller and Tom Stallard founded Legislative Intent Service, this company has been committed to excellence in the production of the most thoroughly researched legislative history possible. This year, we are celebrating our 30th Anniversary and would like to personally “THANK” our clients -- from those who have been with us from the beginning to those who only just discovered us!

As Bill recently noted: “With a new Governor and a re-energized Legislature working hard to come up with creative solutions to the state’s fiscal crisis, Sacramento is once again an exciting place. New ideas and innovative approaches are enacted into law in record time.”

Legislative Intent Service is here in the center of it all with only one purpose: to help you and your clients make sense of this rapidly changing statutory landscape. Give us a call, we would love to hear from you and answer your questions.

Controversial 2000 Labor Bill Surviving the Test of Time

2005-09-29T11:22:00.000-07:00

Controversial 2000 Labor Bill Surviving the Test of Time
Winter 2004

Labor Code §§ 98.1, 98.2, 203.1, 218.5, 226, 350, 351 and 1174 were amended and §§ 218.6 and 226.7 were added to the Labor Code in 2000 following legislative passage of Assembly Bill 2509, an omnibus labor enforcement measure, introduced by Assembly member Darrell Steinberg for the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.

Subsequent to legislative approval, Governor Gray Davis signed the bill on September 28, 2000, and it was recorded as Chapter 876 of the Statutes of 2000. According to the Office of Senate Floor Analyses, AB 2509 made various changes to the Labor Code relative to rights, remedies, and procedures, streamlined and altered many enforcement and administrative procedures of wage and hour laws before the Labor Commissioner and the courts, and increased civil penalties and damages for violations. This same analysis noted that the law was intended to address a “large and growing ‘underground economy’ of employers who are chronic violators of wage and hour, safety, and tax laws.” There were two predecessors: Assembly Bill 633 and Assembly Bill 1652. AB 633 initially contained general wage and hour provisions and garment industry specific provisions; however, the general wage and hour provisions were moved out of the bill and inserted into AB 1652. AB 633 was enacted into law without the wage and hour provisions and AB 1652 was vetoed by the Governor. The legislation was then proposed in AB 2509.

If you would like to order the legislative history of this 2000 bill, give us a call.

Coastal Commission Act

2005-09-29T11:16:00.000-07:00

Huge "Coastal Commission Act" Readily Available
Winter 2004

If your firm requires the legislative history of the 1976 Coastal Commission Act, you like to know that the entire legislative history materials and documents collected by our firm on this bill since 1976, which normally spans a few feet of materials and can incur nearly a thousand dollars in copying costs alone, fits very handily on two CDs, at a cost to our clients only of the regular research fee plus our normal $50.00 digitization set up fee. Thus, the savings to our clients is remarkable and the ease of usage of the materials, which are set up in Adobe Acrobat pdf format, makes this a popular research CD project in our office. Call us if you would like to order this legislative history.

Happy New Legislative Session

2005-09-29T11:14:00.000-07:00

Happy New Legislative Session
Winter 2004

As the new 2005-2006 Legislative Session begins, it will be important to remember that Democrats control both Houses. We think it is safe to predict that the Governor’s budget this year will draw a lot of attention from those interested on both sides in resolving the $8 billion budget deficit. In January, Governor Schwarzenegger raised the ante by calling an extraordinary session to address reform of the State’s budget process, government employee pension systems and education. He introduced his new “e-budget” on January 10th. Once the Assembly Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee introduce their budget bills, we will look for reports and revisions that may be useful to our clients’ legislative histories if relevant. As indicated in his State of the State address, the Governor will call for a special election if the budget issues are contentious and irresolvable through the legislative process. Fortunately for our clients, we research legislation as well as budget trailer bills and propositions! Also, California’s legislators are dealing with the federal government investigating current and former legislators’ dealings. All in all, an interesting year awaits us at the Capitol.

The Bills That Were

2005-09-29T11:00:00.000-07:00

The Bills That Were
Winter 2004

Wrapping up the 2003-2004 Legislative Session, like any Legislative Session, is not easy but we can mention a few of the high points.

Senate Bill 1809 significantly amended "The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004" by enacting specified procedural and administrative requirements that must be met prior to bringing a private action to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations. . . Assembly Bill 1836 addressed common interest developments and dispute resolution. . . Increases in attorney fees awards passed in contract actions on a book account under AB 2347. . . SB 1145 removed the sunset or repeal of 60-day notice requirement when rent increase exceeds 10% and landlord prohibition on use of tenant’s income when deciding to rent . . . Revision of required signage on unreinforced masonry buildings enacted by AB 2533 triggering administrative penalties and injunctive relief for failure to comply. . . AB 252 allows genetic testing to set aside a judgment or order establishing paternity under specific conditions. . . Commercial email advertisements law conformed to new federal law by SB 1457. . . SB 1436 established the Consumer Protection Against Computer Spyware Act to eliminate control of a consumer’s computer by unauthorized persons or entities. . . Information on the internet about sex offenders was provided by AB 488. . . Electronic reproductions of files, records, writings, photos, fingerprints or other instruments in the criminal justice agency’s official custody that were microphotographed or otherwise reproduced in a lawful manner are admissible as the original file, record, writing or other instrument under AB 883. . . Elder abuse crimes expanded by AB 3095 to include persons who reasonably should have known the victim was elderly or a dependent adult. . . AB 2208 requires a health care service plan and a health insurer to provide coverage to the registered domestic partner of an employee, subscriber, insured, or policyholder equal to the coverage provided to spouses. . . AB 782 authorizes parties to seal or redact specific financial information in family law pleadings, compelling new Judicial Council forms in place by July 1, 2005. . . Posthumously conceived children may be entitled to estate distribution under conditions set forth in AB 1910... AB 1956 permits diversion for defendants with cognitive development disabilities in certain misdemeanor cases.

30 Years of Excellence

2005-09-28T16:27:00.000-07:00

30 Years of Excellence
Spring 2004

LEGISLATIVE INTENT SERVICE is proud to announce that 2004 marks this company’s 30th Anniversary of doing business as the pre-eminent legislative research firm in the state and country. Founded in 1974 by attorneys Bill Keller and Tom Stallard, LEGISLATIVE INTENT SERVICE is used by attorneys, law firms, state and local agencies, and related legal professionals all over the country to provide the legislative history of enacted laws and regulations. This unique business has amassed an unparalleled private collection of over 3 million historical documents spanning three centuries of state and federal laws, regulations, and constitutional provisions that address every aspect of the law. LEGISLATIVE INTENT SERVICE also occupies the incomparable position of being the only private company cited for the materials it provides in over 48 published court opinions.

Currently situated in a restored historic building located at 712 Main Street in Woodland, California, just a few minutes outside of the state capitol in Sacramento, LEGISLATIVE INTENT SERVICE has maintained its small main street business enterprise serving the entire California legal community, including the top 50 law firms in the state, but with a national outlook that also draws its clients from all over the United States, including Washington D.C. The historical materials document the development of legislative measures in California and other states as well as in Congress, reaching back into the 19th Century for California and into the 18th Century for the federal government.

The Company’s staff includes attorneys, researchers and support staff and technicians. There are three staff attorneys: Dorothy Thomson, who has been with the company for 25 years and is an excellent legislative historian, Filomena Yeroshek, who joined the firm seven years ago after practicing law in Sacramento
for 10 years and also teaches a law school class on legislative history, and Maria Sanders, who came on board six years ago after practicing law and working as a senior contributing editor for Barclays Law Publishers. These three attorneys, with their combined practical experience, help clients daily with their research requests and write the reports accompanying the projects. Our research staff includes paralegals and specially trained researchers who are adept at researching and collecting historical documents from the Capitol’s public libraries, archives, legislative committees and private holding foundations that retain materials for past legislators and governors. Some of our researchers and support staff have been with us for 10 to 20 years!

Business & Professions Code 17200

2005-09-28T16:26:00.000-07:00

Business & Professions Code section 17200
Spring 2004

Business and Professions Code §17200 has always been popular to research for our clients because attorneys have found it to be useful under a number of different areas of the law pertaining to unfair business practices. You may already know that this section was derived from former Civil Code section 3369, which was enacted in 1933. The bill that enacted this former section went through the Legislature quickly, but we located documents indicating the legislation very likely arose from the devastating 1929 stock market crash, which left merchants overstocked with merchandise, forcing them into a ruthless competitive business environment and commercial abuses.

In 1963, there was an amendment to the 1933 law to add the word “unlawful” at the request of the Attorney General to concur with judicial trends from that time period.

While the section was re-enacted in 1977 without substantive change, it was amended one more time, in 1992, to add “any” before the word “unlawful” and to add “act or” before “practice and unfair.” The background to this last legislation noted that the bill was the result of three unrelated actions against grocery stores. It seems that the 1992 bill was the first step in reform of the state’s civil penalty laws to give retailers and law enforcement the flexibility to differentiate between inadvertent errors and more serious consumer fraud. Given the ongoing popularity of section 17200, it may not be a surprise to learn that there were bills pending in 2003 that proposed amendments to this section.

Recovery of Costs

2005-09-28T15:39:00.000-07:00

Recovering the Costs
Spring 2004

The fees paid by your firm that were incurred to have our company research legislative intent can be recovered if your position prevails in court. (Van de Kamp v. Gumbiner, 221 CA3rd 1260 (1990)).

Got MCLE?

2005-09-28T15:38:00.000-07:00

Got MCLE?
Spring 2004

Legislative Intent Service is an authorized provider of MCLE. We offer 1 hour of MCLE, free, on Legislative history and intent for 10 or more attorneys in your group.
Contact us to schedule a free presentation at your firm.

Join Us in the 21st Century

2005-09-28T15:37:00.000-07:00

Join Us in the 21st Century
Spring 2004

Legislative Intent Service is proud to announce that our clients can now download their legislative history research to their computers, or review them on a CD. We can post the materials on a secured website for our client’s download or we can copy the materials on a CD for the client’s convenience. These two types of delivery of legislative history materials provide choices for our clients who want a hardcopy or a digitized format, or both! The net posting and the CD still contain our letters of analysis and our declarations authenticating the materials.
Give us a call for a free CD sample!

Authenticating Documents

2005-09-28T15:36:00.000-07:00

Authenticating Legislative Documents
Spring 2004

Capitol offices of committees, authors, or other sources of crucial legislative documents are reluctant to certify the document copies available in their files. Thus, when an attorney seeks to have a court take judicial notice of these documents, authentication can become a concern. That is why Legislative Intent Service years ago developed a report format that incorporates a declaration by one of our attorneys who prepared the report on the bill. Our declaration can be coupled with a declaration by the submitting attorney, and provides a convenient mechanism for authenticating the material gathered on the bill. (See People v. Connor (2/6/2004, H02473))

Everyone is Talking

2005-09-28T15:33:00.000-07:00

Everyone is Talking
Spring 2004

When asked where he would like his company to be in five years, Tom Stallard stated that he would like to continue to ensure that all of our clients are served in the best way possible and that we always exceed their expectations. After 30 years, Legislative Intent Service has achieved that goal on personal and professional levels.

On a personal level, our clients have remained with us over these 30 years because of the service we provide to them. Their comments reflect the range of their satisfaction, from: “The most efficient use of our firm’s research dollars” to “We love your work!!” Recently, one client told us that merely the threat of obtaining legislative history from our firm was enough to cause the other side to settle out of court! Nothing is more gratifying to us than when we have made our clients happy.

On a professional level, we are regularly cited by the state courts, noting favorably the materials we provide to our clients. (See, for example, People v. Connor (2/6/2004, H02473), People ex rel. Kennedy v. Beaumont Investment Ltd.,111 Cal.App.4th 102 (2003, Sixth District), Board of Retirement v. Superior Court, 101 Cal. App. 4th 1062, 1070 (2002, Second District, Div. Six)). In People v. Connor, the trial court looked at the various committees’ analyses and also “summarized some of the exhibits in its decision.” (supra, fn. 3)