California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB1524

Introduced
3/18/25  
Refer
3/24/25  
Report Pass
4/22/25  
Refer
4/24/25  
Refer
5/14/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Engrossed
6/2/25  
Refer
6/3/25  
Refer
6/11/25  
Report Pass
6/19/25  
Refer
6/19/25  
Report Pass
7/2/25  
Refer
7/2/25  

Caption

Courts: fees.

Impact

The legislation is expected to have significant implications for the financial operations of California's court system. By capping fees at the pro rata cost, it may lead to reduced revenues from service fees, which courts often depend on for funding. Additionally, this bill mandates that courts and the Judicial Council provide annual reports detailing fees charged and served, fostering transparency and accountability within the judicial system. The intention is to guarantee that citizens have reasonable access to court services without facing prohibitive costs.

Summary

Assembly Bill 1524 amends existing sections of the Government Code relating to court fees in California. The bill specifically prohibits courts from charging fees for services, such as videoconferencing, that exceed the pro rata cost of providing these services. It aims to ensure that any fees imposed do not create an undue financial burden on individuals engaging with the court system. The bill also requires that any new fee not explicitly authorized by statute must receive approval from the Judicial Council, enhancing oversight on fee assessments.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 1524 appears generally positive, particularly among advocacy groups and members of the public concerned about access to justice. Supporters argue that restricting court fees will facilitate easier access to legal processes, particularly for lower-income individuals. However, there may be concerns from some court administrators and officials who rely on these fees to fund court operations, indicating a mix of apprehensions about financial stability versus public accessibility.

Contention

Some notable points of contention include the potential financial implications for court funding, as the reliance on fees for maintaining certain services may be undermined by the requirement to limit charges. The necessity of approval from the Judicial Council for new fees may be perceived as bureaucratic by some court officials, potentially delaying responses to emerging costs or needs within the court system. Additionally, the reporting requirements may add administrative burdens to the Judicial Council and individual courts, which could complicate operational efficiency.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB1758

Court records: fees.

CA AB3282

Courts.

CA AB170

Courts.

CA SB170

Courts.

CA SB133

Courts.

CA AB133

Courts.

CA AB2283

Civil actions: electronic service.

CA SB662

Courts: court reporters.

CA AB1032

Courts: court interpreters.

CA AB1214

Courts: remote technology.

Similar Bills

CA AB1443

Court records.

CA AB212

Counties: recording fees.

CA AB1819

Inspection of public records: use of requester’s reproduction equipment.

CA AB3282

Courts.

CA AB2788

Public records.

CA AB2804

Public records.

CA SB1488

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District: Office of the BART Inspector General.

CA AB2225

State government: storing and recording: public records.