Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘first amendment litigation’

A “membership requirements” survey emailed to the state’s lawyers last week by the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court features an unprecedented argument. Acknowledging that “some lawyers argue there should be an exception” to mandatory membership in the State Bar of Arizona, the introduction to the survey asserts “One argument is that some lawyers hold a ‘firm, fixed and sincere ethical, religious or moral objection’ to being required to be a member of the State Bar and should be able to opt out as a non-member attorney (NMA).”¹

As proposed, lawyers opting out of joining the Bar and funding its full freight of regulatory and non-regulatory trade association services would be required to personally swear or affirm in writing to “a firm, fixed, and sincere ethical, religious or moral objection” to Bar membership.

It’s not clear who would determine the adequacy of the affidavits or how often affiants would have to file their objections. California teachers, for example, must annually file an opt-out request to get a 30% refund of their union dues.

More significantly, objectors would be forced to tell their clients of their new status as NMAs. This assuredly implicates unconstitutional compelled speech. It also serves no legitimate government function. And without pinpointing any legitimate purpose, objectors would be issued new Bar cards with brand new bar numbers to identify them as attorneys licensed to practice — but NMAs. Talk about chilling the First Amendment right not to associate.

A lawyer second class.

As a newly created separate and unequal class of lawyers, NMAs would be excluded from voting in Bar elections or from running for its governing board. However, as others have pointed out, disenfranchising NMAs is only appropriate if the State Bar has no formal role in attorney discipline and governance. But that’s not the case here. The Court-empowered Bar will continue holding regulatory and disciplinary sway over both members and non members.

Categorized as ineligible for Bar discretionary services, including specialty section membership, NMAs would also be charged higher registration fees for Bar continuing legal education programs.

In exchange for giving up the foregoing, it’s estimated NMAs would save a modest $70 to $100 off the current $505 dues. Already one of the highest cost to practice bars in the U.S., Arizona’s dues go up to $520 a year from now.

It’s fair to wonder how this low savings estimate was calculated and whether it was derived from self-interested Bar number-crunchers. By contrast, when in 2013 the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered the Nebraska Bar to charge members only for lawyer regulation — licensing fees went down by two-thirds.

The lawyer as conscientious objector.

Forget for the moment that “an opt-out system places the burden on the wrong party and leads to the unjust and needless encroachment upon First Amendment rights.” Or that giving lawyers only one choice: making a Hacksaw Ridge style conscientious objection to get out of membership is not only absurd but unnecessary. Trade association services should be voluntary to begin with. And when did we sign up for the infantry?

As I have written here before, the Bar always conflates lawyer professionalism, expertise and qualifications with mandatory membership — because it serves their self-interest. Lawyers are admitted and authorized to practice by the state supreme court not because of Bar membership.

Yes or no.

After describing how the proposal would be implemented, the survey asks a yes or no question, “Given this information, do you believe the Arizona Supreme Court should provide a non-member attorney option to attorneys licensed to practice in Arizona?”

And then asks, “If the AZ Supreme Court were to provide a non-member attorney option as described above, would you:

___ Remain a full member of the State Bar

___ Choose to opt out”

Below are the parameters that frame these survey questions. But inasmuch as they amount to poison pills, it’s clear the intent is to not to delineate but to dissuade respondents from opting out.

The State Bar, which gave input on the survey, stands to profit should the results inure to its benefit. However, asking the Bar for input on whether its captive members should opt out is like asking the cat whether to release the mouse.

So notwithstanding the survey’s one-sided argument and suspect constitutionality, the Bar will just the same crow a result that cowed its members from opting out. How many lawyers will find amenable a requirement to out themselves to clients like modern-day Hester Prynnes?

But if there’s ever been a better case for a voluntary bar than the one presented by this unworkable scheme — I can’t think of one.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Lawyers who choose the NMA option:

“Would be required to file an affidavit with the State Bar indicating they favor a firm, fixed and sincere ethical, religious or moral objection to being required to be a member of the State Bar.

▪ “Would be required to notify your clients that you are no longer a member of the State Bar, but are licensed to practice in Arizona.

▪”Would have to personally file the affidavit. The head of a firm or office could not opt out for all attorneys at the firm or office.

▪ “Would receive a separate law license number and their current bar number would be deactivated.

▪ “Would not be able to join a State Bar section.

▪ “Would be charged a higher non-member registration fee if the NMA wants to attend a State Bar sponsored CLE program.

▪ “Could not vote in State Bar elections, nor could they run for the Board of Governors.

▪ “Would not be eligible for State Bar discretionary services, e.g., the Arizona Attorney, e-Legal newsletters, Law Office Management assistance, use of FastCase, State Bar legal publications.

▪ “Would pay a mandatory licensing fee but would not pay for State Bar non-regulatory services. The Court estimates it would be a 14% to 20% reduction in the fee paid for only being licensed to practice. For a regular active Bar membership, the reduction would be $70 to $100.”

_________________________________________________________________

¹Never having heard of any lawyer making such a peculiar argument, what first occurred to me on seeing the proposed NMA acronym was the Compton rap group N.W.A.

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 »