So last week a young Washington State lawyer tells God and everyone else on a listserv that he’s tossing his shingle into the sock drawer and moving on — all because he can’t afford his annual bar dues.
Seems a tad drastic after spending so much time, sweat, and treasure to become a lawyer. But then, understandable when expenses keep overtaking income and the Sisyphean boulder doesn’t stop rolling back down the hill.
And so the hand wringing went on, even after spinning the news coverage over how “fewer than half of eligible lawyers voted . . . and by a slim majority – 52 percent -”voted to reduce their dues. And the point?
But poll-spinning isn’t an art form limited to politicians. Last November, for example, the Arizona Bar’s sock puppet, Arizona Attorney Magazine, ran a front page story “We’re Happy,” citing how happy and satisfied Arizona lawyers were — based on survey responses from barely 4% of its 17,200 active members. That thin reed was deemed front-page news — even though not long before the economy really cratered, a survey by the American Bar Associationbelied the Arizona Attorney magazine’s hallelujahs. Almost half of the lawyers surveyed by the ABA reported career dissatisfaction and only 4 in 10 lawyers would recommend a legal career to others.
But when prospects haven’t been good for a while, a one-time exemption is a rubber dinghy in a vast troubled sea.
Indeed, up until the April 2012 rollback referendum and the dues reduction effective January 17, 2013, Washington enjoyed the dubious distinction of being 8th highest on the list of “Ranking By Cost to Practice in Each State.”
As a matter of fact, in proponents’ Statement for the Referendum – Washington State Bar Association, the rationale was explained, “The dues rollback referendum was started because mandatory annual fees imposed upon Washington lawyers exceed those charged to lawyers in most other states. In addition, the WSBA is making inefficient use of money and is not being totally open with members about where the money goes.
“Our Board increased fees when an economic crisis was underway, despite hardships of members who are unable to find professional work and struggling with student loans and mortgages.”
“Let them eat cake!”
Added one Bellevue, Washington solo practitioner, “Sixty percent of the lawyers in Washington are solo practitioners who aren’t making big bucks. It doesn’t seem as if the bar really took the cries of their members seriously. We were saying, `We need you to tighten your belt, and you’re telling us no.’”
But then invoking my favorite aphorist, François de La Rochefoucauld, state bars “all have strength enough to endure the misfortunes of others.”
The Rankings.
But Washington was only 8th highest. As of 2010, ahead of “The Evergreen State”on the annual dues hit parade was No.1 Connecticut at $675; No. 2 Tennessee at $570; Georgia in 3rd at $536; New Hampshire in 4th place at $520; Hawaii at No. 5 with $501; and Alaska and Texas tied at No. 6 with $501 and then No. 7 Oregon at $500.
And rounding out the top ten were Wisconsin at No. 9 at $472 and No. 10, the Grand Canyon State of Arizona at $460.
Staffer-to-member bloat.
And then there’s member-to-staff ratios, which are important when you wonder where all that money goes. You wonder, too, for example, how as its Executive Director Karen A. Gould explains, the Virginia State Bar, in 2010 the fifth largest mandatory bar in the country has the fifth lowest dues of mandatory bars at $275. And yet, it manages to serve its 45,000 members with a member-to-staff ratio of 478 to one, placing it 22nd on the member-to-staff list.
“Some things are just too coincidental to be a coincidence,” said Yogi Berra. Nonetheless, for the cost of $75, anyone with an interest in the data on membership dues, administration and finances of 181 responding state and local bars, including total cost to practice in each state, membership dues levels, dues increases, membership retention, etc., can buy the “2011 State and Local Bar Membership, Administration, and Finance Survey e-Book.”
Photo credits: “Gillie in one of his resting places,” by Dwight Sipler, photofarmer, at Flickr via Creative Commons-license requiring attribution; “Sisyphus” by Titian, Prado Museum, at Wikipedia Commons, public domain; “Nadya with sock puppet and fish, 2007″ by Nadya Peek at Flickr via Creative Commons-license requiring attribution; “Rubber dinghy,” byBen Sutherland at Flickr via Creative Commons-license requiring attribution; “an unwitting victim…bwahahhahahaa,” by bark at Flickr via Creative Commons-license requiring attribution; “Let them eat cake!” byAlaskan Dude, Frank Kovalchek, at Flickr via Creative Commons-license requiring attribution; “Sleepy Head,” by Ben Salter, Capt’ Gorgeous, at Flickr via Creative Commons-license requiring attribution.
Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg — she of the Harvard College summa cum laude Economics sheepskin and Harvard M.B.A. leaves work at 5:30 p.m. for a brand-new 9,000 square foot McMansion and her two kids. She’s just another Suzy Homemaker with a nine figure net worth.
Sandberg’s smart enough to have known that as a well-entrenched member of the 1%, she might face a wee bit of criticism for preaching in her new book to a congregation sitting outside in the cold.
Does an exceptional pedigree, rarefied corporate power and mind-boggling wealth dilute a feminist empowerment message: Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead? No doubt.
If it only took “Will” — and not a whole bunch of “Benjamins” to pull off what Sandberg advocates in her self-help tract. Among other things, she tells women that to get ahead, they need to ‘lean in‘ at the workplace.
Give her credit for brass even as she faces criticism for the temerity of a billionairess’s personal fortune that “must leave her tone-deaf to the plight of the typical worker.”
How tone-deaf? About $96,261′s worth, which according toInvestopediais how much a homemaker is worth these days — or at least that’s how much money is needed to pay for the army of help to pull off the glass ceiling-crashing career Sandberg envisions for her childbearing sisterhood. For the moneyless classes, it’s“The True Cost of Leaning In.”
Still, while obvious, her points are well made. Speak up. Don’t hold yourself back. Enough with the ‘shrinking violet’ stuff. We shall overcome“the leadership ambition gap.”
Arizona Lawyers: How much do you make?
And speaking of tone-deaf, then there’s the Arizona State Bar, the self-styled consumer protection agency that wants to know how much kibble is in the lawyer kitty.
Unlike last time, however, this time they’re curious enough to inquire, “How much law school debt are Arizona attorneys carrying?”
So why do they want to know? What difference does it make? Will Bar dues go down? Or the cost of Bar-sponsored continuing legal education? Or is it, like before, to publish a full report so the Bar can sell it to its members?
Maybe it’s for calibrating the economic pain meter to justify how much to charge lawyers for the continued privilege of practicing law in the state?
Maybe, it’s simply a legally palatable, anti-trust compliant way for firms to figure out legal services pricing based on market average billing rates?
Perhaps, it’s all of the above. All the same, if Arizona lawyers belonged to a member-friendly voluntary bar like in Kansas’, they wouldn’t have to pay for a copy of the full report. In Kansas, bar members receive the 2012 Kansas Economics of Law Practice Report gratis.
So having dutifully ignored the first two emails, the Bar emailed my “Last Chance – Your Link to the 2013 State Bar of Arizona Economics Study”last week. No thanks. Ear-trumpet and all, can’t hear you.
But easier said than done. Thanks to a 1933 legislative act, the Arizona State Bar was established as an integrated or “mandatory membership organization, which means that if you wanna practice law here — ya’ gotta’ marry the Bar.
So comes Arizona State Legislature HB 2480, which proposes“membership of any organization is not required for attorneys to become or remain a licensed attorney in Arizona.” Having just paid half a ‘G-note’ in bar dues to keep the shine on the seat of the bureaucrats’ pants, the proposed measure grabs a lawyer’s attention.
Introduced by Republican Representative John Allen, who also sits on the House Judiciary Committee, the proposed legislation additionally, “establishes the Supreme Court as the entity responsible for licensing attorneys for the practice of law in Arizona.”
However, ‘it don’t make no never mind.’ As it turned out, following its hearing this morning, HB 2480 was discussed and held, which means it’s now deader than dead. And I’m noprognosticating octopus.
But then like a zombie — it’s always possible that until the legislature adjourns for the year the issue could arise as an amendment to another bill.
As for that free Valentine’s Day divorce, Bentley’s website explains “the divorce is limited to an uncontested divorce with no or minimum child custody issues.” It was also limited to Michigan residents only and necessitated that entrants share “the most compelling and convincing story as to why they should be the winner.”But for any interested Michiganders, the deadline for submissions passed as of at 11:59 p.m. E.S.T., February 12, 2013.
To his credit, Bentley’s promotional offer differed from one I blogged about two years ago,involving a free divorce offer by a UK law firm. Unlike that ‘deal,’ Bentley was generously picking up costs.
The Billwould amend the Arizona Constitution to prescribe that “The Committee on Character and Fitness may not refuse to recommend a person for admission solely because the person is not a law school graduate.”
Senator Murphy, who’s not a lawyer but who says he’s hired plenty of them, thinks too much is made of law degrees.
So he was unperturbed when it was pointed out that a relaxation of schooling requirements for a state law license would mean fewer academic requirements than current state mandates of 1,300 hours of classroom training to cut hair and 1,600 hours to get a cosmetology license.
“You’re not going to damage anybody’s health by having an unsanitary law practice, although there’s lots of times when you deal with a lawyer that you end up getting your hair cut pretty bad,”he said.
* Under auspices of the National Center for State Courts(NCSC), Gavel to Gavel reviews state legislation that affects the courts.
Photo Credits:”Arlanda Airport 14:32,” by Chun Kit To, combust, at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution;”Thrill the world – Los Angeles,” by Ashley Webb, xlordashx , at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution; “Head in Hands,” by Alex E. Proimos at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution;
I once asked,“Who’s making money from MCLE?” but, of course, I already knew the answer — mostly, it’s your friendly state bar. For many state bars, including Arizona’s, continuing legal education (CLE) is a cash cow.
For instance, according to its most recent Annual Report, the Arizona Bar grossed $2,151,368 in revenue from continuing legal education, which after cost-allocating its miscellaneous staff, meals and facilities’ expenses, amounted to $733,208 buckaroo bucks of CLE revenue.
Any wonder, then, that when the AZ Bar does serve up a free webinar — like the upcoming February 12, 2013,“It Just MakesCents: Ethical Fee Agreements,” — there’s no CLE credit given?
Indeed, so lucrative is the CLE revenue stream that some bars go out of their way to protect their turfs and to disincentivize lawyer attendance at non-bar sponsored programs.
In Arizona, for example, irrespective of the writing, editing and research hours that may actually be expended, the bar arbitrarily limits CLE to only 2 credit hours “for each 3,000 words of original material written.”
And in Arkansas and Oklahoma, audio-only live webcasts are not approved for credit. Meanwhile, Indiana imposes a 6 credit limit per year on distance education courses while the Alabama State Bar not only limits lawyers to 6 hours of online participatory CLE but also charges its lawyers a $25 processing fee just to apply for CLE course credit.
Blogging about the Virginia Bar’s new requirement at Civilian’s Guide to Lawyers (the Blog), lawyer John Toothman posted, “If it weren’t for mandatory CLE, most bars would be broke. So the Virginia Bar has hatched some excuses to leverage its control over lawyers and CLE in a vain attempt to save its live conference cash cow.”
Not milked dry.
Virginia notwithstanding, the good news is that most lawyers can still get CLE credit for online programs. Better yet, they can still get CLE credit for FREE — instead of getting milked dry by expensive live, video or webcast programs of inconsistent quality. And the reason any of this matters is that when lawyers — especially new ones, are so hard pressed to pay back exorbitant student loans they’re the last ones to afford hundreds of dollars a year in CLE fees on top of hundreds of dollars in annual bar dues.
Below is the latest round-up of FREE ONLINE CLE. The usual caveats about content quality, continued availability and jurisdictional approval apply.
“Learn about the restorative relief now available to veterans under subdivision (h) of the California Penal Code 1170.9, effective as of January 1, 2013!”
“This program will teach new attorneys and seasoned professionals effective writing techniques to assist pro bono clients with a variety of legal issues. Learn the tools to draft concise complaints, declarations and briefs to help your pro bono clients assert their legal rights and win their cases!”
* Missouri Bar Media Relations Director Farrah Fite has asked I add the following clarification about the Missouri Bar’s CLE receipts cited in this post, which I am happy to oblige here: “While the gross receipts information in our annual report is correct, your post does not account for the department’s expenditures which are outlined in the neighboring graph (http://www.mobar.org/uploadedFiles/Home/Publications/Annual_Report/2011-2012/full.pdf). I would appreciate it if you would update your blog post to reflect the full budget picture which demonstrates the Missouri Bar’s CLE programs are not a “cash cow.” In fact, in 2011 the expenditures outweighed receipts by $219,773.75.”
There’s an old joke that lawyers go to law school because they’re not good at math. But before I was a lawyer, I was a business manager. So here are some facts and my opinionated inferences from the Missouri Bar’s graph data.
According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the definition of gross receiptsis “the total revenue a company or organization receives during its annual accounting period before subtracting any costs or expenses.”
Per the graph of “Missouri Bar Total Disbursements,” i.e., money paid out (expenses) — the Missouri Bar allocated 33% of its total disbursements of $9,250,976 to “Continuing Legal Education” plus an additional 3% of the total disbursements or $277,526 to something else called “Minimum Continuing Legal Education.” But all along, $2,848,426 simply stated gross receipts.
As for expenses, 36% of $9,250,976 comes to $3,330,215 — a whopping expense number which when subtracted from CLE gross receipts of $2,848,426 does indeed suggest the Bar is ‘in the red.’
But as the saying goes, the devil’s in the details — which there’s a paucity of here, particularly when the Missouri Bar shows a scant 9% allocation to “Administration,” most likely, employee overhead.
Moreover, the Missouri Bar scatters disbursements across 17 expense categories. But none even comes close to the 36% allocated to CLE.
With respect to non-profits, one survey summarized by The NonProfit Times, similarly shows that “38 percent of nonprofits’ operating budgets were spent on total cash compensation costs . . . and for most nonprofits, compensation costs comprised at least a third of their operating budget.”
But at the Missouri Bar where 2011 bar enrollment and non-enrollment receipts and fees total $8,511,670 — counterintuitively, CLE and not employee compensation accounts for over a third of total disbursements. And when disbursements of $9,250,876 exceed fees and receipts by $739,206, CLE’s got a lot of water to carry.
The Bar wants its money via e-filing. So save the forests. Courts are doing it. Judges are mandating it. Why not the state bar?
In July 2011, the consumer protection agency better known as the Arizona State Bar announced a Task Force on Sustainability“to equip the State Bar of Arizona (“SBA”) and its members with the knowledge and tools to promote conservation and protection of natural resources.”
If what’s past is prologue, the Task Force was undoubtedly composed of a mini-production of acolytes since the Bar favors management-by-committee. Some 500-plus days after its given marching orders, the Task Force will this month issue its assessment, evaluation, and recommendations. But truth be known, there won’t be any surprises. As most of us know, the Bar’s move to environmental enlightenment has been long overdue.
Profligate printing.
Indeed, for the better of a decade, the Arizona Bar has been profligate in its contribution to paper production deforestation with an onslaught of printed materials redundantly sent to its members.
Why send something electronically when the belt-and-suspenders Bar will also send the same missive by bulk mail?
More than 10 years ago, I wrote the Bar to complain about a glossy four-color brochure about some self-laudatory initiative it had just launched. I objected because I happened to know that splashy four-color printing on heavy glossy stock is expensive. Hardly surprising, I never got a reply.
Not just yet.
“Make me chaste, but not yet.”
So now with its usual back-slapping self-promotion, the Bar is “Going green”– at least, as far as annual dues payments and annual conventions are concerned.
The latest Annual Reportsays the 625-page Membership Directory costs members $65,541 or $3.76 each. And unlike the Bar’s slick monthly house organ, Arizona Attorneymagazine, which returns revenue or the Bar’s CLE Department, which generated $733,208 in revenue in 2011, the Membership Directory is an annual money-loser.
Where long ago, most of us reached the point of finding other uses for phone books from cat boxes to rabbit bedding to compost and even for when nature calls – bathroom emergencies, last time I checked, lawyers were still advertising in yellow page directories and staunchly leading the rear-guard action protecting phone books’ continued environmentally unfriendly existence. While you can’t opt-out of bar directories and save yourself $3.76, you can fortunately opt out of those wasteful directories at sites like YellowPagesGoesGreen.org.
Photo Credits: “The Oath of the Horatii,” by Jacques-Louis David at Wikipedia Commons, public domain; “Eco Friendly Product,” by Vectorportal at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution; “10.22.12,” bycolemama at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content for noncommercial use requiring attribution and share alike distribution; Saint_Augustine_of_Hippo.jpg t Wikipedia Commons, Source: The Bettman Archive, public domain; “Phone Books,” by Aaron Parecki, aaronparecki, at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution;”Phone Book Tunnel,” by coalybunny at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensing requiring attribution;”Phone Book Waste,” by monkeyatlarge at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution;
Perched on high in air so rarefied the real economy doesn’t incongruously offend the pure oxygenated respiration provided by his laissez-faire advocating employer, the Goldwater Institute’sClint Bolick looks down his chin at the lawyer polloi and gushes how he “would love to see the entire UPL regime disappear.”
Bolick believes in doing away with any pesky remaining impositions on the unauthorized practice of law so that non-lawyers can dispense even more legal services in Arizona. Libertarian free-marketer and all that, he believes it would be a good thing. And unlike Oliver Twist, he’s neither shy or unabashed about wanting more of it.
And why shouldn’t Bolick want more legal services deregulation? When you’ve insulated yourself as he has from the concerns of solos and small firms who make up the majority of Arizona’s lawyers, it’s easy to overlook their entrepreneurial worries over such trifles as making expenses; facing competition; overcoming business downturns and generating revenues. Paraphrasing François de La Rochefoucauld’s famous maxim about having “strength enough to endure the misfortunes of others,”[i] in Bolick’s world, the easiest pain to bear is another lawyer’s.
So now that the Goldwater Institute has cornered the well-heeled and well-funded niche that purports to defend the economic freedoms of those they deem oppressed from those they deem accursed, Bolick pines for more deregulation of legal services while at the same time declaring how happy he is “to live in a state that recognizes that more choices lead to greater access to legal services.”
But has greater access translated into the delivery of “enormously valuable legal services to ordinary people at low cost” as Bolick maintains? Well, it might also depend on what you mean by “low cost”since some of the non-lawyers charge upwards of $100 per hour for their services. But I guess if you’re comparing yourself to one of those $1,000 per hour guys, then charging 1/10th of that must be a bargain — even if those high-priced swells did go to law school.
Solo lawyers, however, are a different subject. They’re not knocking down those kinds of bucks — not even close. In fact, I know some solos, for instance, who draft simple wills for about the same price as the document preparers who never saw the inside of a law school.
So without empirical data in support, Bolick’s argument that “the market is able to provide low-cost, high-quality paraprofessional services”serves only to recall what Mark Twain once wrote, “I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts.”[ii]
Mama mia!
Deregulate the practice of law and lower consumer costs by increasing competition from non-lawyers? Who says? Have consumer costs really been lowered? And where are the empirical assurances that minimum competency requirements have been met and are continuing to be met?
Deregulation is not a new idea. But if taken to its logical consummation, it would undercut the legal academy and legal cartel’s raison d’être. Indeed, last year, two like-minded think tankers while opining about how more jobs and lower prices would be the end result from deregulating the provision of legal services,[iii] belittled the need for law schools and bar exams.[iv] “Every other U.S. industry that has been deregulated, from trucking to telephones, has lowered prices for consumers without sacrificing quality,”[v] they further proclaimed.
But unfortunately for their argument, we already know how well deregulation has worked before — for air transportation and electric utility customers, for example. And of course we’re still bent over the chair suffering the burdens visited upon us by the “Mama Mia” of all screw-ups, the deregulated financial markets that triggered the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression.
No, the truth is that the facts on the ground are much different. Never mind that Bolick scoffs at the “hundreds of bar complaints”against legal document preparers — because they came from his peers — as though a lawyer’s ethical duty of candor and truthfulness is trumped by informing against a competitor.[vi]
Or is a lawyer’s action in compliance with Arizona Ethical Rule 8.3’s duty to report professional misconduct involving other lawyers or judges[vii] also to be accorded similar discredit?
The reality is that lawyers who have tried to repair the incompetent delivery of services provided by legal document preparers don’t have to conjure up a parade of horribles to make the case that consumers aren’t being protected “by choice, competition, transparency, and the enforcement of fiduciary relationships.”
Crisis in the profession.
Moreover, the legal environment is in the throes of radical transformation, thanks in large part to the economic recession; globalized outsourcing of legal services; and the increased digital delivery of online legal services via such providers as LegalZoom, RocketLawyer, JustAnswer, LawBidding, Law Pivot and MyLawyer.com. Not to mention the job-eliminating efficiencies of predictive coding used to perform technology-assisted document review in complex litigation.[viii]
The other reality is that there is a glut of lawyers and that there are fewer jobs for them. And so there is a fundamental restructuring taking place in the delivery of legal services. Adapt or perish. The landscape is being transformed. And with the bankruptcy, for example, of the storied firm of Dewey & LeBoeuf, the end of the old law firm business model is also nigh.
Irrespective of the crisis-deniers in the legal academy, the story is out. This past March, for instance, even the ABA Journal featured a Paradigm Shift Series, to show “how traditional U.S. legal education paradigms, driven by federal loan underwriting, are not responding to the market forces as law schools continue to add students and raise tuition rates in a mature legal services industry.”[ix]
Indeed, facing external pressures over allegations of having supposedly condoned misleading law school post-graduation employment numbers, this past summer, the American Bar Association finally clarified the grim nationwide post-graduation employment picture for law school graduates. It is worse than previously thought.
Jobless and indebted.
Only 55% of the class of 2011 had full-time, long-term jobs that required a law degree nine months after graduation. This past July, the New York Timeseditorialized, “These numbers are far worse than jobs data going back a generation and should be a deep embarrassment to law schools, which have been churning out more graduates than the economy can employ, indulging themselves in copious revenues that higher tuitions and bigger classes bring in. A growing list of deans acknowledge that legal education is facing an existential crisis . . . .”[x]
Back breaking tuition increases, which over the past 20 years have outstripped the inflation rate[xi], have escalated so much at both private and public law schools that according to a recent Pew Research Study reported by the Los Angeles Times,“the share of American households affected by student debt has more than doubled in the last two decades, soaring from 9% in 1989 to a record of nearly one in five in 2010.”[xii]
And according to the previously mentioned New York Times Op-ed, “As tuition has soared, so has student debt. Nearly 9 out of 10 graduates have sizable debt, with $98,500 the average for the class of 2010, about $1,200 a month in loan payments over 10 years. Most schools and many students have banked on students’ being able to pay back enormous loans with ample salaries, but that flawed model is irretrievably broken.”[xiii]
A ‘Golden Age’ for consumers?
So here’s the rub, Bolick’s unsupported paean to deregulation Utopia notwithstanding, with so many underemployed and unemployed lawyers, the excess capacity ought to be driving down prices and increasing competition — without opening the non-lawyer floodgates further. We should be on the brink of a golden age for consumers even now.
The laws of supply and demand should be operative in the face of a glut of supply; of ascendant multi-jurisdictional practice; and of relentless advances in technology. But that’s not the case — not when jobless young lawyers are saddled with six-figure nondischargeable tuition debtand lack the timely ability to pay it back.
So at the intersection of Bolick’s deregulation fantasy, the more reasonable debate ought to be not about how to allow even more “paraprofessionals” to engage in what for all intents and purposes, (mandatory disclaimers notwithstanding), looks like, swims like, and quacks like a law-practicing duck.
No, the better debate should be — what to do about all those trained, credentialed and available young lawyers. And parenthetically, we should be asking how to lead the transformation occurring in the practice of law. Will it require, as law professor Paul Campos suggests, fewer law schools and the “return to the faculty student ratios and faculty compensation structures of three decades ago”?
Or will it mean an even more radical revolution in the way lawyers are educated; in how they finance and pay for a legal education; and finally by a legal establishment that at long last decides to truly adopt and not dodge a model definition of the practice of law?
And instead of more deregulatory pipe dreams, how about a model definition of the practice of law based on a narrow definition that provides greater assurances of competence in the delivery of legal services to consumers.[xiv]
[i] François, duc de La Rochefoucauld. The Moral Maxims and Reflections of the Duke de la Rochefoucauld, 2nd ed. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1912.
[ii] Mark Twain, What Is Man?, The Complete Essays of Mark Twain. Ed. Charles Neider. New York: Da Capo Press, 1991. But even more on point may be the other famous quote long attributed to Twain, “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.”
[vi] Ironically, notwithstanding Bolick’s implication that lawyers ought to be disqualified from complaining about nonlawyer document preparers, his hymn to a deregulated Eden finds possible support thanks to an apparent absence of consumer complaints in Arizona. The American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Client Protection, 2012 SURVEY OF UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF LAW COMMITTEES, Chart III, was blank for Arizona’s response to the survey query: “Has Your jurisdiction received complaints re: nonlawyer providers? (Describe).” But before popping the champagne cork, also see List of Revoked and Suspended Certifications.
[vii]Rules of Professional Conduct, Arizona State Bar Website, 8. Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession, ER 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct, (a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority, except as otherwise provided in these Rules or by law. (b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority. http://www.azbar.org/Ethics/RulesofProfessionalConduct/ViewRule?id=60 (last visited October 1, 2012).
Photo Credits: “Mark Twain,” in public domain via Wikipedia; “Possible plumber,” by Tony Alter, Tobyotter, at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution; Illustration de ma mère l’Oye, par Gustave Doré, public domain via Wikipedia; Kongen av eventyrland / The King of Fairy Tale Land, by National Library of Norway at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution.
“Once more unto the breach” — even at the risk of boring non-lawyer readers. An updated post of free online continuing legal education follows.
And for the uninitiated, I will keep posting free online CLE resources so long as it remains my sardonic opinion that the real reason some if not all bar associations continue mandating continuing legal education is to ensure cash cow money-making revenue. And oh yes, there is that pretextual public relations reason to protect consumers from incompetent lawyers. (Kudos Kentucky Bar Association for offering every member the opportunity to meet their annual CLE requirement, including ethics, close to home and with no registration fee through their “Kentucky Law Update” program).
Any wonder that so many lawyers, especially those young legions of the heavily-indebted and the out-of-work keep hunting for free CLE? “Free” always trumps $150 for a webcast hour.
But beware of that other CLE: the “Career Limiting Event.”
But before getting to that updated online freebie list, it’s worthwhile mentioning that the acronym, “CLE,” every now and then means something else, as in “Career Limiting Event.”
As an ethical refresher for every lawyer at a live continuing legal education class who zones out in the midst of pompous prattle or who checks fantasy football scores on their smartphone during sleep-inducing Powerpoint, Ethical Rule 8.4: Misconduct says it’s “professional misconduct for a lawyer to:“(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” and “(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”Said another way, if you’re going to certify you took a course, it may be “misrepresentation” to claim you took part — if you didn’t pay attention.
More specifically, according to the Illinois State Bar Association, the longtime lawyer “falsely reported to the Minimum Continuing Legal Education Board of the Supreme Court of Illinois that he had completed 20 hours of continuing legal education activity during the 2007 to 2009 reporting period. In fact, he had enrolled to take only 19.25 hours of CLE work and his secretary . . . completed some of the online CLE classes [the lawyer] claimed to have completed.”
Forewarned.
Sure that’s a noteworthy cautionary tale but I doubt any of the perspicacious lawyers reading this blog and accessing free online CLE would ever deign to leave laptops unattended and walk away in the middle of a still playing online program.
Nor is it easy to believe these astute lawyers would dare relinquish ethical responsibilities to anyone else. Still, better forewarned and forearmed.
The updated online free continuing legal education list follows along with the usual disclaimers concerning continued accessibility, content or whether your jurisdiction accepts any of these programs for credit.
I also mean no reproaches on the philanthropic providers of these freebie programs. However, I will again cast a disparaging word upon a certain ungrateful lawyer with the stones to complain about something for nothing.
Future of Primary Care: The Changing Role of the Primary Care Provider -20111117 1800-1
Listen to and watch this webinar held November 17, 2011 for an introduction of “evidence on the role of nurse practitioners as primary care providers . . . issues of quality, cost and access . . . the current differences of related state laws. You may qualify for CLE credit.”
~ The Supreme Court’s Decision on the Constitutionality of the ACA-20120719 1650-1
Listen to and watch the webinar held July 19, 2012 concerning the Supreme Court’s decision and its implications for the Affordable Care Act’s reforms to the individual insurance market, the Medicaid expansion, and the future of the ACA’s public health-related provisions and accompanying federal funding. Depending on jurisdiction, may qualify for CLE credit.
~ Data Surveillance and Data Exchange: A Tool for Comparative Effectiveness-20120517 1659-1
Listen to and watch the webinar held May 17, 2012 providing an overview of “recent developments regarding data exchange and surveillance, explore the inherent privacy issues associated with data exchange and data surveillance and discuss using data exchange and data surveillance as a tool for comparative effectiveness.”
From Attorneys Dell & Schaefer, Chartered, “We invite you to sign up for our free online CLE course. This CLE course was created by Disability Attorneys Dell & Schaefer and is titled ‘Introduction to Disability Insurance Claims and ERISA Law.’ The course is comprised of multiple videos totaling 255 minutes (between 4.25 to 5 CLE credits depending on your state).”
From the University of Minnesota’s Consortium on Law and Values in Health, Environment & the Life Sciences. View Video Online. “Continuing Legal Education credit (CLE) has been approved (1.5 hours).“
Along with several other jurisdictions, the Florida Bar has accredited up to 8.5 hours of CLE for “Treating the Invisible Wounds of War” (IWW) online training course. Go to “New Users” tab at www.aheconnect.com/citizensoldier to access the course and the registration form on the site.
“This course provides attorneys with a basic and pragmatic understanding of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and how it relates to working with deaf, hard of hearing and deaf/blind clients.”
Photo Credits: “Bored,” by scragz, Jason Scragz, at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution;”Blogger at breakfast after Eglon van der Neer,” by Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution; “punctelia at work,” by owlmonkey at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution.
Former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas lost his law license. He had the proverbial book thrown at him — all 74,350 words of a 247-page Disciplinary Order replete with virtually an endless stream of quotable notables from Proverbs to Aristotle to Dwight Eisenhower to Shakespeare to Ben Franklin to Gandhi and even others too numerous or obscure to mention. Suffice it to say that there were so many quotations, I half expected a pearl of wisdom citing Thomas’ supposed infractions of the Marquess of Queensberry Rules. And I still think it’s a shame no one quoted ‘The Godfather of Soul.”
Thomas was disbarred because a 3-member ethics panel found among other things that he’d improperly and unethically used his office to lay siege to his political enemies by filing unfounded criminal charges against county supervisors and members of the local judiciary.
No repentance.
So Thomas was taken to the woodshed. But some might’ve preferred flattening the shed with a bulldozer with him in it now that Thomas has shamelessly chosen not to hide in ignominious seclusion. Since his disbarment, he’s instead been running around town playing the martyr-card. Never mind his public humiliation. The defrocked lawyer is no chastened flagellant penitentially scourging himself before donning his button-down hair shirt.
But no matter. Thomas has been making speeches, doing interviews and trying his best to appear relevant as a self-described crusading reformer against a government he claims is rife with corruption. And by his way of thinking, what’s he got to lose?
But ironically, part of Thomas’ message during the 27 minutes or so of his radio interview was to lend support to Proposition 115, a voter referendum on the November ballot that supposedly reforms Arizona’s judicial merit selection and retention election system. The irony stems from the fact that the clueless caped crusading Thomas is supporting an initiative also endorsed by the Arizona State Bar and the Arizona Judges Association. And according to reports, Thomas was surprised to learn that. Sounds like more of the same blundering absence of due diligence that got him into trouble in the first place.
Much is made by the wing-nuts on the Right and the Left about the proposition’s so-called ‘reform’ component that requires the judicial nominating commissions to submit 8 not 3 judicial candidates to the governor. How absurd. The selection process which presents the governor with those choices is largely the same. The only change is that the bar no longer automatically has 3 slots on the judicial nominating commission for 3 of its board of governors members.
Except that the bar still vets who gets to park their butts on the nominating commissions. The bar remains the gatekeeper screening the applicants who’ll be nominated to the governor for appointment to the nominating commissions. Plus, the bar’s president still keeps a seat on the nominating commission.
No, what the legal establishment really likes about the referendum is that the ‘beat goes on.’ There are no substantive changes. Instead, what’s really been overlooked is how the establishment pulled a fast one on the intellectual dwarves at the statehouse.
The referendum actually entrenches the current system. It extends the judicial retirement age from 70 to 75 and pushes back the judicial retention election cycles for appellate judges and supreme court justices from 6 years to 8 years and from 4 years to 8 for county superior court judges.
Credits: “Flagellants. From a fifteenth century woodcut.” Public Domain via Wikipedia Commons; “Boy with a ball,” by Kathy, kthypryn, at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution; “TV Shows We Used to Watch – 1970′s – Wrestling,” by brizzle born and bred, Paul Townsend, at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content for noncommercial use requiring attribution.
Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, North Carolina said it on videotape. He advocated putting gays, lesbians behind an electric fence.“Feed ‘em,” he charitably said. “And you know what, in a few years, they’ll die out. Do you know why? They can’t reproduce.”
Back in Arcadian Arizona.
To their credit, the powers-that-be at the Arizona State Bar didn’t think we’d reached Eden either. Last year, the Bar petitioned to amend a comment clarifying the ethical rule prohibiting lawyers from words or conduct that show bias or prejudice against clients. The Bar wanted to add “gender identity”to the list of specially protected classes.
But the Bar stirred up a proverbial hornet’s nest by trying to further particularize its prohibitions against prejudice by lawyers. The Bar’s petition to the Arizona Supreme Court had sought to“make bias against certain classifications of people professional misconduct, and would add the classification of “gender identity or expression” to the enumerated classifications.”
The proposed amendment inflamed the ire of the local religious police who cried foul charging that it would violate a church-going lawyer’s First Amendment religious liberty and allegedly inflict “harm. . . on professionals who hold religious convictions about sexual morality” and infringe on “the free-exercise rights of religiously motivated attorneys . . . by requiring them to advocate views and legal positions that conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
The bar timorously retreated under the onslaught of opponents led by Cathi Herrod, “Arizona’s Official Marriage Protector.” But since scuttling the clarification to Arizona Ethical Rule 8.4 proved so easy, earlier this year Herrod and her minions came back for more.
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.
“Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
“Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Jew.
“Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Not satisfied with simply blocking gender identity – - – under the pretext of adding clarity, the opponents next moved to eliminate all references to knowing manifestations of lawyer bias or prejudice by words or conduct against clients based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or socioeconomic status. SeeAttachment: 1111342272958.pdf
“Ethics Monkeys” still needed.
The move to further clarify professional misconduct by singling out additionally specially protected classes blew up in the Bar’s face. But I guess it’s because everyone knows that Arizona already has such a well-deserved reputation for tolerance and equanimity that Herrod and her supporters felt that ‘less is more.’
The Arizona State Bar sees itself first and lastas a consumer protection agency protecting the public from its lawyers. So understandably, like self-designated cops everywhere, i.e., “To Protect and To Serve,” it has a fondness for regulation and specifically, for habitually tinkering with lawyer ethical rules. Most of the time, these rule changes operate below the radar. But not this time.
McFaddencalled for additional banking reforms, including assigning the assistance of “Ethics Monkeys”to every banker.
Now, McFadden’s idea is hardly far-fetched. Indeed, noted primatologist and ethologist at Emory University, Dr. Frans de Waal has expounded on the merits of “Learning Morality from Monkeys.”
So rather than water down ethical rules against discrimination – - – and in the absence of acceptable amendments to those rules – - – I say instead that if bankers need “Ethics Monkeys,”Lord knows lawyers do, too.
Credits:”Happy Family of Chimpanzee” byTakashi(aes256) Via Flickr Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution and share alike distribution;
Indentured servitude was preferable to what New York has decided to do next year. Thanks to New York’s Chief Judge, Jonathan Lippman, new applicants to the New York State Bar will be required to prove they have performed 50 hours of free (pro bono) legal services before they can qualify to practice in the Empire State. At least indentured servants got food, clothing and shelter in exchange for uncompensated work.
No, New York is unique. The rules for admission are set directly by the court and its administrative board and not through the normal regulatory conduit, the state bar association. Most everywhere else, state bars provide convenient ‘cover’ for the purported salutary impulses of a state’s supreme court. See, for example, Arizona State Bar proposes new attorney discipline rules.
High-handed charity.
Judge Lippman made his imperious announcement as part of Law Day festivities where he said, “If pro bono is a core value of our profession, and it is—and if we aspire for all practicing attorneys to devote a meaningful portion of their time to public service, and they should—these ideals ought to be instilled from the start, when one first aspires to be a member of the profession.”
And invoking the oft-quoted and much-favored ‘privilege not a right’ argument [1] that always inoculates the powerful against complaints of overreaching, the jurist added, “We think that if you want that privilege, that honor of practicing law in the state of New York…then you are going to have to demonstrate that you believe in our values.”
Nevertheless, the New York court system’s mandated magnanimity and coerced compassion are breathtaking in their audacity. But they invite further descriptors such as tin-eared, even hare-brained.
The words of Ambroise Clément have never been more apt. Charity’s a virtue only when it’s “free and spontaneous.” Otherwise, “State and, therefore, forced, charity is not a virtue, it is a tax.“ And likewise, Thomas Jefferson, who writing in “Notes on the State of Virginia,” said, “What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.”
And just this week, data from the non-profit consumer advocacy and law school policy reform organization Law School Transparency reported by the Wall Street Journal revealed that the “Projected Law School Debt Figures Revised Even Higher” meaning that the average debt for the law school Class of 2015 will be an astronomical $210,796.
Which means that if other courts eventually copy-cat New York and also say “Jump!”then new lawyers will be consigned only to ask, “How high?” when mandatory pro bono is imposed universally.
But on a lighter note, this finally gets me to an example of a high jumper who doesn’t mind being told to jump. It’s the jump-roping Geronimo, the“Double-Dutch Dog,” who by the smile on his face, will always have fun when told to jump.