Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘State Bar of Nevada’

Elections for seats on the respective governing boards of the State Bar of Arizona and the State Bar of Nevada kicked off coincidentally on the same day, May 4, 2017. Although I’m an active member of the Nevada Bar, I can’t vote in board elections since I’m no longer a full-time resident of the Silver State. For this out-of-state Nevada lawyer, it’s taxation without representation, including coming new burdens like the board-approved extra hour of mandatory continuing legal education to support lawyer sobriety and sanity.

But even if I wanted to vote in Nevada, I haven’t a clue or a care about who’s running. Not like I know much about the 20 candidates running for 9 seats in Maricopa County, Arizona. Talk about a crowded field. Arizona has a 30-member board that “oversees the policy making and operation of the organization.”

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Paper_bag_mask_with_4chan_smiley_at_Anon_raid.jpg/640px-Paper_bag_mask_with_4chan_smiley_at_Anon_raid.jpgThere’s only one openly declared reformer, although there may be one or two stealth nonconformists in the field. But if they’re not saying, who knows for certain?

The fact is it’s nothing but a popularity contest anyway. The candidates are largely unknown to most lawyers. How are you supposed pick 9 out of 20? It’s almost like a judicial retention election. So expect a lot of undervoting.

For lawyers in Pinal County, Arizona’s third-most populous county, there’s only one choice since only one candidate bothered to run. No surprise, it’s the pro status-quo incumbent.

What representation?

Taxation without representation used to be the order of the day here at least for board elections. But starting May 4th, out-of-state active members of the Arizona Bar can vote. Inactive and retired members, though, still have to assume the position. They can’t vote even though the Bar happily collects a yearly $265 and $215 respectively, for the compulsory ‘privilege’ of subsidizing a bloated bureaucracy.

The ugly truth is that even with the opportunity to vote, it’s taxation without representation just the same. State bar governing boards are free to act without the consent of those they supposedly represent, especially since board members don’t act as their actual representatives. Board members don’t serve to deliver the views of those that elected them. They’re told to be trustees of the public interest not guardians for the well-being, prosperity, and happiness of lawyers.

Unfortunately for candidates and their electors, it’s a conflicted interest that most who run haven’t acknowledged, understood or reconciled. They sidestep the Bar-advertised to serve-and-protect mission of regulating lawyers to protect the public. Instead, they campaign like they’re running for a trade association with promises of giving “increased value to all of its members—without imposing additional regulations” or providing “valuable services to its members.” 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Frijoles_refritos.jpg/320px-Frijoles_refritos.jpg

Term limits and beans.

Still, at least there will finally be new faces on the Arizona Board. That’s because the only good news coming out of the 2015 State Bar Mission & Governance Task Force was the overdue imposition of term limits on board members who with not much better to do wouldn’t go away. Holy frijoles, some of those board members were nearing 20 years on the board!

The new rule says a board member can serve “no more than three consecutive three-year terms.” Alas, like the proverbial bad penny, if after 9 consecutive years they sit out a full term, they can seek reelection to additional terms.

In Arizona, the election runs 15 days until 5 pm Friday, May 19th. Not that apparently members care. Based on voter turnout for the 2014 Arizona Bar Board Elections, fewer than one-quarter of active Arizona attorneys gave a hoot or a clue about voting for the candidates running that year.

In 2014, only 4093 members cast votes — and that was with much more interest and aggravation since the board had just passed an unwarranted dues increase. Clearly, the disinterest, resignation, and apathy is worse among lawyers than for political elections. With that in mind, I think voter turnout may be even less this time.

The solution.

The real solution is not a board election or ginning up voter enthusiasm. Structural change won’t come from within. The status quo is too well entrenched. The true believers are too satiated drinking bar integration Kool-aid.

Mandatory bars like Arizona’s and Nevada’s need to be split between a mandatory membership component that regulates lawyers to protect the public and a purely voluntary membership component that looks out for lawyers. Such a division of functions at last fixes the existing confusion and conflict between board members who view the mandatory bar as a regulatory agency and those who see its purpose as promoting member interests.

This means supporting reforms — either legislatively or through court petition. It doesn’t mean voting for more of the same.

____________________________________

Photo Credits: “Run an effective meeting,” by Nguyen Hung Vu at Flickr Creative Commons attribution; “Paper bag Anon,” via Flickr Creative Commons through Wikimedia Commons; Diego’s frijoles at Flickr via Wikimedia Commons;”IMG_687,” by Michael Arrington at Flickr Creative Commons attribution; “wake up sheeple,” by ♫ feingoldens at Flickr Creative Commons attribution.

 

 

Read Full Post »

If a petition submitted last year by Nevada’s Board of Governors is approved by the state supreme court, it’s going to cost lawyers a wee bit more money to practice in Nevada. Currently, Nevada lawyers are obligated to complete 12 hours of annual continuing legal education to keep their licenses. But if the state bar’s governing board has its way, a 13th hour will be tacked on to the annual requirement.

At an average cost of $40 per credit hour, this means that the 5th highest cost to practice mandatory bar in the U.S. will just be that much more expensive. Nevada will top out at just over $1,000 per year between mandatory annual fees of $490 and soon, 13 hours of mandatory continuing legal education.

The original petition asked that of the current 12 required hours of continuing legal education, 1 CLE credit be mandated in the area of “substance abuse, addictive disorders and/or mental health issues that impair professional competence.” Somewhere along the way, however, there was an increase in the total hours required. It became a petition that increases annual mandatory hours from 12 to 13 with the new required hour in the aforementioned areas.

Petition ADKT 0478 was filed with the Nevada Supreme Court in January 2016 with oral argument last June. Unfortunately, the chance to either complain or to applaud has come and gone. It’s only a matter of time now for the Court to issue its Order for ‘lucky’ No. 13. To quote Hank Jr., “It’s all over but the crying.”

Gobsmacked.

I really must crawl out from under my desert boulder. How did this newest imposition, this latest cost to practice burden slip past? The gobsmacking news came by way of the Nevada Bar’s “Message From The President” in the April 2017 Nevada Lawyer magazine.

I rarely read the dull bar magazine except for checking the Bar Counsel Report each month to see if anyone I know has been pierced by the sword of lawyer discipline. For some reason, I read Nevada Bar President Bryan Scott’s presidential epistle in April where he briefly mentioned the mandatory bar bureaucracy’s latest ‘feel-good’ do-something impediment. Scott also helpfully offered that “Supplementing this petition, the state bar has enhanced its curriculum to ensure attorneys have access to quality CLE programs related to these important topics.” Well, that’s no surprise. CLE is big business for state bars.

To be fair, in reply to my ‘ how dare you’ email query, Scott said, “We did not do this as a money-making venture. In fact, should the Court issue an order, we expect to offer a CLE on this topic at no charge.” Let’s see how long that lasts.

No proof CLE does anything.

I won’t paraphrase Roger “Verbal” Kint but the greatest trick ever pulled was convincing the legal establishment that forcing lawyers to take continuing legal education classes would make them more competent, more ethical, more professional or in the latest wrinkle in Nevada — more sober. The fact is there’s never been empirical proof that CLE delivers more competency, ethics, professionalism — or sobriety. As a matter of fact, there isn’t even the most rudimentary form of subject matter assessment since CLE participants are never tested to see what they have learned. The testing demands are greater getting a speeding ticket dismissed via a defensive driving course.

As for tutoring the trait of improved sobriety, the petition does a terrible job of explaining why a mandatory CLE in abuse, addiction and mental health issues is necessary. To be fair, there’s a talking point Scott sent that mentions studies from the 80’s that “have shown a connection between the legal profession and higher rates of mental health issues and related addictive disorders.” The same reference adds that “In February of this year, a more definitive study was released showing attorneys display addiction levels of dependent drinking at 20.6 percent as compared to 11.8 percent of a generally highly educated workforce.”

If that’s true, the rest of the population is in even worse shape. Should the Nanny State start requiring everybody take a class in sobriety? According to a Newsweek report, 30 percent of Americans have had an alcohol-use disorder. Citing a study published in the journal JAMA Psychiatry, the article states: “America has a drinking problem, and it’s getting worse. A new study shows that 32 million Americans, nearly one in seven adults, have struggled with a serious alcohol problem in the last year alone. It gets worse if you look at numbers across people’s entire lives: In that case, nearly one-third have suffered an “alcohol-use disorder.”

https://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/630ae40facf324702bf98d936c73f348eb.pngBut even if you take at face value that lawyers are worse on substance abuse/mental health than the rest of the population, where’s the proof a one-hour class does anything to fix the problem? Then again, if there’s one thing lawyers are good at is reaching their conclusions.

So appropriately, under “Conclusion,” the petition jumps to the conclusion that because the board of governors’ purposes include “upholding the honor, integrity, professionalism and dignity of the profession of law and the enhancement of the professional competence and ethical conduct of members of the bar . . . mandatory education in abuse, addiction and mental health is necessary.” And it’s also “essential to public protection.”

More lawyer shape-shifting in the offing.

In September last year, the Florida Supreme Court approved a rule amendment granting Florida the dubious distinction of being first to require lawyers to take at least three hours of CLE in an approved technology program as part of the 33 total hours of CLE that Florida lawyers are forced to take over a three-year period. More than half the states have adopted the duty of technology competence for lawyers. It’s only a matter of time before other jurisdictions follow Florida and start demanding mandatory CLE in technology courses, too.

The ABA is the organization we have to ‘thank’ for these new recommended mandates, including mandatory substance abuse CLE. And it now has one more recommended lawyer transformation encumbrance in the works. Be on the look out for mandatory diversity continuing legal education.

Not satisfied with approving a new diversity policy for itself directing its ABA CLE program panelists be diverse, last June the ABA passed Resolution 107.  It asks “licensing and regulatory authorities that require MCLE to make diversity and inclusion programs a separate credit, but without increasing the total number of hours required.”

_________________________________________________________
Photo credit: “Surprise,” by Erik Cleves Kristensen at Flickr Creative Commons attribution license; “the view from below” by David Long at Flickr Creative Commons attribution license.

Read Full Post »

In April, the Nevada State Bar’s Board of Governors blast emailed members a third-party confidential survey asking for their “opinion on the CLE and annual license fee exemptions currently offered to members older than 70.” The survey is apparently driven by proponents who want to eliminate that age exemption. Others want it left in place. Will the survey decide the matter? I rather doubt it. In any case, the results are supposed to be published online and/or in the Nevada Bar’s magazine.

Currently, there are 412 Nevada lawyers age 70 or older actively practicing. But those silver legal eagles better start worrying. Once the age exemption is eliminated, those 412 lawyers, representing less than 5% of Nevada’s 8,818 active lawyers, will each sustain about $1,000 in new higher annual costs to practice.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/H_Pierre_Am_richtigen_Fleck.jpg/335px-H_Pierre_Am_richtigen_Fleck.jpg

Base annual dues in Nevada are presently $450. In addition, there’s a separate yearly $40 paid to the Nevada CLE Board. This amounts to $490 in total mandatory annual fees. And with the average cost of an hour’s worth of Bar CLE at about $45 multiplied by a mandated 12 annual CLE hours — tack on another $540 to the annual tariff. Wine may improve with age — but not it seems the bottom line for Nevada’s older lawyers.

As far as the Bar’s concerned, however, the news would be positive. Assuming the 412 septuagenarian lawyers satisfy their CLE requirements through the Bar, the projected fiscal impact for the Nevada Bar will to the sunny side of potentially over $400,000 in higher annual revenues based on the infusion of new dues-payers and CLE potentially totaling $1030 in fees X 412 active senior Nevada attorneys.

Right now, millenials outnumber the 75.4 million Baby Boomers in the U.S. But the bad news for those 18 to 34 year olds is that many Boomers aren’t retiring. So as Baby Boomers, including lawyers, continue working past retirement age, it’s not surprising that mandatory bars are trending toward revoking senior lawyer age exemptions. After all, the bureaucratic maw must be fed. As Oscar Wilde said, ‘the bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.’

Holidays 496Some mandatory bars like the State Bar of Arizona eliminated their age exemptions years ago. As a matter of fact, in the Grand Canyon state, aging lawyers who take retirement status still pay bar dues. The only way to stop paying is to resign in good standing or to rest in peace beneath the ground. And in Texas, on April 28, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court amended its Bar Rules to eliminate its longstanding MCLE exemption for so-called emeritus attorneys, those aged 70-years and up.

Understandably, it’s a bit unseemly to ascribe money grasping reasons to these moves. So look instead for overused policy dodges dressed up in public protection apparel to justify eliminating the age exemptions. Doddering dinosaur lawyers who fail to keep abreast of the law may pose risks to consumers is how the argument goes. But unfortunately for proponents, there’s never been proof or any empirical evidence that continuing legal education makes lawyers of any age more competent, professional or ethical.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/A_jolly_dog.png/163px-A_jolly_dog.pngIt seems “Wisdom doesn’t automatically come with old age,” according to the late Abigail Van Buren. “Nothing does – except wrinkles. It’s true, some wines improve with age. But only if the grapes were good in the first place.”

Finally, paraphrasing Francis Bacon, “Age appears to be best in four things; old wood best to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to trust,” — and for mandatory state bars, old lawyers to tax.

 

FREE ONLINE CLE.

(The usual disclaimers about content, availability and jurisdictional creditworthiness apply).

AVVO

Ethics of blogging for lawyers

(1hr Ethics CLE in CA, FL, IL, OH, NV, PA, TX, and WA) *New York Approved Jurisdiction policy applies

August 11, 2016 at 10am PT / 1pm ET

_____________________________________________________________________

Wyoming State Bar

Wyoming Bar Members and Guests (registration required)

Running an Efficient Law Firm (webinar)

July 27, 2016
12:00 – 1:00 p.m.
Click here for a description of the program, speaker bio and to register.

Cost: FREE

CLE Credit: 1 credit

PRE-REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED

_____________________________________________________________________

Wyoming Casemaker: A Complete Guide (webinar)

August 9, 2016
12:00 – 1:00 p.m.
Click here for more information and to register.

Cost: FREE

CLE Credit: 1 credit

PRE-REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED

_____________________________________________________________________

Laws, Rules and Practices Governing OSHA Activities (webinar)

August 25, 2016
12:00 – 1:00 p.m.
Click here for a description of the program, speaker bio and to register.

Cost: FREE

CLE Credit: 1 credit

PRE-REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED


Lawyer Fitness 101 (webinar)

August 26, 2016
12:00 – 1:00 p.m.
Click here for a description of the program, speaker bio and to register.

Cost: FREE

CLE Credit: 1 credit

PRE-REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED


Going Long on Oil and Gas: Estate Planning Tools to Maximize Mineral Interests (webinar)

October 4, 2016
12:00 – 1:00 p.m.
Click here for a description of the program, speaker bio and to register.

Cost: FREE

CLE Credit: 1 credit

PRE-REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED


Shared Custody Arrangements in Wyoming: A Challenging (and Challenged) Proposition (webinar)

Sponsored by the Children & Family Law Section

October 19, 2016
12:00 – 1:00 p.m.
Click here for a description of the program, speaker bio and to register.

Cost: FREE

CLE Credit: 1 credit

PRE-REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED


The New Era of Proportionality (webinar)

November 11, 2016
12:00 – 1:00 p.m.
Click here for a description of the program, speaker bios and to register.

Cost: FREE

CLE Credit: 1 credit

PRE-REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED

_______________________________________________________________

Lexis Nexis University

Your Library is Your Portrait: Using Technology to Improve Accessibility and Effectiveness

  • Class Type: On-Demand Training
  • Product: LexisNexis® CLE and CPE
  • Run Time: 66 Minutes
  • FREE

_____________________________________________________________

You are not Going to Believe This!: Deception, Misdescription, and Materiality in Trademark Law

  • Class Type: On-Demand Training
  • Product: LexisNexis® CLE and CPE
  • Run Time: 60 Minutes
  • FREE

_____________________________________________________

Credits: “Men of the Day No. 732: Caricature of Mr James Lennox Hannay. Caption read “Marlborough Street” by Spy in Vanity Fair, 22 December 1898, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain;”Am richtigen Fleck. Signiert. Öl auf Leinwand” via Wikimedia Commons, public domain; “A jolly dog,” by Currier & Ives, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

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 »