Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘trade association’

https://cdn.morguefile.com/imageData/public/files/b/BishopPatterdale/01/l/1388869659h90om.jpgAlthough still not a Twitter fan boy, I confess there’s something to the immediacy of firing off 140 character tournedos of untenderized thought. Admittedly, there are drawbacks to expelling every rashly considered impulsivity into the ether. My dogs will disagree but some itches are best left unscratched.

Compared to tweeting, however, ruminations posted on a blog necessitate more marination. This hopefully translates into less likelihood of inflicted harm. Unfortunately, this means the windows of currency to comment on what’s topical a given day or week are soon closed.

Instead of one longer post, here are random notes — albeit longer than 140 characters.

From the SMH File

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/See_No_Evil%2C_Hear_No_Evil%2C_Speak_No_Evil.jpg/320px-See_No_Evil%2C_Hear_No_Evil%2C_Speak_No_Evil.jpgNot long after the ABA House of Delegates voted against a proposal that to meet accreditation standards, 75 percent of an ABA-accredited law school’s graduates must pass a bar exam within a two-year period — the ABA put Arizona Summit Law in Phoenix on probation for low bar-passage rates. Bar passage rates have dropped to 25 percent at Arizona Summit for first-time bar exam takers, which obviously meant that the studiously unaware ABA was finally forced to take action against one of the nation’s most expensive law schools.

In a bit of unintentional understatement following the probation announcement, the executive director of Law School Transparency, a nonprofit legal education policy and watchdog organization, declared “the decision highlights the A.B.A.’s increasing courage in holding schools accountable.” With apologies to Polonius, if this be courage let there be method in it. See “For-Profit Law School in Arizona Is Put on Probation.”

More from the SMH File

File:Noaa-walrus31.jpgOne only has to read this year’s candidates’ statements to appreciate the continuing conflated confusion of lawyer thinking that results from the State Bar of Arizona’s conflicted regulator and trade association mission. Is the State Bar of Arizona a regulator protecting the public interest? Or is it a trade association serving and protecting members’ interests? It can’t be both — not without a walrus-sized conflict of interest.

And what about its court-mandated raison d’être “to serve and protect the public with respect to the provision of legal services and access to justice”?

But as the following excerpts demonstrate, virtually every candidate believes that running for a seat on the Arizona Bar’s Board of Governors means they’ll be acting on behalf of members’ interests. With elections coming up in two counties, candidates are asking either for “the opportunity to serve my fellow lawyers” or to be “a voice for solo and young lawyers” or that “the needs of our members are voiced and heard” or pledging to “make sure the Bar is here to help attorneys, not hurt them.” And of course there are the usual vague variations on the tried-and-tested trade association theme of serving “to ensure the Bar is working for its members” or that it “performs more services for the membership.”

Promises promises.

Also from the SMH File

Almost 7 years to the day after New Jersey said a so-called “virtual office” did not qualify as a bona fide office, a New Jersey lawyer also licensed in New York and also without benefit and burden of a bricks and mortar office in New York has filed a U.S. Supreme Court petition to overturn the New York rule that prohibits her from practicing in New York without said bricks and mortar office in the state. New Jersey didn’t change its anti-virtual office rule until 2013.

New Jersey used to have the same bona fide office restriction, i.e., “a bona fide office is a place where clients are met, files are kept, the telephone is answered, mail is received and the attorney or a responsible person acting on the attorney’s behalf can be reached in person and by telephone during normal business hours to answer questions posed by the courts,clients or adversaries and to ensure that competent advice from the attorney can be obtained within a reasonable period of time.” 

For more about lawyer Ekaterina Schoenefeld’s 9-year bona fide office battle, see Catherine Elefant’s always timely My Shingle post at “Solo Seeks To Challenge Archaic Bonafide Office Rules at the Supremes.”

_______________________________________________

Photo credits: The three monkeys: See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil, by John Snape at Wikimedia Commons, the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License; Odobenus rosmarus at Wikimedia Commons, public domain; frustrated gif at giphy.com;SMH at http://gph.is/1WqoSOE at giphy.com.

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 »

Business 1381How fitting that following an almost hour debate, the very last bill that passed out of the Arizona House at 5 o’clock last Thursday was historic legislation to protect the free speech rights of Arizona attorneys. HB 2221 passed 31-29. Among other provisions, the bill requires that mandatory dues collected by the State Bar of Arizona be used only for regulatory functions and not for nonregulatory activities like it does now. The bill now moves to the Senate.

Attorneys in Arizona must currently belong to a trade association and pay mandatory membership dues as preconditions to earning a living in their chosen profession. Arizona attorneys are the only Arizona professionals bound by such an expedient. What makes this problematic is that the State Bar uses compulsory member dues to not only regulate the practice of law — but to engage in other activities such as lobbying and advocating for ideological and political causes that not all members agree with.

Artists 93The Bar says it “focuses on protecting the public by enhancing the profession, not politics.” In reality, the Bar has an odd way of showing it’s apolitical. Pay no attention, for example, to Bar executives and its lobbyist fighting legislation to eliminate the Bar’s inherent conflict of interest manifest in the claim to protect the public from lawyers while contemporaneously serving lawyer interests.

Last year despite the Bar’s steadfast ongoing opposition to voluntary bar legislation, Bar CEO John Phelps told the ABA’s Bar Leader Magazine, “If we can’t answer the questions about why a mandatory bar is a better model for folks in Arizona, then we ought not to be a required bar.”

The Bar’s resistance has everything to do with preserving a model that protects its bureaucratic self-regard. The loss of most of its mandatory dues monies would mean a sea change for its blithesome bureaucrats.

State Bar’s Free Speech.

Politicians 81Besides reaffirming state supreme court authority over lawyer regulation under the Arizona Constitution, HB 2221 also respects the State Bar’s free speech rights. It does not restrict the Bar’s ability to lobby or take political or ideological positions so long as those activities are voluntarily funded by attorneys. This provision is key because the bar is again distorting facts to serve naked self-interest.

Under Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990), the State Bar cannot compel attorneys to fund the Bar’s lobbying activities unrelated to regulating the practice of law. But nothing in Keller prevents the State Bar from collecting voluntary funds from attorneys to engage in any political activity that it wants. Just because the State Bar presently has a policy that it will not engage in political activities beyond those authorized in Keller, there is nothing to stop the Bar from changing that policy tomorrow. As a result, HB 2221 has no bearing on whether or not the State Bar will expand the array of political activities it chooses to engage in with voluntary funds.

Chutzpah redefined.

Game Show Hosts 9And in what can best be characterized as redefining that classic definition of Chutzpah, the Bar has begun audaciously arguing that a vote against HB 2221 would protect attorneys’ First Amendment rights! Why? Because Bar members are supposedly currently protected by U.S. Supreme Court precedent limiting the political speech of mandatory bar associations. The precedential case is Keller v. State Bar of California that held that mandatory membership bar associations can use members’ dues only for regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services — not for political or ideological activities.

FunHouse 119Turning the argument on its head, the State Bar is saying with a straight face that it’s now protecting free speech by lobbying against legislation that protects free speech. It’s a brazen rephrasing: “I was against free speech before I was for free speech.”

Heavens Angels 87Were it truly interested in safeguarding the free speech rights of its members, the Bar would have by now taken affirmative steps and much more meaningful ones than its pious protestations of so-called ‘Keller-purity.’

Moreover, how does lobbying against voluntary bar legislation that has nothing to do with intruding on the Court’s lawyer regulation authority or with improving the quality of legal services satisfy the criteria under Keller? It doesn’t.

Instead, the Bar complies with Keller under the broadest of interpretations. Anything and everything goes so long as the activities encompass “core interests of the mandatory bar, interests of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, or promote advancements in Arizona jurisprudence.” And oh, just in case, there’s the ‘catch-all’ —  “any other activity authorized by law.” See Criteria so expansive you could drive a dump truck through it.”

Assuming members ever find out about objectionable activities — and only after the fact — the Arizona Bar says members have “the option of challenging the Bar to ensure that any position taken is within the Keller guidelines.”  This is a purgative past the point of needing it. What matter if a member objects to the Bar’s lobbying against legislation protecting attorney free speech if the objection occurs after the lobbying has killed the legislation? It’s a nickel-and-dime ‘remedy’ so not much of one.

No separation of powers problem.

Wildlife & Animals 5041The State Bar’s last-ditch efforts to block the bill in the House last week also centered on alleged separation of powers grounds. On the House Floor, Rep. Randall Friese, D-Tucson, a leading opponent argued that the Legislature was overstepping its bounds. He told a local newspaper, “I’m afraid this bill specifically directs the Supreme Court to do certain things. And I’m still concerned this body cannot.”

But this is incorrect as was pointed out in a well-crafted separation of powers legal memorandum that maintains “HB 2221 is consistent with the Legislature’s authority to protect constitutional rights and assure transparency in government, while respecting the Supreme Court’s role in attorney regulation.”

Friese is an Arizona physician. But unlike Arizona attorneys, he is not required to join a professional trade association to practice his profession. His only precondition to earn a living as a doctor is to pay the Arizona Medical Board $500 every two years for regulation and licensing.

Unfortunately, ‘what’s sauce for this goose is not sauce for that gander.’ In spite of the obvious intellectual inconsistency, the good doctor is not dissuaded. He’ll continue carrying water for the Bar against any legislation that puts lawyers on the same footing as his profession.

Read Full Post »