Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘mandatory bar’

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/UserpageCOI.svg/262px-UserpageCOI.svg.pngThe movement begun in Nebraska in 2013 to deunify the regulatory and trade association functions of mandatory bar associations continues. On January 13, 2017,  Representative Anthony Kern introduced HB 2295 and HB 2300  to improve public protection by eliminating the Arizona Bar’s regulator and trade association conflict of interest. Yesterday, both bills were assigned to House Committees for their respective hearings.

https://i1.wp.com/azleg.gov/alisImages/MemberPhotos/52leg/House/KERN.gif

Rep. Anthony Kern

According to Kern, “The bills resolve the conflict of interest that exists when a quasi-public organization that licenses lawyers and is supposed to regulate their conduct also remains beholden to lawyer interests. Neither the public or lawyers are going to be well served by such a conflict. The two missions – protecting the public and serving lawyers – do not work well together.”

In accord with its prerogatives as a co-equal branch of government and its duty to uphold the Arizona Constitution, HB2295 represents a determination by the Arizona Legislature that the protection of the public is the highest priority. And that in the licensing, regulating, and disciplining of attorneys in the state, the protection of the public is paramount over other interests sought to be promoted. This bill goes to the heart of the conflict outlined by Kern.

Trade Association and Regulator.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Berckheyde%2C_Jan_-_A_Notary_in_His_Office_-_1672.jpg/378px-Berckheyde%2C_Jan_-_A_Notary_in_His_Office_-_1672.jpgThe State Bar of Arizona tries to be all things to all people — but it can’t. Through the years it has employed various semantical machinations to reframe its trade association functions as enhancements to the legal profession. At the same time, it has also articulated a competing mission to serve the public. Indeed, under an updated rule iteration, it now says its mission is “to serve and protect the public with respect to the provision of legal services and access to justice.”

Semantical gyrations notwithstanding, the regulator/trade association conflict of interest remains intractable and irreconcilable.

In addition to doing away with those conflicted interests, HB2295 also reinforces First Amendment free speech and associational freedoms. Proponents also contend it would help lower the high cost to practice law in the state. HB2295 is similar to last session’s HB2221, which fell 5 votes shy of reaching the governor’s desk for signing.

A Voluntary Bar.

Consistent with the Arizona Legislature’s prerogatives as a co-equal branch of government and its duty to uphold the Arizona Constitution, HB2300 provides that to the extent provided by the state constitution, all lawyer regulatory and public protection functions are transferred exclusively to the Arizona Supreme Court.

The bill also provides that an attorney shall not be required to be a member of any organization to become or remain a licensed attorney in Arizona. By eliminating compulsory bar membership, HB2300 remedially makes the determination by the Legislature that conditioning the practice of law on bar membership violates the rights to free speech and free association guaranteed by the Arizona Constitution.

California Bar Deunification.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Map_of_USA_highlighting_California.pngThe Arizona Legislature is not alone in its quest to reform the way lawyers are regulated. According to a report in the ABA Journal, during its last legislative session, the California Assembly “unanimously approved a bill that would have mandated a nonlawyer majority on the bar’s board of trustees to address the antitrust problem, and created a commission to study splitting the bar into a state agency that regulates lawyers and a separate private, voluntary trade group.”

The California Bill failed to pass after the Bar rallied opposition in the Senate. But the fight is far from over. It resumes this session. And the pressure for reform mounts. For example, because of policy changes to the governance of the California Bar that adversely impacted California Bar Section operations, including the Bar’s focus on its core regulatory functions, the Sections are currently considering separating from the Bar. The environment created in the past year, combined with the very high overhead and ever-increasing assessment the Sections are unilaterally mandated to pay, the environment has become too difficult for them to reasonably survive or thrive.

_____________________________________________________

Credit: UserpageCOI.svg, public domain, Wikimedia Commons; Berckheyde, Jan – A Notary in His Office – 1672.jpg, public domain, Wikimedia Commons; Map of USA highlighting California.png, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License, Wikimedia Commons.

.

Read Full Post »

petition | by League of Women Voters of CaliforniaA petition was filed today asking the Arizona Supreme Court to amend Rule 32(c) and (d) so as to split the functions of the State Bar of Arizona into two distinct subsets, a mandatory membership organization (“Mandatory Bar”) and a purely voluntary membership organization (“Voluntary Bar”). The amendment to the Court Rules would maintain the current mandatory membership requirement for all lawyers but (1) eliminate mandatory membership dues for non-regulatory functions and (2) allow voluntary contributions for all non-regulatory functions. Read the petition here.

The petition was filed by Sherman & Howard attorney Gregory Falls on behalf of the Goldwater Institute. By way of explanation on its website, the Goldwater Institute reiterates its opposition to “conditioning the practice of law on bar membership in Arizona because coerced membership violates the rights to free speech and free association guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions.”

It is for this reason, the Institute says it is “sponsoring a rule change petition to allow attorneys to practice law without being forced to fund the lobbying and other non-regulatory functions of the State Bar of Arizona.”

Change Management | by Jurgen AppeloThe petition is reminiscent of HB2221, which the petition acknowledges, “called for a less nuanced version of what Petitioner proposes here.” HB2221 came within 5 votes of clearing the Arizona Legislature and landing on the governor’s desk during the 2016 legislative session. Like today’s petition, HB2221 was modeled on the Nebraska Supreme Court’s bifurcated approach to bar membership articulated in its December 6, 2013 decision Petition For Rule To Create Vol. State Bar Assn. 286 Neb. 108.

j0289753The Nebraska Supreme Court ordered that the requirement be left in place mandating membership in the Nebraska State Bar Association. But the Court also lifted the requirement that attorneys fund the Nebraska Bar’s non-regulatory functions. This meant Nebraska attorneys still paid regulatory and disciplinary costs but were no longer forced to subsidize the Nebraska Bar’s speech and its non-regulatory activities.

In its website statement, the Goldwater Institute acknowledges that “the Nebraska Model falls short of the fully voluntary model used in 18 other states.” It adds, however, that Nebraska’s bifurcated model “is a significant positive step toward associational freedom.”

Another front.

The petition filing opens up another front in the long-term campaign to reform lawyer regulation in Arizona. Along with continuing legislative efforts, the goal is to remediate a system not only rife with inequity but which represents a continuing threat to consumers. In addition to impinging constitutional rights on lawyers by preconditioning membership in a trade association to earn a living in their chosen profession, mandatory bar associations have an inherent conflict of interest because they act as both regulators of and trade associations for lawyers. And that conflict of interest is further exacerbated when lawyers elect a controlling number of other lawyers to represent them in their own regulatory board. By its very nature, then, this cartel-protection system threatens capture of the regulatory board by lawyers at the expense of the public.

Jen, kissing the First Amendment goodbye? | by jasoneppinkConditioning the practice of law on bar membership also violates lawyers’ constitutional rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that the only compelling state interest in coercive bar association membership is to improve the practice of law through lawyer regulation. But the fact is that lawyer regulation and improved legal practice can be attained through less restrictive means. 18 states — Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Vermont — have already found ways to regulate attorneys without compelling membership

Arizona lawyers aren’t the only professionals concerned with a mandatory bar’s opacity, bureaucratic wastefulness, and divided loyalties to the public and lawyers. Indeed, attorney and public members of the California State Bar’s Board of Trustees are working again with California Legislators to bifurcate that Bar’s regulatory and trade association functions. See Calif. State Bar Blasted for Lack of Transparency  and Lawmakers Fight to Reform California Bar After Audits Skewer Agency for Mismanagement, Lack of Transparency, and Pricey Salaries.

_____________________________________________

Credits: Petition, by League of Women Voters of California LWVC at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution license; Change Management by Jurgen Appelo at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution License; Jen, kissing the first amendment goodbye, by Jason Eppink at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution.

Read Full Post »

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/GrouchoCaricature.jpg/330px-GrouchoCaricature.jpg

“I don’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member.” – Groucho Marx

Earlier this month, a white Austin lawyer filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against members of the Texas State Bar’s Board of Directors claiming the Bar is “violating the Equal Protection Clause by maintaining a race- and sex-based quota scheme on its Board of Directors.” Solo family law attorney Greg Gegenheimer alleged he’s being unconstitutionally discriminated against because the Texas Bar won’t consider him for one of the four board seats statutorily designated for minority members.

This is the latest of the Texas Bar’s constitutional kerfuffles. At the end of last year, Texas Governor Greg Abbott accused the Bar of religious discrimination for refusing to accredit a continuing legal education (CLE) class on Christian ethical perspectives in the legal profession sponsored by San Antonio’s St. Mary’s University School of Law.

minority-director-soughtAs for Gegenheimer’s suit, Texas law states “four minority member directors appointed by the President of the State Bar” must serve on the Bar’s board. “Minority member” means a state bar member who is “female, African-American, Hispanic-American, Native American, or Asian-American.” Gegenheimer’s complaint alleges the Bar is prohibiting white men from being nominated or even considered for the open minority-member positions posted for the board.

Seriously? Why would any lawyer pick a fight to sit on any compulsory membership state bar’s governing board — unless it was to disrupt the collection of sycophants, suck-ups and social climbers that calcify there?

Legal elites detest dissenters — but if Gegenheimer wants to sit on the board as a disruptive force — well more power to him.

The preferable constitutional battle.

But a squabble over bar quotas is merely an undercard. The main event, the better bout is defending the First Amendment free speech and free association rights of Texas lawyers by eradicating compulsory membership in the Texas Bar. Now that’s the fight worth having.

https://i0.wp.com/wiki.ncac.org/images/e/ed/FirstAmendment.jpgAnd as for filling its minority-member vacancies, the Texas Bar most likely can’t persuasively argue a sufficient constitutional interest for imposing a sex and race based quota for appointments to its board. (Not to say there hasn’t been a basis for assuring some semblance of minority representation in Texas given the Lone Star State’s rather inglorious past and recent history).

Rather than contesting race and sex based numerical requirements, Texas lawyers should be revisiting the still dubious foundations of coercive bar association membership. Granted, the only compelling state interest the U.S. Supreme Court has found to justify it is improving the practice of law through the regulation of attorneys. Yet 18 states—Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Vermont—have already found ways to regulate attorneys without compelling membership. To say that in Texas and in 31 other jurisdictions that this interest cannot be achieved through less restrictive means, simply ignores reality. Mandating membership in any state bar association crosses “the limit of what the First Amendment can tolerate”1 when there are less restrictive means available.

Meantime, you can read Gegenheimer’s complaint here. His suit is being backed by the Project on Fair Representation, an organization which calls itself “a public interest organization dedicated to the promotion of equal opportunity and racial harmony.” It goes on to add, “The Project works to advance race-neutral principles in the areas education, public contracting, public employment, and voting.”

In actuality, I seriously doubt Gegenheimer wants to serve as one of the board’s minority-member designees. After obtaining a declaratory judgment that the minority-member law violates the Equal Protection Clause, what he really wants is a preliminary and a permanent injunction preventing the Bar from enforcing that law.

Yet the broader view is for Texas lawyers and other lawyers forced to join bar associations as preconditions to practice to instead work to protect their fundamental rights of free speech and freedom from coerced association that forces them to pay compulsory dues whether or not they subscribe to the viewpoints, activities and agendas of that association.

______________________________________________________

1Knox v. Service Employees Intern. Union, 132 S. Ct. 2277, 2291 (2012).

Credits: Groucho Marx caricature drawn by Greg Williams via Wikipedia Commons, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License; FirstAmendment.jpg under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported.

Read Full Post »

bartender | by ken ratcliff

Read Full Post »

So Friday afternoon the Arizona Supreme Court’s Task Force on State Bar of Arizona Mission and Governance posted its draft report to the sound of one-handed clapping. Anyone inclined to read the report can visit the court’s webpage.

But since the proverbial die is cast, it makes no difference that after-the-fact comments are being solicited from the hoi polloi.  Any remarks from the naked unwashed will be just in time to be too late and as inessential as a take-a-penny, leave-a-penny tray on a 7-11 counter.

The state high court will do as it pleases and it will please to keep the status quo: a compulsory state bar — just as the Task Force recommends. The rest of the recommendations are much ado about not much, such as recommending a smaller cast of characters now called “trustees” instead of “governors” to oversee policy-making and operations. As previously reported here and here, the Task Force, its report and recommendations will remain largely cosmetic and so inconsequential as to have a thimbleful’s worth of relevance to members.

Integrated not compulsory.

morguefile.com photo

The Task Force prefers dressing up the compulsory nature of the official state organization to which all attorneys must belong and where pay-to-play is the required precondition to earn a living as lawyers. Rather than “mandatory” or “obligatory” or “compulsory,” like state bar elites elsewhere, they’re partial to innocuous modifiers such as “integrated.” Other favorites include, “incorporated” or “organized” or “unified” to describe their state organizations — anything to disguise the fact that unlike physicians, architects, CPAs, dentists, engineers and tattoo artists, only lawyers are singled out for compelled dues-playing professional state association membership for ‘the privilege’ of earning a living in their chosen profession.

Clarifications.

The work of the Task Force has been mostly below-the-radar. This is typical of a state bar that treats transparency like Arizonans treat the amount of window tinting used to shield themselves from the desert sun. Unsurprisingly, one year after its creation, the odds are good most Arizona lawyers know little if anything about the Task Force. And now, they’re asked to comment about something they know little to nothing about.

morguefile.com photo

The final draft report was kicked off with a video, which I watched while wrapping up my Friday afternoon work. I’ve yet to read the 116-page report. All the same, surprises? Expect none — unless the Task Force’s risible consultation with the California State Bar counts as one.

For now, here are a couple of needed clarifications after watching the announcement video:

1) Contrary to the Task Force’s assertions, voluntary state bar jurisdictions like New York, Indiana, Illinois and Colorado amply demonstrate that lawyer regulation and discipline are not dependent on the existence of a compulsory bar. In those voluntary bar states, the state supreme courts handle those functions.

morguefile.com photo

The State Bar of Arizona, however, would like nothing better than to continue perpetuating an absurd mythology that lawyers can’t be regulated or disciplined or the public protected without a compulsory membership bar association. New York, Indiana, Illinois and Colorado and 14 other states beg to differ. Those voluntary bar jurisdictions have robust regulatory and public protection programs in place without tramping on First Amendment associational freedoms.

Apples and oranges.

Ev Williams | by Christopher.Michel

2) Captain Obvious needs to point out that voluntary bar states are by plain meaning, “voluntary.” Unlike Arizona, lawyers can choose to pay their respective supreme courts only for lawyer regulation and discipline — and forgo joining a voluntary state bar. So what’s the point of comparisons between the cost to practice in Arizona with that of voluntary bar states where membership is optional? Why make comparisons between jurisdictions that seem to share a common denominator such as payment of lawyer registration fees while ignoring the fact that the jurisdictions are distinct from one another.

Besides, in virtually all instances, lawyers practicing in voluntary bar states have lower costs to practice than in Arizona — a fact the Task Force prefers Arizona lawyers not know. Instead, the Task Force speciously plays the false analogy game.

morguefile.com photo

A more accurate comparison is to only compare the court-mandated lawyer registration fees for regulation, discipline and client protection among the jurisdictions. After all, lawyer regulation and discipline are the core public protection functions and ought not to be freighted with the bureaucratic surplusage tacked on by mandatory bar associations for non-mandatory programs and activities. Otherwise, it’s all so much nonsensical claptrap, although the apples and oranges comparisons are conveniently self-serving.

Apples and apples.

morguefile.com photo

Take the voluntary bar state of Indiana, where the supreme court charges $180 per year for regulation and discipline. Membership in the voluntary Indiana bar association is $280 (6+ years of practice). Total cost to practice in Indiana is $460 if an Indiana lawyer also saw fit to join the voluntary bar. Otherwise, the cost to practice in Indiana is a $180 registration fee payable to the Indiana Supreme Court. This is a lower cost to practice than Arizona, which is currently $475 but increasing to $520 by January 1, 2018.

morguefile.com photo

Or take Illinois where lawyers pay the court an annual registration of $382, which includes regulation and discipline but is also larded with mandatory payments to the Lawyers Trust Fund ($95) for pro bono legal aid; Lawyers Assistance Program ($7); Commission on Professionalism ($25) and Client Protection Program ($25). Voluntary membership dues in the Illinois State Bar Association run from “Free” in year one to a cap of $320 in year 20. Certainly, if you combine both the court registration fees and voluntary bar association membership dues, the total cost to practice in Illinois of $702– far more than what lawyers pay in Arizona.

But what the task force conveniently omits is that there’s more than meets the eye concerning membership in voluntary bar jurisdictions. Membership in the voluntary Illinois State Bar Association also entitles members to 15 hours of FREE CLE per year. If you factor what Arizona lawyers pay for CLE, which can run upwards of $600 per year (15 hours X $40 average), the total cost to practice in Illinois is far lower than Arizona.

Registration desk sign | by NHS Confederation

And in Connecticut, another voluntary bar state that on paper looks higher than Arizona with an attorney registration fee of $665, of that amount, $565 is a separate tax that goes to the State of Connecticut Department of Revenue Services — not to the court for lawyer regulation and discipline. Meantime, membership in the voluntary Connecticut State Bar Association runs zero in year one up to $280 for admittees prior to 7/10/10. The total, excluding the $565 state tax, is less than $400 assuming a Connecticut lawyer also opted to join the voluntary bar. Otherwise, they would just pay the hefty $665 annual fee.

In Colorado, lawyers pay an annual attorney registration fee of $325 to cover regulation and discipline. Membership in the Colorado Bar Association is voluntary. New lawyers pay $100 per year and so-called senior lawyers licensed 8+ years pay $230 annually. Assuming Colorado lawyers wanted to belong to the voluntary bar association, their total annual fees would total $555.

 

Finally, in the voluntary bar jurisdiction of New York, the attorney registration fees of $375 payable to the court are biennial, i.e., due every two years. This amount includes $60 to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection; $50 to the Indigent Legal Services Fund; and $25 to the Legal Services Assistance Fund. However, New York lawyers wanting to belong to the voluntary state bar association pay $275 annually if they were admitted prior to 2006. This means that on an annualized basis, New York lawyers pay $462 if they chose to join their voluntary state bar association along with payment to the court for regulation and discipline. This is still less than what lawyers in Arizona pay.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Photos: Registration desk sign, by NHS Confederation at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution;Ev Williams by Christopher Michel at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution.

Read Full Post »

Top Ten States by Bar Fees                                  (Click to enlarge) Not satisfied with already being near the top among highest U.S. cost-to-practice1 mandatory bar associations, on February 27, 2014 the Arizona Bar’s Board of Governors (BOG) voted 12-11 to hike annual member dues by 13% to $520 by 2019. If at first you don’t succeed . . . . Politicians 19The BOG first tried raising dues in December by 22%. But it was stymied when word got out about the stealth vote 12 days before Christmas. On being outed, the BOG regrouped and moved to postpone the vote till February. It then spun the delay as a self-congratulatory bid at notice, transparency and due process. Unfortunately with more time to deliberate, the BOG also came up with a gambit. It dropped its initial $100 increase motion in favor of one that raised dues by ‘only’ $60. But there was a ‘catch.’ The lower increase was tied to an automatic escalator based on the consumer price index — as though what a state bar does has anything to do with the nation’s basket of consumer goods and services. man face 6But fortunately, brakes were applied to the escalator. But as for the rest, “Il dado è tratto” as they still say in Italy long after Julius Caesar uttered Alea iacta est.In other words, “The die was cast.” When you’re talking fees, state bars always think it’s time to render to Caesar. The rationale. So given the Bar’s two-nostrils worth of rationale, it was never a question of “if” — but of “when” and by “how much.” Wildlife & Animals 2247First, they’d argued the last dues increase was in 2005 as though there’s a gestation period for raising fees. And second, like that proverbial bushy-tailed chicken-counter in the hen-house, an increase was necessary. Or so said a supposed cost-analyzing “Program Review Committee” made up mostly of Bar staff and management. The committee took all of 9 hours over 3 months to do its multi-million dollar operational number-crunching and qualitative analysis. https://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Langtry_cartoon.png/161px-Langtry_cartoon.pngSo to the surprise of no one, the committee pronounced there wasn’t much to cut from a bloated $14.6 million budget — not if bureaucratic stakeholders wanted to keep gilding the Bar’s ‘full-service’ lily. And as usual, the largely complaisant BOG went along. Muddled confusion. One thing the Bar’s spinmeisters also proclaimed was that Arizona’s fees are only tied for tenth highest among bar associations. But try running that declaration to ground. When it comes to decoding what and how much lawyers pay to practice in a given jurisdiction, it’s frankly difficult. To start, you need something better than a secret decoder ring from a cereal box. It’s a muddle. You have to parse, poke and ponder2 through data most of which is hidden behind expedient pay-walls. Or else you glean what you can from the Web whether the ABA or a state bar group. Cartoon Characters 57Adding to the confusion, surveys lump mandatory bars (where you have to pay-to-play) together with voluntary jurisdictions. Of course by mixing the apples with the oranges, it conveniently distorts the cost comparisons. And as long as we’re talking produce — it also helps keep the mushrooms fed and in the dark. Don’t ask why voluntary bars are bunched in with the mandatory associations. It’s one thing to discretionarily and voluntarily pay high fees and quite another to be compelled if you want to keep more than snausages on the lawyer table. Cost to Practice Rankings. People 7054Ranking comparisons are as clear as mud. The last time I looked, the prior rankings were based on 2010 ABA surveys and the had Connecticut and Tennessee at No. 1 and No. 2, respectively. Both are voluntary bar associations. Both have non-bar-related fees that hurt. But how was Georgia in third place at $536 when according to newer data compiled in 2013 by New Jersey’s Office of Attorney Ethics, Georgia’s “Maximum Mandatory Annual Fee” is $242? International Survey of Attorney Licensing Fees And take Connecticut where voluntary annual membership in the bar association costs $280. Although you’re not required to join to practice, Connecticut’s Department of Revenue Services still collects an annual attorney occupational tax of $565, which goes to the state general fund not for lawyer regulation. The state’s high court then tacks on a yearly $110 payment to the Client Security Fund. Work World 14In Tennessee, also a non-mandatory bar state, $400 of the $570 fee lawyers pay is a “Professional Privilege Tax.” And like Connecticut, that money goes to state general revenue, not specifically to any bar-related function or to the Court. And in Texas where membership is mandatory to practice, there’s a similar occupational tax that skews the cost-to-practice fees number higher. In the Lone Star State, $200 out of the $510 Texas lawyers pay to practice goes to state revenues not to fund the legal establishment. International Survey of Attorney Licensing Fees - Chart 2 Distinctions without a difference? Who cares if Caesar is the state, the court, or the bar association? It’s all money flowing out of lawyer pockets. But it matters when mandatory bars conveniently use non-decoded figures as convenient pretexts to justify high mandatory licensing fees. Children 1099So to make some semblance of the mud in the muddle, on a like-for-like dues comparison basis, Arizona is currently among the top three of the country’s 33 mandatory bars behind Alaska’s $660 and Hawaii’s $522. And going inactive in Arizona hardly saves you, either. Inactive Arizona Bar members pay $265 annually, highest among all jurisdictions and equal to or higher than what 20 other jurisdictions charge active bar members.3 Animals 2035And according to the most recent ABA Survey, among mandatory bars with more than 20,000 members, Arizona’s budget is 125 percent higher than the $11,720,787 average for comparably sized bars. And high budgets notwithstanding, by the time the latest dues increase fully implements in 2019, the Bar itself projects about a $4M surplus. An almost $15 million budget, after all, wasn’t nearly enough money. What’s more by separate motion, the BOG also got approval to impose higher fees for in-house counsel; admissions on motion; pro hac vice; and late fees for mandatory annual filings like continuing legal education. Animals 702But at least there’s potential good news for Arizona lawyers. The Bar holds elections to its board of governors in May. So when they get their online ballots and remember the incumbents who voted for even higher costs to practice, maybe members will also recall the moral in Aesop’s Fox and Stork fable.  As the stork told the fox, “One bad turn deserves another.”   _______________________________________________________ [1] See International Survey of Attorney Licensing Fees data compiled July 1, 2013 by Office of Attorney Ethics of New Jersey. [2] Oregon fees include a $30 “diversity and inclusion assessment” and $45 for the client security fund (CSF), leaving a balance of $447. Comparable cost is actually less but close to Arizona’s $460 fee, $10 of which is for the client protection fund (CPF)). But Oregon also requires members to buy high-priced co-op professional liability insurance, which runs $3,200 per year even with modest coverage limits. There’s no deductible or penalty premium for purportedly high risk practice areas. In Hawaii, $34 is allocated to the Attorney Assistance Program and $30 to CSF. The remaining $440 is actually less than but very close to Arizona’s current fee of$460. Minus $65 for Legal Aid, the comparable cost in Texas is actually $235, considerably less than Arizona’s fees. Fees in Wisconsin include $50 for Legal Aid; $11 for a Mandatory CLE Fee; and $20 for CSF. That leaves $379, a comparable cost also less than Arizona’s fees. Based on all this, Arizona is actually ranked third in cost to practice. And while Alaska is Number One, it only requires 3 hours of CLE compared to Arizona’s 15. “Active Bar members are required to earn 3 ethics credits, encouraged to earn 9 additional credits, and required to file an MCLE Report each year.” See Alaska Bar Association MCLE at https://www.alaskabar.org/servlet/content/mcle.html. This effectively makes the cost lower to practice in Alaska than in Arizona. But then I’m adding bananas here to the apples and oranges. (Hat tip to D. M. Quinterri, Esq. for her additional data research!) [3] “International Survey of Attorney Licensing Fees” data further notes Arizona has the highest fee for inactive attorneys. Op. cit. _________________________________________________________ Photo Credits: Caricature from Punch magazine of Lily Langtry. From the Punch Christmas Issue, December 1890, “Punch Among the Planets” at Wikipedia Commons, Public Domain, available from Project Gutenberghttp://www.gutenberg.org/etext/13244

Read Full Post »

Even in Maricopa County, Arizona where most everyone has transplanted from someplace else, no one likes hearing about how things were done elsewhere. It’s as welcome as grey-whiskered prattle about “how things were when I was a kid.” Put a sock in it.

All the same, ignore the sock hanging out my mouth while I favorably compare what my former home state of Nevada just did concerning the unauthorized practice of law (UPL).

UPL as most of you know is a tiresome pet peeve of mine. But for all my frustration, as far as Arizona’s concerned when it comes to dealing seriously with UPL, it’s rubbing fingers and playing the world’s tiniest violin.

But back in the Silver State there’s AB74, a new Nevada law effective March 1, 2014 that imposes new controls on legal document preparation services — or what lawyers think of as the unauthorized practice of law. Fortunately, instead of creating another self-perpetuating legal establishment bureaucracy like in Arizona, AB74 requires document preparation services to register with the Secretary of State; establishes qualifications for registration; requires the filing of a bond; regulates the business practices of document preparation services; authorizes disciplinary action and other remedies in specified circumstances; and provides civil and (unlike Arizona) criminal penalties.

File:Otis fence.jpgNevada’s approach is admirably distinguishable from what the ‘self-enlightened’ legal elites did in Arizona. Here the legal eagles didn’t soar to curtail the unauthorized practice of law. Instead the privileged classes ‘fixed’ it by saying it wasn’t UPL. Arizona exempted out a slew of non-lawyers from UPL by judicial fiat.

As a consequence, Also see “Immcrimination: Document preparation in Arizona in the wake of USA v. Arizona.”

No “conscious uncoupling” from the mandatory bar.

Which gets me to say something nice for a change about a state bar president, Nevada’s Alan J. Lefebvre. He’s finishing out his term and in his last several presidential epistles in the bar’s mouthpiece magazine, Nevada Lawyer, Lefebvre’s demonstrated refreshing candor — at least by complaisant state bar standards. He’s decried the current state of the legal profession, which has “done nothing to protect and rescue” newly graduated debt-indentured lawyer graduates. See “President’s Message: “Maybe Reparations are Owed?”

photoAnd unlike the self-congratulatory B.S. typically spewed by bar management milquetoast sock puppets, Lefebvre has also inveighed against the bureaucratic status quo.

Otherwise, as mandatory bar presidents go, the ones with any real cojones have been those never-say-quit anti-mandatory bar presidents in Wisconsin — three of the last four elected. Despite long odds, they’ve been fighting for a voluntary bar for many years. And trying to divorce themselves from compulsory bar membership, they’ve waged their own version of “conscious uncoupling” well before Gwyneth Paltrow was therapeutically psycho-babbling about it.

Sometime ago, one former Wisconsin bar president who’s advocated for a voluntary bar for decades even made headway based on compelled Free Speech grounds. But it was short-lived. His victory was reversed on appeal by the 7th Circuit.

To be clear, however, that guy in Nevada ain’t advocating removal of the mandatory bar yoke — that’s a furrow too far for most bar insiders. But at least he’s shooting straight on UPL and about what Nevada’s new legislation means. In his latest “Message from the President,” Lefebvre rails against “the commoditization of the practice” and how “the unchecked growth of the Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) has been eating away at the financial resiliency of the legal profession for years and years, as we attorneys rub our palms together anxiously, doing nothing.” See “President’s Message: Unauthorized Practice of Law: Redux …

Lefebvre’s so effusive he even signals out Lucy Flores, the bill’s author who he says, “should get a ‘lawyer of the year’ award for her foresight.”

Foresight — what a concept. But so’s candor and especially, courage.

_______________________________________________________________

Photo Credits: “Whitby Sock One,” by LollyKnit at Flickr via Creative Commons-requiring attribution; 200px-Blnguyen_violin.jpg at Wikimedia Commons; Otis_fence.jpg at Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license;”in other words, you have a big mouth,” by Vera at Flickr via Creative Commons-requiring attribution;”Nadya with sock puppet and fish, 2007″ by Nadya Peek at Flickr via Creative Commons-license requiring attribution.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »