Illustrative stock photograph by RDNE Stock project, used under the Pexels License. The models are not people involved in the legislation or campaign disputes.

Enacted September 27, 2026; ordinary effective date January 1, 2027. No implementation results are established.

What AB 2039 does, and when it starts

California Assembly Bill 2039 is now enacted as Chapter 574. Governor Gavin Newsom approved the measure on September 27, 2026, and it was filed with the Secretary of State that day. It changes several rules affecting lawyer solicitation, client financing, reporting of professional misconduct and the consequences of qualifying convictions.

The law is not yet in effect. Under Article IV, section 8(c)(1) of the California Constitution, the ordinary effective date is January 1, 2027. The Governor’s September 27 legislative update and the chaptered bill text do not identify an urgency clause or another special effective-date provision. Clients, attorneys and referral businesses therefore have time to review the new requirements, but they should not treat AB 2039 as an already-operating enforcement system.

The measure does not eliminate every questionable referral, advertising practice or lawyer-client financial arrangement. Its provisions address defined conduct and impose specific procedural conditions. The practical question is not whether every referral is unlawful. It is whether a person or business is being paid to procure legal business, whether a client-financing arrangement is being used without the required disclosures, or whether a qualifying act has resulted in a conviction.

The existing line between prohibited capping and lawful recommendations

Business and Professions Code section 6151 concerns an agent acting for consideration to procure business for an attorney. That concept is narrower than the ordinary use of the word “recommendation.” A friend who suggests a lawyer, a professional who makes a permitted referral, and an advertisement that simply identifies legal services are not automatically unlawful.

Section 6152(c) preserves recommendations allowed under the professional-conduct rules. That exception matters because the law is not written to prohibit ordinary communication about lawyers. A referral can raise questions when money, control or an organized solicitation arrangement is involved, but the existence of a recommendation alone does not answer those questions.

Public enforcement is not the same as private recovery

AB 2039 adds a new public-enforcement civil penalty in Business and Professions Code section 6153. The Attorney General, a city attorney or a county counsel may bring an enforcement action seeking the statutory $25,000 penalty per violation. The statute treats each retained client and each filed claim separately for purposes of the penalty.

That structure can make the number of alleged violations legally significant, but it does not create an automatic payment to every person who believes a solicitation rule was violated. A public civil penalty is imposed through an enforcement process brought by an authorized government official. It is different from a private claim for damages, restitution or another remedy.

A conviction, not a complaint, triggers summary disbarment

Business and Professions Code section 6152.5 creates a conviction-based summary-disbarment procedure. The procedure is triggered by a qualifying criminal conviction, not merely by an accusation, bar complaint or civil filing.

The covered circumstances include a felony conviction under section 6152. They also include a misdemeanor when the court makes a finding, or the record establishes, that the lawyer acted knowingly and for financial gain. The specified Supreme Court process is based on a certified conviction. That evidentiary requirement is important: an allegation is not a conviction, and a complaint is not a disciplinary finding.

An appeal does not prevent an interim suspension under the statute. That is an interim protective measure connected to the qualifying conviction; it is not a declaration that every allegation made before trial has been proved.

Loans and advances must stand apart from representation

AB 2039 adds Business and Professions Code section 6149.6, which addresses covered loans and financial assistance from an attorney or law firm to a client or prospective client. A prospective client may be covered when representation is reasonably anticipated.

The arrangement must be documented in a separate written contract rather than folded into the retainer agreement. The disclosure must identify the amount financed, repayment terms and contingencies, fees, costs and charges, and applicable conflicts. Before the agreement is executed, the attorney must advise the client in writing that the client may seek independent legal or financial advice. The client must provide written informed consent.

The law also provides a five-business-day cooling-off period after the required disclosures. A client may waive that period in writing after receiving the disclosures. The waiver should not be treated as permission to omit the information itself.

Two details deserve particular attention. First, the statutory definition excludes ordinary litigation costs allowed under existing rules. That exclusion does not place every advance outside the law. Second, the interest prohibition expressly reaches any loan or advanced funds used for case expenses or other purposes. Interest on an advance cannot be treated as permissible merely because the money was used to pay litigation expenses.

The statute also bars terms that improperly compromise the client’s independence. Legal strategy, settlement decisions and continued representation cannot be conditioned on accepting or repaying the loan. A lawyer may not use financing to control whether a client accepts a settlement, pursues a strategy or remains represented.

Potential remedies can include restitution, rescission or reformation, injunctive relief, discipline and a statutory civil penalty of $15,000 per offense where the statutory conditions are met. Those remedies are not automatic payouts. The facts, proof and applicable procedure still matter.

New protection for good-faith reporting

New section 6090.9 protects certain good-faith reports of professional misconduct. The protection covers clients and professional relationships, including individuals who disclose information when they reasonably believe it reveals a violation of the State Bar Act, the California Rules of Professional Conduct or another applicable law, rule or regulation governing attorney conduct.

The provision addresses retaliation. It can be relevant when an employer, law firm, attorney or person acting on their behalf retaliates, or believes a person may disclose information in good faith. The section is intended to operate consistently with, and provide protections at least as strong as, Labor Code section 1102.5.

The protection has an important boundary. Section 6090.9 does not authorize an attorney to reveal client confidences beyond what is allowed by Rule 1.6. Confidentiality obligations remain in place. A person considering a report should therefore distinguish information they may lawfully disclose from protected communications and should consider obtaining independent advice about that question.

What clients can check before signing

Before signing a retainer or accepting financing connected to legal services, a client can ask:

• Who approached me, and on whose behalf?
• Does the person making the referral receive money or another benefit?
• Is the referral a permitted recommendation, or is someone being paid to procure business?
• Are loan terms documented separately from the retainer?
• Do the documents disclose the amount financed, repayment terms, fees, costs, charges and conflicts?
• Was written notice of the option to seek independent legal or financial advice provided? Was the cooling-off period provided or expressly waived in writing?
• Do I have copies of messages, advertisements, referral agreements, loan documents and payment records?

Separate Texas campaign resources

Stop Legal Bullying examines different disputes in Texas. The Damn Lawyers investigation and its reporting on the Allison family probate case and the probate plot present allegations and records about those matters. They are not evidence against Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur or any California official.

The campaign’s discussions of fee harvesting and the probate fee machine question financial incentives in separate cases. AB 2039 is a California law with its own conditions; it does not decide those Texas allegations.

Readers can also explore resources for probate victims, court-accountability resources and the campaign’s investigation. These materials address separate matters.

The campaign’s separate filings ask readers to examine how fees accumulate. Another concerns advice about continuing litigation. A third raises questions about the terms of representation. These are allegations, not disciplinary findings.

Other submissions address professional connections when choosing counsel and independent representation during estate administration. One asks whether a client understood the fee agreement. A separate filing concerns an arbitrator’s disclosures. Each needs its own evidence review; none establishes facts about the people or institutions discussed above or implies their endorsement.

Other campaign proposals concern the arbitration trap and Robin’s Law. Those are distinct from the enacted California measure. Linking them here does not imply that Zbur or another California official endorses the campaign.

This article is general information, not individual legal advice. AB 2039 is enacted but is not yet in effect; its ordinary effective date is January 1, 2027.

Sources: California AB 2039, Chapter 574 of the Statutes of 2026, sections 2–5; Business and Professions Code sections 6151 and 6152; California Constitution, Article IV, section 8(c)(1); Governor’s legislative update of September 27, 2026. Chaptered bill text rechecked October 10, 2026. The January 1, 2027 date follows the ordinary constitutional effective-date rule; implementation results are not yet established.