[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-322247-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-322247-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":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","practical-training-of-law-students-program-rules-proposal-public-comment-chart-attachment-e","Practical Training of Law Students Program Rules Proposal - Public Comment Chart Attachment E","","Public comment chart attachment E for a proposed rule change to the Practical Training of Law Students Program (PTLS). The table records multiple commenters and their positions regarding eligibility requirements, including Evidence and Civil Procedure course enrollment and the scope of proposed modifications. Working group responses largely state “No change,” addressing concerns about virtual supervision by a supervising attorney and eligibility timing for students after bar exam results. The comments also request promotion and expansion of PTLS and reconsideration of exclusions for apprentices.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@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/practical-training-of-law-students-program-rules-proposal-public-comment-chart-attachment-e/322247/",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/practical-training-of-law-students-program-rules-proposal-public-comment-chart-attachment-e/322247.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Sophia Brooks","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-11","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",7,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What do commenters say about Evidence and Civil Procedure requirements for PTLS applicants?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Commenters argue the requirements should remain, stating the courses are foundational to admissibility and litigation basics. The working group generally responds that the proposal would remove these requirements at the programmatic level and that such course work is not needed for hands-on PTLS training.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How do commenters address virtual court appearances and supervising attorney supervision?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Some comments discuss allowing law students to appear with a supervising attorney present virtually, referencing Cal. Rules of Court 9.42(d)(3). The working group response indicates this issue is beyond the scope of the currently proposed modifications.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What is the working group’s position on eligibility after receiving results from a first bar exam?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Commenters request PTLS eligibility to continue after receiving results from a first bar exam until passage. The working group response states that allowing students to remain after first results is beyond the scope of the proposed modifications.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},322247,1790241042,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},"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":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"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":55,"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":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},962084925636,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","Practical Training of Law Students Program Rules Proposal: Public Comment Chart Attachment E  \n\n| Name / Affiliation | Position on\u003Cbr>Proposed\u003Cbr>Rule | Comment (Verbatim) | Working Group Response to Comment |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Anonymous | D |  | No change. |\n| Anonymous | AM | PTLS applicants should remain required to have completed or be enrolled in Evidence & Civil Procedure, as they are foundational cornerstones to one's understanding of the fundamentals of the practice of law in California. These course are integral to the very basics of what is admissible versus inadmissible, and filing deadlines and procedures.\u003Cbr>However, with respect to Cal. Rules of Court 9.42 (d)(3), the proposed modification is to remove the requirement of \"personal presence of the supervising attorney\" to allow law students to appear before the court with their supervising attorney present in a virtual fashion. Virtual appearances are modernly more commonplace, and therefore supervising attorneys should be permitted to directly and immediately supervise a provisionallytrained law student on such virtual platforms.\u003Cbr>Finally, students who have reached expiration of eligibility (by the date of results after first time taking the Bar) should be permitted to be eligible for the PTLS program until Bar exam passage, so as to encourage the pursuit of licensure. | No change. The working group appreciates the thoughtful response, but respectfully disagrees with the commenter.\u003Cbr>Under the current rule, students need not have completed courses in Evidence and Civil Procedure, but need only be enrolled in them when they apply to the PTLS program. Based on the experience of those students who participate in PTLS who have not yet completed these courses, and the experience in other states where these courses are not required for participation in programs similar to PTLS, the working group disagrees that this course work is needed for students to be able to participate in hands-on training in the PTLS program.\u003Cbr>The proposal that Rules of Court 9.42(d)(3) be modified to allow a PTLS student to appear in court with their supervising attorney present through video appearance, and that students be allowed to remain in the PTLS program after receiving results from their first bar exam, until they have passed, are beyond the scope of the currently proposed modifications. |\n| Anonymous | A |  | No change. |\n| Kelly Lynn\u003Cbr>Campbell-McKay | A | I am a Law Student and have been in the Practical Training for Law Students program since my second year. The opportunities to learn and apply my understanding of the law in the program have been invaluable. It is a surprise to me that students of the law on alternative paths such as the LOSP have not had the same learning opportunities as Law students, and I feel like the lack of practical training is a detriment to the legal community as a whole. The most astute legal minds I have worked with all have clerked with attorneys and judges during | No change. |\n\nPractical Training of Law Students Program Rules Proposal: Public Comment Chart Attachment E  \n\n| Name / Affiliation | Position on\u003Cbr>Proposed\u003Cbr>Rule | Comment (Verbatim) | Working Group Response to Comment |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  | their time at law school, and the PTSL program should be promoted and expanded as much as is practicable for the benefit of the profession. |  |\n| Anna L. Capria | A | This seems like a great opportunity to increase access to law background to make it more equitable for all. | No change. |\n| Tanya Asim Cooper / Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law | AM | Evidence and Civil Procedure should remain requirements for the PTLS program. In our law clinic, certified law students represent victims of domestic violence and human trafficking in California courts and engage in all aspects of litigation. They need these courses to represent clients. | No change. The working group appreciates the thoughtful response, but respect","cbCaibhclzIuL83n","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaibhclzIuL83n","pdf",209234,11,"English","# Public Comment Chart Attachment E\n## Proposed Rule Positions and Comments\n## Working Group Responses","[{\"question\":\"What do commenters say about Evidence and Civil Procedure requirements for PTLS applicants?\",\"answer\":\"Commenters argue the requirements should remain, stating the courses are foundational to admissibility and litigation basics. The working group generally responds that the proposal would remove these requirements at the programmatic level and that such course work is not needed for hands-on PTLS training.\"},{\"question\":\"How do commenters address virtual court appearances and supervising attorney supervision?\",\"answer\":\"Some comments discuss allowing law students to appear with a supervising attorney present virtually, referencing Cal. Rules of Court 9.42(d)(3). The working group response indicates this issue is beyond the scope of the currently proposed modifications.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the working group’s position on eligibility after receiving results from a first bar exam?\",\"answer\":\"Commenters request PTLS eligibility to continue after receiving results from a first bar exam until passage. The working group response states that allowing students to remain after first results is beyond the scope of the proposed modifications.\"}]","Practical Training of Law Students Program Rules Proposal - Public Comment Chart Attachment E | PDF",1789962229,28]