Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Board of Governors of the State Bar of Nevada’

The mandatory-membership State Bar of Nevada has been on a troll. Petal by petal, Nevada lawyers are finding the Daisy Oracle’s divining just one answer. When it comes to their bar’s affections — she loves them not.

15simplependulum.gifNot too long ago Nevada’s bar was rightly criticized for indifferent handling of bar complaints. Inattention caused a backlog of attorney complaints. In response, the bar hired a new prosecutor to head Nevada’s Office of Bar Counsel. But in the minds of some lawyers, the result was an overreaction — an excessively prosecutorial pendulum swinging way past the other side.

Alongside this perceived heightened hostility, the Nevada bar’s tone-deaf governing board started amping up a series of alarmingly adverse initiatives — each a solution in search of a problem. Fortunately, thanks to member uproar some of what the board spewed out was dispersed away — like a speech code petition that would have unconstitutionally restricted lawyer free speech, free exercise of religion, and freedom of association.

Likewise, another ill-conceived, under-studied board initiative to impose trust account random audits was also denied by a dubious state supreme court concerned about the untold costs on lawyers forced to pay for audits — whether they were warranted or not.

But other board schemes did not go by the wayside. These include a needless increase in mandatory continuing education hours via a new mental health and addiction credit requirement and a freshly implemented $100 bar tax on lawyer advertising. In addition, Nevada lawyers with the temerity to take continuing legal education courses from non-bar accredited providers are now subject to what amount to penalty fees.

But that’s not all. Already one of the top five highest cost to practice states, things will get exponentially more expensive for Nevada’s lawyers if a pending petition to require legal malpractice insurance gets approved. Like the board’s other harebrained ideas, it’s also evoked strong member dissent.

The malpractice insurance proposal — a boon to insurers — is the governing board’s lame response to recent news stories about lawyer theft and exploitation of the vulnerable.

But it’s especially galling since it won’t protect victims. Malpractice insurance won’t pay any claims to those injured by a lawyer’s criminal acts. Everyone except apparently a grandstanding board knows that legal malpractice policies exclude claims arising out of dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, malicious, or deliberately wrongful acts, errors or omissions.

These days, it’s hard to keep up with all the meddling. As with all mandatory bars, those in power prefer to operate below-the-radar with as little notice as possible. Remarkably, some lawyers in Nevada have started to pay attention at the wave of noxious Nanny-state runoff flowing from the board.

When will it end? It’s hard to say. The past several bar presidents have been cookie-cutter activists self-anointed with their own overweening meddlesome mandates each seemingly trying to outdo their immediate predecessor.

It’s been said legacy is just another name for ego. And do these folks have egos. In April, the Nevada Bar unveiled a Past Presidents Wall of Fame and feted these erstwhile ‘luminaries’ at a reception held at bar headquarters.

The easiest money to spend is always somebody else’s — such as the mandatory monies of Nevada lawyers forced to join and fund the State Bar of Nevada in order to practice law.

At long last some lawyers are waking up. They’re getting restless, rebellious and restive. Three of the four incumbent board members in Clark County, for instance, were just voted out of office following board elections this past June. They were replaced by three reform-minded governors. Unfortunately, the three reformers will be outnumbered on the 15-member board. But it’s a start. Kudos to Nevada’s Clark County lawyers for administering an overdue reality-check. By contrast there’s nary a reformer in sight on the Arizona bar’s board.

Regulator or Trade Association?

Mandatory bar associations can’t figure out whether they’re regulators fretfully charged with disciplining lawyers to protect the public or fun-loving trade associations looking out for lawyers.

It gets confusing even for bar governing boards let alone bar members. All mandatory bars suffer from the same regulator/trade association confusion. A lawyer recently running for bar president in Texas, for example, brought a refreshing take on his presidential vision. On his campaign website, he declared, “the State Bar should be in the customer service business with Texas lawyers being the customers.”

More often, particularly in Nevada, the vision is anything but customer-friendly. Just the same on its website, the Nevada Bar says its “Mission is to govern the legal profession, to serve our members, and to protect the public interest.”

First do no harm.

In Arizona, governing board members are required to take the pledge. Unfortunately, it’s the wrong pledge. Having imposed a “Code of Conduct” on board members, the Arizona Bar requires their loyalty and “respect” for “the validity of the Board’s decisions and their value to the organization, even if not in the voting majority.” The Code further obligates board members to “uphold and enhance the reputation and public image of the Bar.”

More preferable in my opinion is an oath modeled on the physicians’ Hippocratic Oath. Before taking office, mandatory bar board members everywhere should be forced to swear to “primum non nocere,” – first, do no harm. Help if you can but at least do no harm.

This new pledge, though, is merely a stopgap. The true remedy is to uncouple the regulatory and the trade association functions performed by mandatory bars. Eliminate the confusion and the inherent conflict of interest of trying to serve two masters — the public and lawyers. It can’t be done. Recent board history in Nevada amply bears this out.

______________________________________

Credit: 15simplependulum by Lookang at Wikimedia Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Last month, an Arizona psychic was at a restaurant having lunch when a car crashed through the window, threw him up in the air, and pinned him against a wall. “I didn’t foresee it happening,” joked injured psychic Blair Robertson after the accident. See “Arizona psychic injured when he ‘didn’t foresee’ car crash.”

Whether or not you believe in clairvoyance, you don’t need psychic powers to foresee that state bars without fail welcome their own collisions with the liberty interests of their members. It’s integral to the “do-gooder” mentality endemic among the “moral busybodies” running state bar associations.

“Those who torment us for our own good,” said C.S. Lewis, “will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” 

Do-gooders.

https://lawmrh.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/travel-tourism-18.jpg?w=1000&h=The latest do-gooder intrusion comes from a surprising quarter, the State Bar of Nevada. At one time, the Nevada Bar could be characterized by a laissez-faire attitude consistent with Nevadans’ strong independent, libertarian streak. But oh, how times have changed.

Last year, in a misguided effort grounded on anecdotal conjecture about supposed prevalent substance abuse and mental health problems among Nevada’s lawyers, Nevada’s Bar Governors petitioned the high court for another mandatory hour of annual continuing legal education in substance abuse prevention and mental health.

Continuing legal education has never been proven it makes lawyers more competent or ethical. Just the same, the Nevada Bar thought an hour of mandatory substance abuse/mental health CLE would help make lawyers abstemious and healthy-minded.

And not satisfied with only that moral meddlesomeness, the board next appointed a task force to study whether Nevada lawyers should pay more to practice by following the Oregon Bar’s improvident model of forced professional liability insurance. Oregon’s insurance mandate currently compels lawyers to pay a hefty $3,500.00 annually for the merest nominal coverage.

https://lawmrh.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/people-16688.jpg?w=163&h=155At Revenge of the Do-Gooderin The American Thinker, Scott Boerman explained what animates the do-gooder is “a great desire to cure humanity’s ills and imperfections with solutions that invariably focus on controlling other people’s property and productivity. Not to be confused with real volunteers and philanthropists — who use their own skills and wealth to directly help a favored cause — the do-gooder uses only his brain to decide precisely what everyone else what should do with their abilities and wealth. And because the do-gooder is so confident that his plans are good for humanity, he strives to impose his will with a stick, be it regulatory, monetary, or via public brow-beating.”  

An unconstitutional speech code.

Nevada’s Bar, however, may have finally reached the apex of do-gooding thanks to a petition filed May 8th asking the state supreme court to adopt the new ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) which amends Nevada Rule 8.4 by adding an entirely new subsection (g). It reads:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . (g) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status related to the practice of lawThis paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16.  This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.

No jurisdiction has yet adopted the ABA 8.4 (g) model rule concoction passed last fall. Nevada hopes to be first.

Meanwhile, the amendment hits Boerman’s do-gooder regulatory, monetary and public brow-beating trifecta. Violations mean notoriety. Regulatory sanctions impact a lawyer’s ability to earn a living.

Academics like UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh and South Texas College of Law Professor Josh Blackman have weighed in against the proposed rule on constitutional grounds. The Attorneys General of Texas and South Carolina have also officially opined that a court would likely conclude ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) not only amounts to an unconstitutional restriction on the free speech, free exercise of religion, and freedom of association of attorneys but it’s also unconstitutionally overbroad and void for vagueness. See Opinion No. KP-0123, Attorney General of Texas and 14 South Carolina Attorney General Opinion.

Other commentators contend that by only proscribing speech that is derogatory, demeaning, or harmful toward members of certain designated classes, the Rule is an unconstitutional content-based speech restriction. Others argue attorney conscience rights are also adversely implicated.

Professor Blackman further raises separation of powers problems when bar disciplinary authorities lacking the “boundless discretion over all aspects of an attorney’s life” nevertheless attempt to regulate conduct beyond their legal power or authority.

More bar complaints.

But the real upshot is heightened lawyer liability when state bar disciplinary police are given unprecedented new powers to punish lawyers for conduct not directly connected with what ethical rule 8.4 already prohibits, which is misconduct while representing a client or implicating fitness to practice or prejudicing the administration of justice. The new rule enlarges the scope to include social conferences, bar association activities and private speech far removed from providing actual legal services.

As Professor Blackman further wrote in The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics about Model Rule 8.4(g):

“Lectures and debates hosted by bar associations that offer Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credits are necessarily held “in connection with the practice of law.” Lawyers are required to attend such classes to maintain their law licenses. It is not difficult to imagine how certain topics could reasonably be found by attendees to be “derogatory or demeaning” on the basis of one of the eleven protected classes in Rule 8.4(g).

Blackman lists sample topics chosen as he says for their “deliberate provocativeness” where a lawyer attendee might subject herself to discipline since the speaker “reasonably should know” that someone at the event could find the remarks disparaging towards one of the eleven protected groups.” Here are a few:

“● Race—A speaker discusses “mismatch theory,” and contends that race based affirmative action should be banned because it hurts minority students by placing them in education settings where they have a lower chance of success.
● Gender—A speaker argues that women should not be eligible for combat duty in the military, and should continue to be excluded from the selective service requirements.
● Religion—A speaker states that the owners of a for-profit corporation who request a religious exemption from the contraceptive mandate are bigoted and misogynistic.
● National Origin—A speaker contends that the plenary power doctrine permits the government to exclude aliens from certain countries that are deemed dangerous.
● Ethnicity—A speaker states that Korematsu v. United States sas correctly decided, and that during times of war, the President should be able to exclude individuals based on their ethnicity.
● Sexual Orientation—A speaker contends that Obergefell v. Hodges was incorrectly decided, and that the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit classifications on the basis of sexual orientation.”

All of which means an amended Nevada Rule 8.4 will unwisely empower a mandatory bar to extend existing lawyer First Amendment encroachments upon new terrains of unconstitutional discipline.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Nevada Supreme Court invites written comment from the bench, bar, and public regarding the proposed amendments. The Hearing date is July 17, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., Supreme Court Courtroom, 408 East Clark Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101. The Comment deadline is July 5, 2017, at 5:00 p.m., Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, 201 South Carson Street, Carson City, Nevada 89701.


Photo Credits: “Psychic,” by The She-Creature at Flickr Attribution;  “Satisfaction,” by Walter Kramer at Flickr Attribution; “aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh,” by Marco Boscolo at Flickr Attribution;”Tread Upon Now What?” by John Eisenschenk at Flickr Attribution; “kindness, persuasion, punishment,” by Meagan Fisher at Flickr Attribution.

Read Full Post »