By Robert Cota
For nearly 50 years, I served as a pastor, walking alongside people in their hardest and most transformative moments—families struggling to stay together, young adults choosing between second chances and second strikes, and men behind bars searching for redemption. That work didn’t end at the pulpit. I’ve also served as a mentor through California Youth Outreach, the California Conservation Corps, and the California Department of Corrections—helping gang-impacted and formerly incarcerated youth build new lives with purpose, dignity, and support.
I’ve seen firsthand how powerful it is when someone has access to the right tools at the right time. And I’ve also seen what happens when those tools are out of reach—when people fall through the cracks of broken systems, sometimes permanently. That’s why I’m speaking out today in opposition to Section 2 of Assembly Bill 931.
Section 2 might not sound like much on paper. It’s a provision that would restrict California lawyers from partnering with certain legal service providers—especially those based out of state or operating under more affordable business models. But in reality, it would cut off one of the few legal lifelines left for communities already struggling to get help.
According to the State Bar of California’s 2024 Justice Gap Study, nearly 75% of California households experience a civil legal issue each year, yet 85% receive no or inadequate legal help. In low-income communities, immigrant communities, and among the formerly incarcerated, those numbers are even worse. Often, it’s not that people don’t want help—it’s that they don’t know where to turn, or simply can’t afford it.
The legal system can be intimidating enough for people with resources. For someone just released from prison, or a young parent fighting eviction, or a small business owner who doesn’t speak fluent English, it can feel impossible to navigate. That’s where more affordable legal options can make all the difference. They allow people to get help from attorneys who understand their needs, speak their language, and offer services in ways that are accessible and affordable.
Section 2 of AB 931 would take those options away—even when they’re helping people stay housed, keep their families together, or move forward after incarceration. And there’s no good reason to do so. A 2025 report from Stanford Law School found that states like Utah and Arizona, which have embraced similar models, are seeing increased innovation, lower costs, and expanded legal access—especially for underserved populations.
So why would California move to shut these services down?
I still volunteer my time visiting incarcerated individuals. Many of them are preparing to re-enter society and desperately need help sorting out housing, employment, child custody, or expungement issues. If we truly want people to succeed after incarceration, we can’t keep putting up barriers between them and the help they need.
We can’t afford to play gatekeeper with justice. Not when the consequences are homelessness, unemployment, family separation, or a return to prison. California should be leading the way in making legal support more accessible, not less.
AB 931 doesn’t fix a problem. It creates a new one—and the people hurt most will be those with the least power to fight back.
I urge lawmakers to reject Section 2. Let’s not close legal doors. Let’s open more of them.
Robert Cota is a retired pastor, longtime mentor, and community advocate based in Commerce