The California State Bar said Fresno City Attorney Andrew Janz was ineligible to practice law for a two-week period this month. Janz said it was an error.

Either way, as of Monday, Janz was back in full standing as an attorney.

“I’m glad the issue was resolved quickly and confirmed my compliant status. This isn’t the first time there have been errors in the annual certification process, so I encourage all attorneys to check their own portals to ensure their records are accurate,” Janz said.

The State Bar — the organization responsible for licensing attorneys — said the “administrative (non-discipline) action” was related to Janz not completing annual verification requirements, Rule 2.2. The rule addresses what information needs to be submitted, including name, contact information, and the nature of the law practice among several other criteria.

“Prior to being placed on involuntary inactive status, Mr. Janz was sent several notices of the upcoming deadline and paid the Rule 2.2 noncompliance fee, but did not complete the attorney record verification prior to June 30,” the State Bar said.

Janz said he first learned of his ineligible status on Monday.

“I received no letters or notice stating I was placed on inactive status,” Janz said.

Janz told GV Wire he verified his information through the State Bar’s attorney dashboard in the spring. However, neither he nor the State Bar had confirmation. Janz said he once again verified his information on Monday.

“I don’t know why the State Bar did not have a record,” Janz said.

The ineligible designation started July 1 and lifted July 14. According State Bar’s policy, a mention of an administrative suspension can be removed from public view. As of time of publication, Janz is listed as active, but a notation that he was not eligible to practice remained.

The State Bar said Janz completed the verification form, submitted the reinstatement fee ($300), and reinstatement request form on Monday.

The “ineligible” designation means attorneys “may not practice law in California. Reasons may include suspension, involuntary transfer to inactive status, failure to pay mandatory fees, MCLE noncompliance, and voluntary resignation petition pending with the Supreme Court.”

It is unclear whether Janz practiced law between July 1 and 14.

“An attorney cannot practice law unless their license is active,” the State Bar said.

Janz Said It Was An Error

Janz provided a communication from the State Bar. An email sent Monday at 4:55 p.m. notified Janz he was placed on administrative leave for failure to comply with the verification requirement. This was hours after Janz submitted his verification a second time by his estimate.

An email dated June 11, 2025 from the State Bar, notified Janz that he was compliant with another filing requirement, the Client Trust Account Protection Program. The State Bar email said the initial notice was sent in error.

On a portion of its website regarding license status changes, the State Bar acknowledged errors are possible.

“While we strive to ensure the accuracy of all information presented, there may be rare instances of inaccuracies or delays in status updates,” the website said.

Janz has served as city attorney since November 2022. In February, the city council approved a 12% raise to $285,000.

Other Offices Experience Renewal Problems

Janz said he knows of other attorneys who received similar compliant notices in error.

The State Bar has had issues in the past, including a recent controversy over scoring errors in the February bar exam.

Peter Wall, interim Fresno County Counsel, said one attorney in his office experienced a similar problem. He did not name who.

“We annually remind our attorneys regarding these reporting requirements because each attorney is individually responsible to satisfy those requirements, and we cannot do their individual reporting for them,” Wall said.

Wall said administrative errors at the State Bar are possible.

“If we learn that an attorney is marked ‘not eligible to practice,’ we take necessary actions in the matters they are handling, which might include notifying other parties in those matters of that status, until their status is resolved with the State Bar. In situations where the ‘not eligible to practice’ status is due to a failure by the attorney, rather than an error of the State Bar, other consequences would be a personnel matter on which we do not comment,” Wall said.

After this story first published, the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office said one of its attorneys missed the certification deadline, and deemed ineligible to practice.

“The matter has since been addressed, and the attorney has taken the necessary steps to return to active status,” DA spokesperson Taylor Long said. She did not name the attorney in question.

However, the State Bar denied any other attorneys were erroneously designated as “ineligible.”

“The State Bar is not aware of any attorneys who were placed on ‘ineligible to practice law’ status due to an error by the State Bar,” a spokesperson said.

The State Bar did not elaborate on whether it conducted any investigation about erroneously sent ineligible status messages.

“I think it is the best practice for State Bar to maintain accurate records,” said Christopher Rusca, president-elect of the Fresno County Bar Association.