Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Your friendly state bar.’ Category

(As a lawyer assistance program volunteer first in Texas and now in Arizona, attorney Karyl Krug has years of demonstrated commitment to providing peer assistance, intervention, and rehabilitation support for colleagues whose professional performance is impaired because of substance abuse, dependency or mental health disorders. Krug says the Texas Lawyer Assistance Program is “nationally acclaimed” but the Arizona Bar’s program where she currently volunteers —  not so much. The Texas program was created in 1989 as the Bar’s approved peer assistance program under the authority of Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 467. But in Arizona, confronted again with proposed voluntary state bar legislation, instead of structural improvement Krug detects a budding Arizona Bar public relations campaign as the Bar gins up surveys and marketing to belatedly put a better face on a “Member Assistance Program” Krug finds wanting. Here is her commentary).

The Arizona Bar has no Member Assistance Program.

They just want you to think they do.

Guest Blogger Opinion by Karyl Krug

During his truthiness tour to save his six-figure salary, State Bar of Arizona CEO/Executive Director John Phelps has repeatedly told lawyers and elected officials that the Bar performs two major services for lawyer members:

(1) vigorously prosecutes the unauthorized practice of law (it does so rarely and selectively); and

(2) helps lawyers in need with its Lawyer Assistance Program or Member Assistance Program, or whatever they are calling it this year.

The latter statement is so misleading I hardly know where to begin. For simplicity’s sake, I will henceforth refer to it as ALAP.

I’ve been a member of the State Bar of Arizona since 2011 but a member of the Texas State Bar for 23 years, as well as a long-time volunteer for the Texas Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP). I am also currently an ALAP volunteer.

I testified at the Arizona House subcommittee hearings on the Bar that contrary to representations made by Mr. Phelps and elsewhere by State Bar of Arizona President Geoff Trachtenberg, ALAP is a shell of a program that is much worse than what the Arizona Bar had in 1999.

The woman running the ALAP, Regina Tepper, runs a total of five different programs for the Arizona Bar, including ALAP. She is stretched a little thin. She recently sent out the following by e-mail:

“Anecdotally it appears that we had increased success with the Peer Support network . . . some of you have shared with me that you have received calls for the first time ever and it is very encouraging that the word is getting out. If you have been to the State Bar offices in Phoenix recently you may have noticed that our ad for the Peer Support Network is now a regular slide on our lobby marquises. I hope you’ve noticed the great ad in the Arizona Attorney as well.

“As part of our year-end review of 2015, I am asking that each of you share with me the following information, if you have received calls from members, judges or their families during 2015:
• The number of individuals who contacted you. Please do not share names with me; as always, that is confidential.
• Whether those individuals contacted you for themselves or about another person
• How many contacts (total) you received, if different from the total number of individuals from whom you had contact
• A general categorization of the reason for their contact
o Mental health
o Alcohol or substance abuse
o Work-life balance, stress or burn-out
o Issue with non-lawyer family member”

Suddenly, there is a push, through screen images and advertising, to make bar members believe that there is a real Member Assistance Program in Arizona, although it is only “anecdotally” successful and the Bar has no idea how many lawyers in trouble have contacted volunteers. Mr. Phelps has been testifying that ALAP is an important and successful program for helping lawyers when the truth is he has no idea, except “anecdotally,” whether this relatively new alleged program is helping anyone or not.

As had been the case throughout the fight for a non-mandatory Bar, reality has been incrementally tweaked to bolster Mr. Phelps’s flights of fancy.

Sometime after the Bar quietly sent its former member assistance program director out of the building, it decided to start a shell ALAP. Today, ALAP is a list of volunteers with phone numbers.

One day of training, and you can volunteer to help — even if you have no experience whatsoever with alcohol and drug abuse, mental health issues, burnout, and other issues common to the legal profession that even many psychologists and psychiatrists are not fully competent to deal with.

Yet participation in ALAP is often compulsory. At the same time, ALAP’s budget for 2013-2014 is listed on the published two page AZ Bar budget as $50.

TLAP, by contrast, is run by several full-time employees and has a national network of resources; funds for lawyers in need of treatment; the annual Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers Convention; nationally known speakers; and a statewide network of volunteers ready to spring into action from Texarkana to Brownsville.

Lawyers in trouble are often referred to TLAP by the disciplinary arm of the bar, as well as by concerned individuals, before the disciplinary arm of the Texas Bar swings into action.

TLAP volunteers in recovery have to have at least a year of continuous sobriety. TLAP volunteers go out in pairs, after making an appointment, to talk to a possibly impaired lawyer or judge, to offer the lawyer help and safe harbor if they are willing to address their issues.

Participation is not compulsory. It is a third degree felony to blow anonymity of a lawyer who is referred to or seeks the help of TLAP. Their budget for the same biennium was in excess of $300,000. The Texas Bar’s published budget is 261 pages long.

I have tried to help out at ALAP but to my horror, after I received a couple of calls, I realized that ALAP has no program to send a lawyer to. One lawyer asked me if he should call the Arizona Bar for help. I said something like, “Oh, God, no!” There is no program to help them. And by that time I had seen disbarment orders citing the disbarred lawyer’s failure to complete ALAP or AMAP.

While ALAP says it is confidential, if your failure to complete ALAP shows up on a published disbarment order, it is not confidential.

Woman s face uid 14The good thing about networking is that you get to know people and, coincidentally, a speaker at the 1999 Arizona State Bar/Arizona Concerned for Lawyers CLE is an old friend. At one point, Arizona had a real ALAP and an ALCL and all the rest. I saw the copious materials for the 1999 course.

So at one point ALAP was a real deal. What happened? Who decided impaired lawyers were no longer worthy of real assistance from the Bar?

 

 

_______________________________________________________

Photos: morguefile.com, no attribution

Read Full Post »

Home Improvement 26Hat’s off — I think — to State Bar of Arizona President Geoff Trachtenberg for exercising his free speech rights and speaking his own mind. Last month, Trachtenberg emailed the General Counsel to Arizona Governor Doug Ducey to express his “candid thoughts” about why Clint Bolick, one of the nominees to the state’s highest court, was “clearly not the best candidate for the job.” And because Trachtenberg wasn’t expressly wearing his state bar presidential mantle when doing so, I guess folks can’t say he was speaking for the state’s compulsory membership bar.

But the point is hardly incidental. It goes to the heart of First Amendment compelled-speech jurisprudence under Keller v. State Bar of California.  A mandatory bar requires lawyers to join and pay dues as a condition of practicing law in the state. So when a mandatory bar spends member dues on speech that the member opposes such as lobbying against a judicial candidate, the state action that compels payment of dues infringes on that member’s First Amendment rights.

Keller came about when at its 1982 convention, State Bar of California President Anthony Murray derided U.S. Senate Candidate Pete Wilson for urging the recall of Chief Justice Rose Bird if the California Supreme Court overturned the “Victims’ Bill of Rights.” Murray’s speech and resulting bar resolution prompted 21 California lawyers to sue their state bar. Unfortunately for Murray and the state bar, Wilson went on to become a U.S. Senator and eventually Governor of California.

Incongruously, parsing a distinction between private speech and organizational speech doesn’t necessarily provide a safe harbor. See what happened last year to Nevada State Bar President Alan J. Lefebvre who thought he was expressing only his opinion not the Nevada Bar’s when he editorialized on same-sex marriage in the bar’s magazine.

Trachtenberg’s communication was one of a number of letters, emails, and phone calls from Arizonans and from out-of-staters weighing in on Bolick’s candidacy and that of other nominees. As reported by The Yellow Sheet Report (paywall) over 600 critics’ and supporters’ letters and emails sent to the governor and the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments about the state supreme court nominees were just released by the governor’s staff. Having seen Trachtenberg’s email, give the man props for candor — if not for circumspection inasmuch as Bolick was widely regarded as the front-runner.

Speaking for himself and not from the State Bar of Arizona Presidential dais, Trachtenberg opined that state supreme court candidate Bolick was “interested in bringing his brand of justice to the Court — not merely “applying the law.””

Trachtenberg also went on to add that Bolick appears to be more interested in shaping law rather than applying it and “would be better suited to being in the legislature.”

He wrote, “While I’ve not reviewed the applications of existing and former Supreme Court justices, one has to wonder if there has ever been a nominee for Arizona’s highest court who similarly lacks meaningful judicial or practical experience, let alone an actual justice.”

Oops! On January 6th, Governor Ducey announced his appointment of Clint Bolick to the Arizona Supreme Court. In making his first gubernatorial state supreme court appointment, Governor Ducey explained in a press release that “Clint is nationally renowned and respected as a constitutional law scholar and as a champion of liberty.

“He brings extensive experience and expertise, an unwavering regard for the rule of law and a firm commitment to the state and citizens of Arizona. I’m confident Clint will serve impartially and honorably in this important role.”

Prior to his elevation as Arizona’s newest high court justice, Phoenix lawyer Bolick worked as Vice President of Litigation for the Goldwater Institute.

Home Improvement 88Based on past practice, the high court’s newest justice gets assigned as the supreme court’s liaison to the Arizona Bar’s Board of Governors.

Wondering aloud — that first board meeting presided by bar president Trachtenberg with the new justice in attendance might be awkward. But no doubt there’s fence-mending in the offing.

 

 

Read Full Post »

On Monday morning, January 11, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case with potentially positive impact on the First Amendment rights of lawyers.

The case is Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. Except it’s not a case about lawyers. It’s a union case that’s widely described as “devastating to public-sector unions.

The questions presented in Friedrichs are:

(1) Do public-sector agency shop arrangements violate the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and assembly?

(2) Does the First Amendment prohibit the practice of requiring public employees to affirmatively opt-out of subsidizing nonchargeable speech rather than to affirmatively consent?

But depending on who you ask, a decision for the petitioners would either vindicate workers’ First Amendment rights or in the view of elite lawyer doomsayers “would have a profoundly destabilizing impact on bars all over the country.”  The latter declaration is what 21 former Presidents of the District of Columbia Bar claimed in their amicus brief asking that Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977) be left “undisturbed.”

Petitioners Rebecca Friedrichs and her co-plaintiff teachers want the Court to overrule Abood. But it’s not because of concerns over the constitutional rights of lawyers even though like the petitioners, they, too, are forced to fund speech they oppose in order to earn a living in their chosen profession. Instead, the petitioners want the Court to rule that the free speech rights of non-union members ought to trump any obligation to contribute to the costs of representation.

In typical exaggerated bull and bunkum, mandatory bar stakeholders contend that a ruling against the California teachers union “would very likely spawn additional time-consuming and expensive lawsuits by bar members who do not want to pay their mandatory bar dues. Such lawsuits would severely distract this country’s thirty-two integrated bars from their critical work “serv[ing] the‘State’s interest in regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services.’”

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/High_rider_CicLAvia_2010.jpg/486px-High_rider_CicLAvia_2010.jpg If the petitioners prevail, alarmed union leaders believe more workers would become so-called “free riders.” The result could lead to a drop in union membership and revenue that could not only harm existing collective bargaining contracts but change election year dynamics.

Amy Howe at Scotus Blog has a plain English explanation of the case at “Justices return to dispute over union fees for non-members: In Plain English.” Also see “Public Unions Face High-Court Hurdle.”

Why mandatory bars should be worried.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/Captain_of_the_nine_%281912%29_%2814566361667%29.jpg/402px-Captain_of_the_nine_%281912%29_%2814566361667%29.jpg Abood is a case that the nation’s 32-mandatory membership state bar associations rely on to continually impinge on the free speech and free association rights of their members. Abood supports an overly broad interpretation of ‘permissible’ mandatory bar First Amendment encroachments under Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1, 12 (1990). But contrary to what the self-interested past bar presidents said in their brief, Keller allows mandatory bar associations to compel dues only for the narrow purpose of improving the practice of law through the regulation of attorneys.

I won’t dive further into the weeds to analyze Friedrichs beyond recommending you read the arguments of the D.C. Bar and the Goldwater Institute, which also filed its own amicus brief. In part, the Goldwater Institute summarizes its position as follows,

“This Court has always required that chargeable
expenditures related to improving the quality of legal
services also be connected to regulating the legal
profession. Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820, 843
(1961); Keller, 496 U.S. at 14; United States v. United
Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405, 414 (2001); Harris v.
Quinn, 134 S. Ct. 2618, 2643 (2014). Mandatory bar
associations and lower courts have mistakenly concluded
that Keller identified two purposes that allow
bar associations to compel membership: “improving
the quality of legal services” and “regulation of lawyers.”
See, e.g., Kingstad v. State Bar of Wisconsin,
622 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2010). Misconstruing Keller as
permitting mandatory bars to compel dues for two
broad and distinct purposes harms members’ First
Amendment rights and places Keller in the same
dangerous territory as Abood by leading mandatory
bars to routinely spend coerced dues on a broad range
of political and ideological activities.”

Hubris

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Punch_%281841%29_%2814802616693%29.jpg/472px-Punch_%281841%29_%2814802616693%29.jpgWhat I will opine about is the irony of the District of Columbia Bar taking the lead. Talk about monumental hubris and unmitigated gall.

For one, the D.C. Bar rivals the State Bar of Arizona in its self-congratulatory capacity and unabashed resistance to reform. But what’s especially rich is the poetic justice that could result if the Court also revisits Keller and rules that mandatory bar associations can only compel dues for lawyer regulation and not for non-regulatory purposes like building monuments to itself.

The D.C. Bar is buying an expensive new office monument for itself (just like the Arizona Bar did several years ago). On its website, it maintains that, “ownership of the building allows the Bar to save more than $25 million over 30 years versus renting—money that can be used to find more ways to provide member value while maintaining the Bar’s position in the lowest quartile of dues rates in the country. Doing more. Managing costs. Driving direct member value. That’s what the new home affords the Bar.”

The D.C. Bar is one of the largest in the United States. A preponderance of its members live outside the District of Columbia. As longtime D.C. Bar critic Mike Frisch editorializes at D. C. Bar Wants To Raise Dues Ceiling” about the D.C. Bar’s “lowest dues for a bar its size,” he says it’s “a disingenuous dodge that ignores a fact obvious to anyone who understands the true composition of the D.C. Bar.  D.C. has more out-of-state lawyers than anywhere else. They pay full dues for no service. They are the Bar’s hidden endowment and they fund the profligacy.”

And now thanks to a court order signed last month, as of July 1, 2016, the dues ceiling will be raised from $285 to $380 for D.C. Bar members. At “Happy New Year D. C. Bar: Pay Up!,” Frisch complains, “Now the best-paid bar employees in America can increase their salaries, travel to every domestic and international bar-related party and buy themselves a fancy building with primo views, all at the expense of a membership that had no say in the process.”

No wonder the entitled legal elites at the D.C. Bar got so worked up about Friedrichs. But so should the nation’s 31 other mandatory bars.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Credits: Morguefile.com, no attribution, High Rider, by Downtowngal at Wikimedia Commons; Captain of the Nine, at Wikimedia Commons, via Flickr Creative Commons; Punch, at Wikimedia Commons via Flickr Creative Commons.

 

Read Full Post »

photoMandatory state bars long ago lost their ability to surprise. Just when you think tin-eared insularity reaches its limits — wait two beats — there’s always more.

Last month, for example, in his President’s Message: Task Force to Tackle Unauthorized Practice of Law, the Nevada State Bar President after first announcing a new bar task force to study the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision against state-sponsored protectionism in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, then surprisingly segued into a clarion call for more ways “to protect the public interest” from the unauthorized practice of law. Methinks he reached the wrong conclusion.

As a matter of fact, the North Carolina Dental Board case runs counter to self-regulated active market participants fostering anti-competitive regulations and actions for their own — not the public’s benefit. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained “Active market participants cannot be allowed to regulate their own markets free from antitrust accountability. When a state empowers a group of active market participants to decide who can participate in its market, and on what terms, the need for supervision is manifest. If a state wants to rely on active market participants as regulators, it must provide active supervision.”

No wonder those who aren’t state bar presidents are reading the case as “a blow for consumers and economic freedom.” Others even opine it may “drill down into bar associations’ [anti-trust] immunity.”

But no worries apparently in Nevada. In fact, some mandatory bars are acting as though the ruling has no impact since mandatory bar governing boards are either under the “active supervision” of state supreme courts or because lawyer regulation comes under the state supreme court or because bars don’t define what constitutes the practice of law (UPL).

In Arizona, where what constitutes the practice of law has been progressively diluted first, by court-certified legal document preparers exempted from UPL by supreme court rule and soon by the rumored introduction of Washington State-styled Limited License Legal Technicians, I predict the besainted Arizona Bar will declare itself anti-competitively pure.

But at least one mandatory state bar association has decided to pay half attention to what happened to North Carolina’s dentists. The State Bar of Washington announced last week it was suspending some ethics opinions because of antitrust concerns.

Bright line test.

Outside the insular world of bar associations, public interest and consumer groups are also weighing in. In a letter to California’s Attorney General earlier this year, consumer interest representatives asked for an inquiry of all state regulatory bodies in California.

Calling the North Carolina decision a “bright-line minimum test,” the public interest groups wrote, “Those controlling the decisions that might restrain trade may not be “active market participants” in the trade regulated. For every agency so afflicted, the legal status of those making such decisions is clear – they are, in the words of the Court, “nonsovereign actors” who lack any state sovereign immunity whatever. Their decisions are no different than a decision undertaken by a cartel or private combination of competitors. You are invited to review the decision en toto and draw your own conclusions, or to refer it and this letter to the leading antitrust prosecutors and experts in your jurisdiction.”

Concerning lawyers and state bar associations, in a footnote the correspondents declared, “By way of illustration: State bars controlled by attorneys rarely discipline for excessive billing or intellectual dishonesty. Few require any demonstration whatever of competence in the actual practice area of law relied upon by clients. Few require malpractice insurance, or in any way ameliorate the harm from attorney incompetence.

“The point is, each of the many agencies within your state is empowered to carve out momentous exceptions from federal antitrust law, and those decisions in particular require a level of independence from the implicit focus of current practitioners.”

The woes of the amici.

Before the decision, some mandatory state bars had signed onto the North Carolina Bar’s amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Fourth Circuit. They’d claimed that upholding the Fourth Circuit would interfere with the state sovereign’s ability to regulate state-licensed professionals and state public protection laws. See “SCOTUS’ Upcoming Decision Could Leave State Bar Associations Toothless.”

They cited 4 likely gloom and doom impairments:

“(1) The limited resources available to prosecute lawyer misconduct and to prevent the unauthorized practice of law will be diverted to litigating whether the state bar’s action has been actively supervised in a manner sufficient to provide state action immunity.
(2) State bars will have to defend expensive antitrust actions even though states explicitly authorize the state bars to regulate the conduct being challenged.
(3) Lawyers will be reluctant to serve as bar councilors for fear of being sued—and of being held individually liable—in treble damage antitrust actions.
(4) Councilors who do agree to serve may be deterred from fulfilling their state authorized enforcement duties against defendants who threaten antitrust claims.”

Ironically, given the subsequent underwhelmed attitudes of some state bars in the case’s aftermath, the woes of the amici may have been overwrought pretense or much ado about nada. Perhaps the Justices were right to pay no mind.

Such little reaction despite all those supposed impairments. It appears the sky was never going to fall.

Or I’m wrong after all. No clue may be better than half-a-clue.

 

 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credits: “No Tolerance” by Jimmy Changa, Icky Pic, via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution and share alike distribution at Flickr; Other photos via Morguefile.com, no attribution required.

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Christmas nears. Visions of sugar plums and tamales dance in some heads, including mine. So imagine my dismay on news that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had interdicted 450 carefully wrapped tamales at the Los Angeles International Airport on November 2nd. ¡Ay, caramba!

Deemed “illegal” contraband, the corn husked pork and corn meal comestibles were seized from a Mexican traveler’s luggage. Once destined for holiday feasting, the tamales were instead impounded, the traveler fined, and the tamale treats consigned for ceremonial destruction under CBP supervision. Sometimes you can’t have your tamale and eat it, too.

tamales meal #6 | by Tricia Wang 王圣捷

Tamales and mandatory bars.

This tamale-for-cake variation of the age-old idiom brings me to the other reason for this post. Whether tamales, cakes or even mandatory state bar associations, you can’t always have your cake and eat it, too. In other words, you can’t or shouldn’t try to have two incompatible things like mandatory bar associations who claim to be both public protection regulators and trade associations for lawyer interests. By doing so, they fail to heed the ancient proverb, “No man can serve two masters.”

By mere happenstance, just the other day I posted here about past lawyer dissension in Washington State. In 2012 by referendum, Bar members overcame opposition from their Bar to roll back dues by 25%.

It appears that Washington lawyer brethren and sistern are again restless with their state bar. It’s the long-running kerfuffle between Washington Bar leadership and its Practice of Law Board (POLB). The dispute is over access-to-justice and regulating the unauthorized practice of law (UPL), which are supposed to be the core missions of the POLB.

The genesis of this current brouhaha may be the September 1, 2012 state supreme court rule change that authorized non-attorneys designated as Limited License Legal Technicians who met defined educational requirements to advise clients on family law matters. The Bar’s Board of Governors consistently opposed the rule change as did many members. Well, the squabbling finally boiled over last month and triggered the mass resignations of nearly the entire POLB membership.

To air their grievances, the former POLB members released an 11-page letter written to the Washington Supreme Court where they decried the bar association’s “long record of opposing efforts that threaten to undermine its monopoly on the delivery of legal services.” They also accused Washington Bar Executive Director Paula Littlewood of pursuing “a campaign to eliminate the Practice of Law Board.”

Recognizing the inherent conflict of interest between a trade association beholden to member interests and a mandatory bar that pays lip service to public protection, the former POLB members also wrote “Independence from the Washington State Bar Association was necessary to ensure that the Board’s mission could be advanced free from undue influence by the state’s largest trade association of lawyers.”  See “Board members quit, blast Washington State Bar in fight over UPL, legal technicians.”

As for myself as we approach yuletide, it’s time to keep calm and eat tamales.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___________________________________________________________________PPhoto Credits: Contraband tamales at LAX, US Custom and Border Protection photo;”tamales meal #6,” by HI TRICIA! 王 圣 捷 at Flickr via Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license; Tamales mexicanos 25-dec-2004 Pixeltoo 22:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) at Wikipedia, public domain; tamale meal at morguefile.com.

Read Full Post »

bartender | by ken ratcliff

Read Full Post »

Portrait of the Artist Looking Unimpressed (day 27) | by Drab Makyo

Scientists at the University of London concluded last year “that the key to happiness is having low expectations.”

But did it really take scientists to reach that conclusion? Among others, the late novelist Olivia Goldsmith previously cornered the sentiment when she wrote, “The secret to true happiness is a combination of low expectations and insensitivity.”

Nonetheless, such aphorisms are helpful particularly for State Bar of Arizona members managing their low expectation happiness with their mandatory membership Bar.

Indeed, when mentoring law students and especially new lawyers, my oft-used lawyer happiness advice remains, “Remember, the State Bar is not your friend.” How else to interpret the Bar’s chest-pounding proclamations that its primary mission is to protect the public from its members?

Low-value smiley-face offers.

But thanks to successive blast emails the past weeks announcing new member ‘benefits,’ Arizona lawyers continue confounded. When it’s not acting like the guardian of the public weal, the Bar plays at being a professional association pretending to represent and advance the interests of Arizona lawyers.

Just the same, the Bar’s latest emails announce commercial discounts that barely trip the excitement meter with conventional discounts off products or services.

pfft! | by mat_walkerAlthough addressed from the Bar’s well-paid CEO, they’re undoubtedly creatures of low-level administrative staff and pitch stuff like insurance; share filing software; and most recently, virtual receptionist services. Each email was trapped by my spam filter and relegated to the junk folder. But that’s not to say the low-value affinity marketing discounts weren’t bereft of low expectations.

Little or no value to members.

Its own member surveys continually affirm most Bar members find these commercial offers wanting. In fact, the latest Arizona Bar member survey results announced last November are consistent. As many as 75% of respondents regard the Bar’s member discounts as having little or no value.

Car rental and office supply discounts or reduced prices on overpriced hotels? Most impressive — said no one, ever.

And even when the discounts involve law-related products and services, they aren’t singularly exclusive to a compelled membership association. Virtually all voluntary, optional-membership state bar associations offer similar commercial discount ‘benefits.’ See, for instance, the long list of “Member Benefits” provided by the voluntary membership Iowa State Bar Association.

Dog played with his food. | by BuzzFarmers

“I can’t let go of the excitement.”

 

Sadly, cutting bar dues or offering free continuing legal education didn’t pass the membership benefit threshold. That’s totally understandable — not when the Arizona Bar can instead tilt our excitement meters with 5% discounts on long-term care insurance.

https://i1.wp.com/cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1316445053538_5919679.png

Truly the negotiations to wrest the tremendous discounts from the grip of marketers must have been mano a mano.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/ChicagoCourtroomSpitoon_retouched.jpgNot since its lame “finish the ballot” contest (without as far as I know, bothering to announce a winner) has the Arizona Bar stirred so many spittoons of salivated anticipation.

___________________________________________________

Photo Credits: “Portrait of the Artist Looking Unimpressed” by Madison Scott-Clary at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution;”Dog played with his dog food,” by BuzzFarmers at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution; “Unimpressed” by Kirk Strauser at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution; “pfft!” by mat Walker at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution; Chicago courtroom scene with spittoon at Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 136 other followers