Subscribe to Our Newsletter
State of California Department of Justice
Rob Bonta
Attorney General
Attorney General
The Attorney General’s Opinion Unit is responsible for researching and drafting the formal opinions of the Attorney General. This Monthly Opinion Report lists all of the questions that are currently under consideration for formal opinions.
The Attorney General welcomes and solicits the views of all interested persons concerning the issues raised in any question submitted for an opinion. Views should be in writing and directed to the deputy assigned to prepare the opinion. Please follow the instructions under How to Submit Views on Assigned Opinion Requests in the right side bar menu. All views submitted before publication will be considered, but early submissions are greatly preferred. All submissions will be treated as public records subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.
By law, the Attorney General is authorized to issue formal opinions only to certain public officials. Please see our FAQs page for more information about how to request an opinion.
| Opinion No. | Question | Requested by | Assigned To |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23-501 |
Do federally recognized Indian tribes located within California, who have adopted laws that impose requirements similar to the standards imposed on state licensees by California’s regulatory framework, qualify as a “contracting state” as that term is defined in Business and Professions Code section 26300(b)? |
Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia |
Thomas 05/31/2023 |
| Opinion No. | Question(s) Presented | Conclusion(s) | Issued |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22-1002 |
Proposed Relator City of Moreno Valley has applied for leave to sue proposed Defendant David Marquez in quo warranto to remove him from his seat on the Moreno Valley City Council. The City asserts that Marquez forfeited his office because he was “absent without permission from all regular city council meetings for 70 days consecutively from the last regular meeting” he attended, in violation of Government Code section 36513(b). |
We conclude that substantial questions of law and fact exist as to whether Marquez was absent without permission from all regular city council meetings for the period specified in Government Code section 36513(b) and, as a result, forfeited his seat on the council. We also conclude that the public interest will be served by allowing the proposed quo warranto action to proceed. For these reasons, the application for leave to sue is GRANTED. |
05/18/2023 |
| 23-203 |
The City of California City has applied to this office for leave to sue KAREN MACEDONIO in quo warranto to remove her from public office as a member of the City Council. The application asserts that Macedonio, while serving on the City Council, assumed a second and incompatible public office as a member of the East Kern Health Care District Board of Directors, in violation of Government Code section 1099, and by doing so forfeited her seat on the City Council. |
We conclude that there is a substantial legal issue as to whether Macedonio is simultaneously holding incompatible public offices. Consequently, and because the public interest will be served by allowing the proposed quo warranto action to proceed, the application for leave to sue is GRANTED. |
05/18/2023 |
| 22-602 |
May the Legislature enact a statute authorizing the State Bar of California to regulate non-attorney legal document assistants? |
Yes. The Legislature may enact a statute authorizing the State Bar to regulate legal document assistants. |
05/25/2023 |
| Opinion No. | Question(s) | Assigned To |
|---|---|---|
| 23-501 |
Do federally recognized Indian tribes located within California, who have adopted laws that impose requirements similar to the standards imposed on state licensees by California’s regulatory framework, qualify as a “contracting state” as that term is defined in Business and Professions Code section 26300(b)? |
Thomas |
| 23-401 |
Is it permissible for prosecutors to issue criminal grand jury subpoenas for a future date when the Penal Code section 904.6 criminal grand jury has not yet been empaneled, but which will be empaneled by the witness appearance date? |
Duncan Lee |
| 23-302 |
Would it violate the incompatible public office prohibition of Government Code section 1099 (or other applicable state law) for an appointed public member of the City of San Diego Audit Committee to concurrently serve in any of the following capacities: (1) as an appointed public member of the San Diego Association of Governments Audit Policy Advisory Committee; (2) as an appointed public member of the San Diego Association of Governments TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee; or (3) as the Internal Auditor of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System? If so, would the San Diego City Council violate state law by appointing the same individual to these positions? |
Kentfield |
| 23-201 |
1. Does the probable cause standard for a grand jury criminal indictment state a lower standard of proof than preponderance of the evidence? 2. Must the word “shall” as used in Penal Code section 939.8, pertaining to the grand jury’s issuance of a criminal indictment, be construed as “should” in order to avoid possible constitutional infirmity? |
McCarroll |
| 23-103 |
Whether state law authorization, under an agreement pursuant to Chapter 25 of Division 10 of the Business and Professions Code, for medicinal or adult-use commercial cannabis activity, or both, between out-of-state licensees and California licensees, will result in significant legal risk to the State of California under the federal Controlled Substances Act. |
Kentfield |
| 23-102 |
1. Is it a violation of the Brown Act for a mayor to deliver a “State of the City” address to attendees at a fee-only private event specifically held to facilitate the address, where all or a quorum of fellow council members are in attendance? 2. Does the “conference exception” of the Brown Act apply? 3. Does the “community meetings exception” of the Brown Act apply? |
McCarroll |
| 23-101 |
Do the disclosure and recusal provisions of SB 1439 apply to political contributions made before January 1, 2023? |
Thomas |
| 22-1201 |
Given that California wineries applying for a direct shipper license in another state are often asked to provide a criminal record check in connection with that application, if a California winery owner or manager obtains a criminal record check from the California Department of Justice, would furnishing that criminal record check—or notification no such record exists—to another state’s alcohol control agency constitute a violation of California Penal Code sections 11121, 11125, 11142, or 11143? |
Duncan Lee |
| 22-701 |
1. Does Penal Code section 904.6 require a court to impanel a grand jury at the district attorney’s request? 2. Do the prosecution’s discovery obligations under Brady and Penal Code section 1054.1 include criminal grand jury materials? |
Bidart |
| 22-402 |
Is the governing body of the San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools (SANDABS), a lobbying association within the meaning of Government Code section 53060.5, a “legislative body” within the meaning of the Brown Act, Government Code section 54952? |
Medeiros |
| 21-1001 |
1. May a county adopt policies to address the environmental impacts of pesticides in a Local Coastal Program without violating Food and Agriculture Code section 11501.1? 2. May a county adopt ordinances to regulate pesticides in the coastal zone to implement Local Coastal Program requirements? |
Duncan Lee |
| Opinion No. | Question(s) | Assigned To |
|---|---|---|
| 23-402 |
Was the Lodi City Council seat now occupied by Ramon Yepez lawfully vacated so as to permit Mr. Yepez's appointment to that seat? |
Bidart |
| 22-802 |
May Paul Keefer serve simultaneously as a member of the Sacramento County Board of Education and as the President, Chief Executive Officer, and Executive Director of the Pacific Charter Institute, a charter management organization which operates charter schools in Sacramento and other California counties? |
Medeiros |