Assembly Judiciary Committee advances package of bills on victims’ rights, veterans protection, pay transparency and court processes

SACRAMENTO — The Assembly Judiciary Committee on Thursday advanced a package of bills touching criminal procedure, consumer protection, veterans’ services, labor transparency and civil litigation rules, moving each to the Appropriations Committee for further review.

The committee voted to advance a continuation of the 2021 survivors’‑rights change, Senate Bill 29, which would keep in place a statutory rule allowing recovery of pain and suffering after a claimant dies. Senator Laird, the bill’s author, told the committee the 2021 law corrected a long‑standing injustice and argued evidence to date does not show it raised malpractice insurance rates. “This just ensures that victims who endure intense pain and suffering are not died and denied their justice because they didn't live long enough, to realize it,” Senator Laird said.

Supporters included family members of patients who described care failures they say led to death and to missed opportunities for accountability. Erica Cole, who testified about her mother’s death after what she said was medical negligence, told the committee: “This bill is about accountability and protecting all future patients and giving families the opportunity to honor the suffering of their loved ones who are no longer here to fight for themselves.” Opposition came from medical, hospital and business groups concerned about potential impacts on clinics and community health centers; several asked that medical‑malpractice cases be excluded or that additional data be required before extending the law.

Also advanced was SB 694, aimed at limiting fees charged by unaccredited, for‑profit firms that assist veterans in preparing initial Veterans Affairs claims. The bill would align California law with federal rules that restrict who may charge fees for preparing or representing veterans on VA claims and strengthen penalties and consumer protections state‑level enforcement can pursue. Authors and a long list of veterans service organizations said the change is needed because some for‑profit firms charge large percentages of benefit increases and are not subject to VA accreditation, creating a risk of exploitation. “Better than nothing is not a policy,” Jim Zenner of the California Association of County Veterans Service Officers told the committee, urging a robust enforcement framework and more public funding for county veteran service officers.

Opponents — including private firms that assist veterans with claims — said many veterans seek alternatives when county or VA resources are insufficient. Several opponents said they want to be regulated and subject to consumer protections (disclosure, fee caps, contingency‑only fees tied to benefit increases and a private right of action), and asked the Legislature to build a pathway to accreditation or state registration that preserves choice while guarding against predatory practices. The committee advanced the bill with the sponsor’s commitment to continue negotiations on implementation details.

The panel also advanced measures on several other topics:

- SB 303 (public‑workplace bias mitigation): Narrowed in committee to clarify that good‑faith admissions made during anti‑bias trainings will not automatically be treated as FEHA violations, and to ensure the bill does not block discipline for actual unlawful discrimination. Matthew Jackson of the Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office said the bill is meant to create safer spaces for employees to confront bias without chilling prevention efforts.

- SB 464 (state pay‑data reporting): The committee moved forward a bill that would expand pay‑data reporting to specified state workers, responding to recommendations from the California Reparations Task Force and advocates who say more granular workforce data are needed to address occupational segregation and promote equity.

- SB 37 (attorney advertising): The committee advanced an update to attorney‑advertising rules that adds consumer remedies for deceptive ads and clarifies joint‑advertising practices. Supporters said existing enforcement — largely complaint driven through the State Bar — lacks deterrent effect. Walker Advertising and other joint‑advertising businesses told the committee they support stronger enforcement but sought amendments to avoid unintended barriers to outreach to underserved, non‑English speaking consumers.

- SB 645 (peremptory challenges in civil cases): The bill extends Batson/Wheeler‑style review to certain civil matters that raise civil‑rights or discrimination issues, keeping criminal‑case precedent separate while expanding protections in sensitive civil cases.

- SB 697 (water rights investigations): The committee advanced modernization of the state water board’s stream adjudication procedures to allow use of modern remote technology in certain fact‑finding tasks.

- SB 313 (birth certificate privacy): The panel advanced a privacy bill moving parents’ birthplace data from the public portion of birth records into a confidential section accessible only by authorized users. Authors said the change is aimed at protecting families from misuse of identifying information.

- SB 642 (equal pay act updates): The committee advanced changes to the California Equal Pay Act to harmonize the statute of limitations and the definition of wages with federal standards, broaden the wage definition to include bonuses and equity, and tighten pay‑scale posting requirements so employers must provide a good‑faith estimated range.

What the committee did not do: the measures were advanced to Appropriations for fiscal review and possible amendments; none were adopted as final law in the hearing. Committee members repeatedly urged sponsors and stakeholders to continue negotiations on implementation details — especially on data reporting, disclosure of confidential settlement information, and the mechanics of regulating firms that assist veterans with VA claims.

Votes at a glance (committee action)

- SB 29 (Laird) — Motion carried, bill moved to Appropriations for further review. - SB 294 (Reyes) — Motion carried, bill moved to Appropriations. - SB 697 (Laird) — Motion carried, bill moved to Appropriations. - SB 37 (Umbra) — Motion carried, bill moved to Appropriations. - SB 645 (Umbra) — Motion carried, bill moved to Appropriations. - SB 303 (Smallwood‑Cuevas) — Motion carried, bill moved to Appropriations. - SB 464 (Archuleta) — Motion carried, bill moved to Appropriations (amended). - SB 694 (Archuleta, coauthor Schiavo) — Motion carried, bill moved to Appropriations. - SB 313 (Cervantes) — Motion carried, bill moved to Appropriations. - SB 642 (Limon) — Motion carried, bill moved to Appropriations.

Next steps and context

All bills forwarded to Appropriations will receive a fiscal analysis and may be amended there; any bill that clears Appropriations could go to the full Assembly for floor votes. Committee members were most insistent about adding enforceable data and consumer‑protection mechanisms where the bills create reporting requirements or regulate third‑party service providers. Several members said they support subject‑matter aims while urging clearer disclosure, caps and reporting to prevent circumvention or repeated sunsets.

Reporting and data

Members repeatedly pressed sponsors to improve data collection where applicable — for example, to require the Judicial Council or another neutral body to compile settlement information linked to SB 29, or to mandate reporting language that would prevent confidentiality agreements from entirely shielding settlement counts from legislative review. “If we don’t require the settlement data to be shared,” one member warned, “we’ll be back here in 2030 having the same conversation.”

The committee’s action advances a broad set of proposals that could reshape how California approaches victims’ compensation, pay equity and veterans’ access to benefits. All measures will undergo additional fiscal and policy review before reaching the Assembly floor.

(Reporting in this article is based on witness statements and committee debate recorded on the hearing transcript; direct quotes are attributed to witnesses in their appearances before the committee.)