COUNTY LAW LIBRARY TASK FORCE REPORT

CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

II. COUNTY LAW LIBRARY STATUTORY SCHEME

III. CHANGING NATURE OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARIES

IV. FUNDING MECHANISM OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARIES

V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNTY LAW LIBRARIES

VI. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

VII. APPENDIX

2

3

Executive Summary

On September 16, 2003, Governor Gray Davis signed Assembly Bill 1095, marking the

first successful legislative effort to study and address the fiscal and structural health of

pertaining to county law libraries was limited to securing authorization to increase the

law library filing fee, an approach that would potentially provide short-term relief but

ultimately not remedy the continuing financial woes of county law libraries statewide.

AB 1095, authored by Assembly Member Ellen Corbett, increased the scope of

examining law libraries to focus on their condition on both an individual and a statewide

level. The bill recognized that the ability of county law libraries to be fiscally healthy and

Council with creating the County Law Library Task Force. The bill indicated that the task

force membership would consist of nine representatives appointed by three entities: the

judicial branch, the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), and the Council of

These appointed members of the County Law Library Task Force were charged with

accomplishing the following duties: (1) review the state of existing county law libraries,

(2) examine existing standards for county law library operations, (3) document the

funding mechanisms currently available for the maintenance and operation of county law

library facilities, and (4) recommend funding sources and financing mechanisms for

County Law Library Task Force divided the membership into three subcommittees that

The subcommittees convened and the task force began to discuss their findings in terms

of recommendations for law libraries. The task force was consensus-driven and it

proposed a new small claims fee and three savings options, including joint-purchasing

arrangements, multijurisdictional program options, and creative partnerships with selfhelp

centers. This final report will elaborate on these recommendations and also cover the

history and evolution of county law libraries, key challenges and concerns of county law

librarians and library patrons, an analysis of county law library funding mechanisms, and

further study needed for county law libraries in the future. Assessing this range of

envisioning the form that county law libraries could adopt to best serve Californians in

years to come. The state faces a significant challenge in funding county law libraries in

58 counties of varying size, location and resources. Therefore, an equally multifaceted

approach and solution is necessary.

4

county law libraries. As will be discussed, county law libraries are increasingly used by

self-represented litigants and other nonattorneys and play an important role in providing

Californians with resources for their legal affairs and in ensuring their access to justice.

County Law Library Statutory Scheme

The statutory structure of county law libraries is located in Business and Professions

Code sections 6300 to 6364. The original statute was crafted in 1891. The statutes outline

the main funding mechanism of county law libraries, facility and staff support, and access

for law library patrons. Also, they delineate the manner in which the county board of

supervisors interacts with the law library trustees. Lastly, they cover the creation,

membership and responsibilities of a board of law library trustees.

judiciary, to state and county officials, to members of the State Bar, and to all residents of

the county, for the examination of books and other publications at the library or its

the county law library or to cover special services such as photocopying or a messenger

service. With the exception of county officials and members of the judiciary, the board

judiciary, county officials, and members of the bar resident in the county, to pay such

dues as the board may fix for the privilege of removing books and other publications

of law library trustees may charge individual members of the bar resident in the county

The principal source of funding for county law libraries is a dedicated portion of the civil

filing fees. Business and Professions Code section 6321 provides that county law libraries

county in this state, of any civil action proceeding, or appeal . . . the party instituting such

proceeding, or filing the first papers, the sum of one dollar ($1) as costs, in addition to the

costs by no greater than $3 increments in any year.

In addition to this allotted portion of the civil filing fee, the county law library receives

financial support in the form of quarters and some basic services from the county. Under

5

which the law library is established shall provide sufficient quarters for the use of the

not provide quarters if the law library trustees determine that it has sufficient and surplus

The treasurer of the county holds all money collected for the county law library in a trust

fund or trust account. In addition, the board of supervisors may set apart a maximum of

$1,200 in any one fiscal year to go into the trust fund. The money is disbursed by the

board of law library trustees. Each board must submit an annual report for the preceding

fiscal year to the board of supervisors by August 15 of each year. This report includes the

condition of the trust fund, as well as full statements of all property, periodicals,

publications and money received.

In each county, a board of law library trustees governs the county law library. The

following sections outline the membership and responsibilities of the law library trustees.

Membership. The membership of the law library trustee board is dependent on the

number of superior court judges in each county. If no more than three judges are on the

bench in a county, then each of those three judges is ex officio a trustee. In counties with

more than three superior court judges, all judges elect four or five from their group to

serve as law library trustees. Regardless of the manner in which judges become law

library trustees, any judge, whether ex officio or elected, may designate a member of the

State Bar or a citizen of the county to act for the judge as trustee.

The chair of the board of supervisors is also ex officio a law library trustee. Similarly, at

the request of the chair, the board may appoint another member of the board of

supervisors, a member of the State Bar, or a citizen of the county as a replacement. The

board of supervisors appoints as many additional trustees as is necessary to create a board

of either six or seven members. There is a maximum of two residents of the county who

can serve as law library trustees who are not also a judge, member of the State Bar or

member of the board of supervisors.

Law library trustees appointed by the board of supervisors serve one-year terms. These

appointees serve until the first meeting of the board of supervisors in the succeeding

January. In addition, there are county-specific exceptions to law library trustee term

limits in San Diego and Los Angeles Counties. In all counties, the office of law library

trustee is an honorary position without salary or other compensation.

Responsibilities. Each board of law library trustees establishes and maintains a county

law library and may lease or construct quarters. The board may also establish and

maintain branches of the county law library. If the board elects to erect a library building

6

purchase books, publications and other personal property. Each board also controls the

appointment, salary and removal of any employee.

The Changing Nature of County Law Libraries

and history. The struggle to increase filing fees for county law libraries persists today.

However, extra demands from new patrons requesting different services also puts

pressure on county law libraries of a statutorily older era.

valuable to understand their changing nature, services and patrons over the last century.

The origin of county law libraries can be credited to William B. Olds of San Francisco.

Olds was an attorney who attempted to found a law library in 1853. The library was

essentially a law book collection purchased for $20,000 that was housed in City Hall.

While it would be open for general use, Olds hoped that the San Francisco Bar

Association members would voluntarily offer financial support for his investment. When

he was unable to garner enough support, he offered it to the State of California. In 1856,

purchased and delivered to the California State Library.

Almost 10 years later, in 1865, San Francisco bar leadership established the San

Francisco County Law Library Association to provide a law library for bar members. In a

few years, the library accumulated many volumes, but ultimately found that private funds

and membership dues would be insufficient to maintain and update the collection, let

alone hire a librarian. This need for financial backing, combined with a growing group of

patrons, led to a petition to the Legislature to create a public law library.

In March 1870, the Legislature enacted the San Francisco Law Library Act, which

In addition, the act required the City and County of San Francisco to provide facilities,

resources and services with monies from the General Fund. Lastly, it mandated that

members of the California bar as well as citizens of San Francisco would have full access

to the county law libraries for a monthly fee. With this act, California became the first

Four years later the San Jose Law Library was established by a statute similar to the

legislation that created the San Francisco Law Library. Meanwhile, Los Angeles

7

attorneys were experiencing the same difficulties that San Francisco faced before the San

Francisco Law Library Act passed. In the 1880s, Los Angeles Assemblyman John R.

Mathews decided to introduce a bill that would go beyond legislation affecting only one

regional jurisdiction. He proposed a statewide plan that would allow, but not require, the

creation of law libraries in every county. They would follow the same financial funding

scheme and draw from civil filing fees. The bill became law in March 1891, a little more

Although the creation of a public county law library was at the discretion of the county,

within one year of the passage of the bill 25 public county law libraries had been

established in California. In 1907, the Legislature codified county law library statutes,

recodified into the Business and Professions Code in 1941.

In the 40-year period from 1907 to 1947, amendments were made to permit the creation

of county law library branches and alter the manner in which board members were

appointed. Amendments relating to income included allowing the collection of fees in

municipal courts, permitting additional income from the board of supervisors, and

allowing the purchase of property for the county law library with trust fund monies.

However, it was only in June 1947 that the maximum law library portion of the civil

filing fee allotted to county law libraries increased from $1 to $2. Within 15 years, fees

increased by $1 increments twice, and by 1968 the fees were increased to a $5 maximum.

In 1972, the statutes dictating law library fee increases became more complex, with

counties with a population of more than 4 million people restricted to a $5 fee, while the

remaining counties were allowed a maximum fee of $7. Los Angeles County, with a

1980, the filing fee maximum was set at $12. Ten years later, legislation to raise the

maximum fee to $20 was successful. In addition, provisions were established to allow for

increases to the $20 maximum fee in $3increments, beginning in 1995. Today, county

County law libraries have changed dramatically over the past 30 years, and the needs of

county law libraries and their patrons have changed as well. During this time, the larger

county law libraries have evolved from the traditional world of card catalogs and books

to facilities that offer their users a range of technologies and media. This began in the

early 1970s with Westlaw and, later, expanded with LexisNexis, automated catalogs and

circulation systems. These technological advances have allowed for the addition of many

materials in nonbook formats such as microfilm and microfiche, sound and audio/video

recordings, CD-ROMs, and a proliferation of online resources.

8

member. Currently, full-time librarians operate many of these growing libraries, and

many rely heavily on computers. In some cases, these libraries have struggled to keep

pace with the fast growth of their communities, which were once rural or nonurban.

Today, county law librarians have very different backgrounds and qualifications than

their predecessors. Some law librarians have both a law and a graduate library degree.

Others have legal practice experience. Many law librarians participate in outreach

access to legal information through library Web pages. As a profession, law librarians

play a vital role in the extended legal community of lawyers, paralegals, legal document

assistants, unlawful detainer assistants, students, self-represented litigants, and the evergrowing

number of nonattorneys researching legal matters that pertain to their own

personal and business lives. In all, county law libraries and their patrons reflect many of

the social changes that have affected the entire nation over the past 30 years.

The services and users have changed significantly in the lifetime of county law libraries.

Originally, law libraries served the judiciary, legal community, and members of the bar.

Now there is a growing contingent of law library users who are self-represented litigants

and nonattorneys. In the Los Angeles County Law Library, 45 percent of the patrons are

It is important to note that not all of these nonattorney users are self-represented litigants.

While many of them are using the library to prepare for court appearances, a significant

number of patrons are utilizing the county law library for other purposes. Californians

from all backgrounds use their county law library to assist them with a variety of

purposes, such as researching federal law, drafting their own contracts and wills,

organizing businesses, managing rental property and even completing academic

county law libraries to prepare for criminal trials and appeals.

With an increase in nonattorney users, county law libraries are being relied on to perform

a multitude of different services. When those using county law libraries were

predominately attorneys, the role of law librarians involved maintenance of the library

and general assistance to its users. Now, county law librarians are often asked to be a

resource for legal matters by self-represented litigants and nonattorneys. In many

obtain legal information for litigants who plan to represent themselves in court as well as

for other nonattorneys who need to research various legal issues.

9

As evident in the history of California law libraries, private donations in years gone by

were barely sufficient to operate law libraries for a population of bar members. Today,

the challenges facing county law libraries are exacerbated by other factors such as the

declining revenue source, inflation, and the rising costs of legal publications,

subscriptions, and online databases. The effect of inflation only started to be addressed

legislatively in 1983, when law libraries realized the limited buying power of the

publications and subscriptions prevent many law libraries, which are already working

with a declining income, from updating and adding to their collections. Online legal

databases can be expensive and require state-of-the-art computer terminals and Internet

access, among other resources.

In 1991, California public county law libraries celebrated their centennial. In looking

back at the life span of county law libraries, one observation is especially evident: The

county law libraries existent at that century mark were very different institutions than

county law libraries at their inception or, indeed, even from county law libraries today. In

a 2001 study, Anne Marie Gold found that more than 9 out of 10 county law libraries get

at least 70 percent of their income from civil filing fees, and over half of all law libraries

that while almost all county law libraries augmented their filing fee at least once in the

last five years, 60 percent of county law libraries have had their overall filing fee income

last 50 years has predominately focused on ways to increase income through civil filing

fees. Yet, 7 out of 10 of those libraries experienced a 10 percent decrease in their revenue

from filing fees, while an additional 2 out of 10 libraries had a 25 percent decrease in

In the last century, county law libraries have seen major changes in their users, their

facilities and the price and formats of legal publications. The evolution of the libraries

also has been influenced by the increase of self-represented litigants and other

nonattorneys, as well as by the increased use of alternative dispute resolution services.

The result of these factors is rising costs and declining revenues in an institution whose

resources are increasingly in demand and whose funding mechanism is inadequate.

The Funding Mechanism of County Law Libraries

As previously mentioned, the statutes governing the funding of county law libraries

the law library portion of the fee was established at $1 in 1891, there have been numerous

requests for legislation to increase the law library portion of the civil filing fee.

10

Beginning in 1995, the statutes allowed county law libraries to request each year and add,

at the approval of the board of supervisors, a maximum of $3 to their portion of the civil

filing fee. The libraries are financed primarily through this funding mechanism, so it may

not be surprising that 90 percent of county law libraries receive 70 percent of their

whose fees include the portion dedicated to the law libraries continue to produce less

The County Law Library Task Force identified five current sources of funding for county

law libraries: (1) filing fees, (2) county general fund support, (3) county facilities and

services, (4) grants and (5) miscellaneous income.

Task force members recognized that, in general, filing fees are not adequate to meet the

needs of most county law libraries. They noted that while filing fees account for most of

the total county law library revenues, the cost of quarters and related services (utilities,

janitorial, security), which many counties provide, significantly widens the gap between

filing fee income and total library expense of many county law libraries. Currently,

broad range of filing fees is being discussed in the context of the Uniform Civil Fee

civil filing fees.

On a statewide level, county general fund support for law libraries continues to vary from

supervisors of nine surveyed counties contributed a total of $600,000 of additional

fund support has since been withdrawn, which contributed to the closure of the Plumas

resources has made it unlikely that counties can be expected to be a stable source of

additional funding in the future.

As noted above, there are variations in county-provided library facilities statewide. While

some counties provide quarters and services, other counties provide little to none of these

resources. For many county law libraries, estimates of the value of county-provided

resources equal 20 to 25 percent of filing fee revenues, which is approximately $6.5

would be challenging for many county law libraries to provide their own quarters.

However, considering the ongoing budget crisis, counties are experiencing difficulties in

providing sufficient quarters for their county law libraries. Currently, there is tension in

11

many counties between county law library boards and boards of supervisors over not only

the funding for facilities but also interpretations of the underlying statutes and their

implementation.

While most county law libraries receive no funding from grants, some libraries have

benefited from this type of funding. For example, a few county law libraries received

technology grants for public Internet terminals. However, even for those county law

libraries, grants do not constitute an appreciable portion of the overall funding of library

operations. In general, grants are designated for specific projects and are usually a

minimal source of income that cannot be used to fund operations.

With their continual decrease in filing fee revenue, most county law libraries have been

forced to explore miscellaneous revenue sources. The income from these funding sources

varies greatly from county to county. Typical sources include gaining interest on trust

funds and charging county law library patrons for using copying machines or conference

rooms. Other county law libraries have used revenue sources such as borrowing fees or

even rental of roof space for cell phone antennas. Some libraries engage in fundraising,

creativity in or success of implementing these miscellaneous funding strategies, the

income from these alternative revenue sources is minimal and insufficient to bridge the

gap between decreasing filing fee income and increasing expenses. The task force also

County law libraries can no longer afford to depend primarily on the current funding

mechanism. The task force agreed that it is inadequate and recognized the need to

identify better supplemental funding mechanisms for the future. A number of funding

options, both traditional and nontraditional, were discussed by the task force, resulting in

one new funding option and three saving options that the group could recommend with

consensus. Other funding and saving options considered by the task force are listed in the

appendix. The task force expressed frustration with its inability to identify additional

specific funding options. The scarcity of feasible solutions to the current funding

mechanism for law libraries refocused the task force on investigating savings options that

would help alleviate some of the financial problems that result from the current statutory

scheme. The following section addresses this approach.

12

Recommendations for County Law Libraries

California has perhaps the most extensive county law library system in the country. At

one end of the spectrum is the Los Angeles County Law Library, which serves a populace

of nearly 10 million, and at the other end is the Alpine County Law Library, which serves

a population of just over 1,200 people. This system has a multitude of challenges, but the

County Law Library Task Force believes it is a critical asset for the public that must be

strengthened and enhanced.

sources and financing mechanisms for support of county law library operations and

supplemental county law library funding. In addition to this funding recommendation, the

task force also focused on a number of cost savings measures and alternative program

options that can help maximize resources. They are: (1) joint-purchasing arrangements,

(2) regional program options and (3) creative partnerships with self-help programs.

The following sections explain the new small claims fee and three savings options

recommended by the task force. They are all ways to better utilize revenues, despite

possible fluctuations in filing fee income. Ultimately, these recommendations could apply

systemically to current as well as future county law libraries.

The task force observed that many law library patrons are small claims litigants, who

often rely heavily on county law libraries for support. Historically, no portion of the small

claims filing fees has been dedicated to county law libraries. Therefore, the task force

recommends increasing the small claims filing fee by $1 for every $1,000 in dispute. This

fee will be used exclusively as a source of funding for county law libraries.

County law libraries experience a significant challenge in maintaining a current and

comprehensive law library collection, while legal books, publications, periodicals, and

online legal databases continue to increase yearly in price. For example, the price of

is not only the price of legal materials that can be burdensome to law libraries, but also

the costs of paper, ink cartridges and other items that are necessary to daily operations.

According to a 2001 survey, two of the most heavily used services are copiers and

the law library.

The County Law Library Task Force recommends joint-purchasing as a means to provide

potential savings for county law libraries. On behalf of several judicial branch entities,

the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) issued an open invitation to vendors to

submit volume-purchasing proposals for various products and services. Currently, the

13

AOC has arrangements with Office Depot, Corporate Express, ADP, FedEx, and the

General Binding Company. These companies provide recycled paper, office supplies,

payroll services, shipping and binding services, respectively. In addition, the AOC is

currently soliciting companies for joint-purchasing contracts for toner, copy machines

and legal materials. To date, the list of approved accounts includes the trial courts,

appellate courts, the AOC, and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center. The AOC has

confirmed that county law libraries are eligible to participate in existing joint-purchasing

agreements and would also be eligible to take part in future contracts.

If county law libraries elect to utilize joint-purchasing, no library would be obligated to

libraries would be free to purchase from another vendor, especially if they were able to

secure more favorable prices on their own. Participating entities manage their own

accounts, and are able to separately negotiate for and purchase supplies at special rates.

Current savings from the rates being negotiated by the AOC are approximately 30

The AOC is currently investigating joint-purchasing options for legal publications and

subscriptions. Task force members have stated that law libraries would be very interested

in access to discounted print and digital law materials, and the task force believes that

county law libraries should bargain as a group for a judicial branch rate with companies

such as Thomson-West and LexisNexis. Again, county law libraries would be able to

pursue purchasing contracts individually if it is a more advantageous or preferable option.

As county law libraries differ greatly in their resources, joint-purchasing is recommended

as an opportunity for securing savings locally, rather than as a statewide prescription and

requirement.

Statutorily, county law libraries neither fall completely in the jurisdiction of the county

nor come under the judicial branch. Thus, when examining county law libraries on a

more difficult. These complexities challenge any attempt to generate standards that are

appropriate for all county law libraries. However, organizing law libraries by size

(usually corresponding with region) offers a productive start to establishing suitable

standards.

Generally, county law libraries can be categorized into small, medium and large libraries,

which often correspond with rural, suburban and urban regions. Each size and region has

its unique challenges. For example, small county law libraries in rural counties are often

geographically removed from librarians, personnel and extensive legal collections.

Moreover, inadequate revenues from civil filing fees result in limited funding, which

makes it impossible for many of these libraries to offer a full range of services to their

customers. As a result, some county law library patrons must travel long distances to use

14

more fully staffed and equipped law libraries. Yet, larger urban and suburban county law

libraries have their own challenges, too. They are often already overwhelmed with the

increased demands from self-represented litigants and other nonattorneys, as well as with

the decline of revenues that cover their library operations and services.

The task force therefore recommends a form of regional programs that utilizes joint

ventures between county law libraries that would benefit from collaborating and sharing

resources. Participation would be voluntary and strictly an option to county law libraries.

This could include the idea of establishing regional law library centers that would serve

less-populated counties. The task force also discussed creating uniform infrastructure for

locating and referring legal materials for all county law libraries, but especially to service

smaller, neighboring county law libraries. Ultimately, a multijurisdictional law library

system could be a way to adapt to the regional habits and needs of county law library

patrons, as well as more efficiently use limited law library funds.

Self-represented litigants and other nonattorneys represent half of the law library patrons

in many counties, and they use the county law library for many purposes, not just

preparing for civil litigation in state court. These patrons often request more than the

location of legal references; they also ask for legal advice and guidance. Regardless of

their qualifications, county law librarians are legally prohibited from giving legal advice.

However, experienced law librarians are able to lawfully assist patrons by eliciting the

information they need to direct them to the appropriate books, resources and referrals.

The County Law Library Task Force recognizes that there are some roles that county law

libraries cannot legally or financially fill. The task force recommends establishing

creative partnerships between self-help programs and county law libraries. Collaboration

between these two entities might more effectively serve the changing population of

county law library patrons. Although they are also unable to give legal advice, staff at

self-help centers would be able to provide, translate and assist with forms and

instructions; host workshops conducted by attorneys and court personnel; explain how to

access the court system; and even direct customers to the resources of the county law

library. A partnership of self-help centers and county law libraries could offer important

tools and the services for self-represented litigants and other nonattorneys to handle their

legal matters.

Looking to the Future

The County Law Library Task Force intends this report to be a catalyst for the future of

many factors, such as the statutory scheme and the changing nature of county law

libraries. Since the task force convened in March 2004, it has grappled with numerous

challenges; nevertheless, it was able to identify a new funding option and three savings

15

options that may help alleviate some of the pressures on county law libraries. The task

force unanimously agreed, however, that these recommended solutions must be regarded

as supplemental to the fiscal health of county law libraries, not central to their successful

operation.

In looking forward to more fiscally sound county law libraries that serve the needs of

their various patrons, the task force recommends further study to:

The task force has identified the items above as being fundamental to the future of county

law libraries. Further study into these topics is the next step to create the effective

changes necessary to provide Californians the legal resources and services that they need.

fee was $18, and only a $2 increase per year is permitted.

2003).

Supervisor, San Mateo Board of Supervisors (March 7, 2002) p. 6.

researching state and federal administrative law and regulations; researching federal law such as civil

rights, immigration, environmental, and bankruptcy law; doing tax and estate planning; researching small

claims, family law, and landlord-tenant matters; organizing new businesses and running existing

businesses; and checking the California Building Code and other resources unique to law libraries.

16

noted that the task force was aware of the SB 940 working group on enhanced collections and applauded its

efforts.

encyclopedias, newsletters, looseleaf services, and supplemented legal treatises.