[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-147236-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-147236-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","attachment-4-comments-received-attorney-fingerprinting-rule","Attachment 4 - Comments Received - Attorney Fingerprinting Rule","","Attachment 4 compiles public comments on a proposed rule requiring attorneys to submit or be re-fingerprinted, with aggregated totals by comment codes. Submissions criticize the rule as unnecessary or redundant, impose financial burdens by requiring full fingerprinting costs, and raise privacy and constitutional concerns including Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment issues. Commenters also question reliability of fingerprint data, due process protections, implementation clarity, cybersecurity safeguards, and access burdens for out-of-state and overseas attorneys.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/attachment-4-comments-received-attorney-fingerprinting-rule/147236/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/attachment-4-comments-received-attorney-fingerprinting-rule/147236.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Aria","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-11","2026-08-26",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":30},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"Why do commenters argue the fingerprinting rule is unnecessary or redundant?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"Many commenters contend the rule serves no legitimate purpose because attorneys were already fingerprinted for admission, employment, or other license processes, making re-fingerprinting redundant.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"What constitutional and privacy concerns were raised?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"Commenters claim the rule violates constitutional rights, including Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment protections, and constitutes an invasion of privacy due to broad access to fingerprint images and confidential information.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"How do commenters describe practical burdens from the proposed process?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"Commenters argue the process is burdensome for out-of-state and overseas attorneys, require travel where Live Scan is limited, and lack clarity on procedures and exceptions for unreadable or unavailable fingerprints.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},147236,1787760615,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":30,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":79,"read_time":144},2336464648322,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/2200025388227c56fec?_k=1778556882303663488","ATTACHMENT 4  \n\n| CODE | DESCRIPTION | TOTAL COMMENTS PER CATEGORY |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| BR. | The rule creates an unnecessary burden on both the attorney as well as the State Bar | 548 |\n| No PP | The rule serves no legitimate purpose and is generally unnecessary. | 512 |\n| AF! | The rule is redundant and unnecessary because all attorneys were already fingerprinted.\u003Cbr>Many attorneys were also already fingerprinted for other purposes, such as for employment or other license applications/renewals. | 697 |\n| $$ | The rule imposes a harsh financial burden on attorneys by requiring them to pay full fingerprinting costs.\u003Cbr>The rule will also cost the State Bar considerable money to implement, taking funds away from other valuable State Bar services. | 413 |\n| $M | Since re-fingerprinting is only necessary due to the State Bar’s failure to act in accordance with statutory requirements, the State Bar should bear all costs of re-fingerprinting. | 362 |\n| Unconst. | The rule violates a number of constitutional rights, including the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. | 60 |\n| PRY. | The rule constitutes an invasion of privacy. | 278 |\n| SCY | Commenters expressed concerns regarding the fact the State Bar and the government will have unfettered access to their fingerprint images and other confidential information.\u003Cbr>Many expressed specific concern that the federal government would be retaining or having access to their fingerprint images. | 42 |\n| RR\\# | There are already criminal reporting requirements for prosecutors, courts, and attorneys, making the SAN system unnecessary. | 150 |\n| Alt. opts | Commenters urged staff to consider alternative means to discover criminal history information, such as yearly oath cards by attorneys. | 59 |\n\n\n| CODE | DESCRIPTION | TOTAL COMMENTS PER CATEGORY |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| OOS B. | The language of the rule states that attorneys must submit fingerprint images to the DOJ via Live Scan technology, which is only available in California. Accordingly, attorneys stressed that this creates an unfair burden for out-of-state attorneys to travel to California to get fingerprinted. | 81 |\n| Foreign\\# | The rule creates an undue burden on attorneys residing overseas, as they may not have access to fingerprinting locations. | 25 |\n| EX\\# | Commenters suggested that the rule should apply to only select groups of attorneys, including but not limited to, attorneys who have committed wrongdoing , newly licensed attorneys, or attorneys who have been practicing for many years. | 61 |\n| >Inactive | The rule will encourage attorneys to either remain inactive or go inactive. | 8 |\n| Unrel. | Commenters indicated that fingerprint information is not a reliable identifier. | 20 |\n| WN\\# | Commenters expressed curiosity as to what prompted this proposed rule. | 30 |\n| OB\\# | Commenters were concerned about the fact that State Bar will receive arrest information, which is not a reportable offense. | 125 |\n| IA= | Commenters indicated that ALL attorneys should be required to be re-fingerprinted. | 4 |\n| 6054\\# | Bus. & Prof. Code 6054, as recently amended by SB 36, authorizes, but does not obligate, the State Bar to re-fingerprint active attorneys. | 30 |\n| EX1989 | Prior to January 1, 1989 , the State Bar had no obligation to have applicant fingerprints be retained by the DOJ.\u003Cbr>Accordingly, commenters felt that attorneys who applied for admission prior to this date should be exempt from the rule. | 4 |\n| 1\\# | It is not clear if this is a one time or an ongoing requirement. | 40 |\n\n\n| CODE | DESCRIPTION | TOTAL COMMENTS PER CATEGORY |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Implem. | Commenters expressed concern that the rule lacks clarity on process and procedures for the re-fingerprinting processes. | 15 |\n| Dis\\# | Commenters expressed concern for the fact that the rule does not provide exceptions for those attorneys whose fingerprints are unreadable, who are unable to provide fingerprints, or who do not have fingerprints because of a d","cbCaihZywt5o4p8U","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihZywt5o4p8U","pdf",2518397,169,"English","# Attachment 4\n## Comments by Category Codes\n## Implementation, Privacy, and Due Process Concerns","[{\"question\":\"Why do commenters argue the fingerprinting rule is unnecessary or redundant?\",\"answer\":\"Many commenters contend the rule serves no legitimate purpose because attorneys were already fingerprinted for admission, employment, or other license processes, making re-fingerprinting redundant.\"},{\"question\":\"What constitutional and privacy concerns were raised?\",\"answer\":\"Commenters claim the rule violates constitutional rights, including Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment protections, and constitutes an invasion of privacy due to broad access to fingerprint images and confidential information.\"},{\"question\":\"How do commenters describe practical burdens from the proposed process?\",\"answer\":\"Commenters argue the process is burdensome for out-of-state and overseas attorneys, require travel where Live Scan is limited, and lack clarity on procedures and exceptions for unreadable or unavailable fingerprints.\"}]","Attachment 4 - Comments Received - Attorney Fingerprinting Rule | PDF",426]