Posted on 03/18/2019 1:02:55 PM PDT by Kaslin
An effort started a few years ago to eliminate the union-like, mandatory nature of state bars. These associations have become increasingly politicized, spending members’ dues for partisan purposes that always go against Republicans. This is illegal, since the 1990 Supreme Court decision Keller v. State Bar of California decision held that mandatory members of state bar associations have a First Amendment right not to subsidize political or ideological activities. Additionally, in the 27 states with right-to-work laws, attorneys aren’t supposed to be required to join a union in order to practice law.
In order to practice their profession, attorneys should be required to go through no more than a licensing agency. But somehow, these illegal state bar unions have thrived in 31 states. The other states have voluntary bars and do just fine.
The existence of these politically motivated state bars has finally started getting attention due to their targeting of conservative attorneys and spending members’ dues on partisan activities. In Arizona, the state bar disbarred a popular conservative district attorney in order to stop him from cracking down on illegal immigration with former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. After that happened in 2012, conservative attorneys in Arizona tell me they are terrified to write articles, tweet or say anything publicly for fear of having the left-wing wing state bar come after them. Almost no one dared to defend the disbarred attorney, not wanting to make themselves a target of the bar.
In North Dakota, the state bar got caught spending a significant amount of money opposing a shared parenting ballot initiative. A small but motivated group of unscrupulous family law attorneys who are heavily involved in state bars stand to lose a lot of money in client litigation fees if shared parenting goes into effect. They heavily influence state bar lobbying in this area. An attorney filed a lawsuit, assisted by the Goldwater Institute, which made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The high court ordered the trial court to decide the case in accordance with Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, which held that public sector unions cannot collect dues from people who do not want to be a member of the union. While state bars are not governmental, they act quasi-governmental and are granted a virtual monopoly over the legal profession. Illinois, where Janus arose, is not a right-to-work state.
In Oregon, the state bar ran a piece in its bulletin that appeared to tie President Trump to the promotion of white nationalism, while sanctimoniously denouncing white nationalism in an adjacent second piece. After a backlash, the state bar provided a refund of $1.12 — the cost of the bulletin — to any member that requested it. Based on Janus, two attorneys in Oregon sued the state bar alleging that mandatory dues infringe on their First Amendment rights to free speech. They said the dues unconstitutionally pay for political and ideological speech they disagree with. Oregon is also not a right-to-work state.
In multiple states, bills have been proposed to split up mandatory state bars. Unfortunately, the state bars are very powerful, backed by the inflated membership dues of attorneys, allowing them to afford the best lobbyists to resist the efforts. This is the case in Arizona, which has the second highest mandatory annual bar dues in the country after Alaska, $505. Ironically, the Arizona State Bar was forced to raise dues in order to pay for the show trial against the district attorney it disbarred. Bills are unable to make it out of both Arizona legislative houses due to the powerful lobbying efforts of the state bar. Disgusted with the corruption, the Goldwater Institute, which is headquartered in Arizona, asked the Arizona Supreme Court in January to eliminate the mandatory nature of the Arizona bar.
A couple of states have had success breaking up their mandatory state bars. Nebraska split its bar in half a few years ago. Now only the regulatory side is mandatory. The California legislature split the California Bar into two pieces with a bill in 2017. Like Nebraska, the mandatory part will retain the regulatory functions. The trade association activities, which include working on legislation, are being transferred to a voluntary nonprofit entity.
It is unfair that in order to practice law, attorneys in 31 states are required to be members of unions that engage in partisan political activity against members’ interests. Fortunately, the tide is finally turning and these corrupt organizations are starting to be dismantled. Just because the thugs running the state bar unions wear white collars does not mean they are any less union thugs.
It is still a sham no matter how you slice it. Lying I mean Lawyering is the Only Profession I know of where the Licensing and Disciplinary functions are done by a Private Organization. If State Governments were the Licensing Agency, then they would be Subject to FOIA as well as Public Pressure from voters. My answer:
No Person, Licensed by a Private Organization, shall be permitted to Practice Law within the United States
The US has long passed the days of needing unions.
Former WA state bar member here; mandatory/unitary bar association. At least the membership rebelled a couple of times in the 1990s against practices/proposals advanced by highly-paid big law firm lawyers: (1) after several years of the annual Bar Association convention being held in out-of-state places like Hawaii, Mexico, and San Diego, the rank-and-file members subsidizing those boondoggles passed a referendum changing the conference to a one-day annual business meeting held in state; (2) when the powers that be floated a proposal to fund a bar association malpractice fund/company by assessing all members a hefty annual assessment whether they were in private practice or not, the membership rebelled again and voted “no way.”
Normally I'd agree but after 40 years in the IT industry I think STEM workers need a union and to lobby against H-1B. Also if STEM workers had a national strike we could end the visa abuse once and for all.
“The US has long passed the days of needing unions.”
Then how are people supposed to make an honest living through intimidation, cronyism, nepotism, and flexing the laws through lobbying to make it impossible to create a competing business?
There’s another source of slush funds for at least California. Law firms are required to maintain trust accounts for client funds held by the firm, whether settlement amounts, prepayment of fees, or amounts in dispute. These must be in interest-bearing bank accounts and the interest is required to be paid, not to the law firm or the client, but to the Bar. And the Bar gets to determine how it spends those not-insignificant funds. California is notorious for funding liberal causes with those funds so a conservative client is involuntarily (and unknowingly) funding liberal causes, perhaps even their direct legal opponents.
Another problem is the liberal elitist view that liberal = moral, good, smart, ethical.
In places like Ontario and California, they’re trying to require attorneys to submit a statement that they commit to social justice. That you must support social justice in order to meet the ethical standards to be an attorney.
This is part of the ideological oppression by the left. It is a follow on to the California rule saying you can’t be a judge and support the Boy Scouts before they submitted to LGBT tyranny and mandatory ethics classes on social justice they made people sit through.
They don’t recognize that this is political indoctrination and an ideological litmus test to do the job. It is akin to your imam signing off that you’re a good Muslim as a condition of working in law.
The same liberal bullies are applying the same political standards to teaching. That to get your teachers’ certification, you have to not just sit through social justice lectures by say you agree with them.
And if you sign but don’t abide, they can purge you from the profession for dishonesty and ethical failings.
Currently there is no economical way to become a lawyer except in California, which is the only state to allow admission into the state bar after getting your Juris Doctor (JD degree) from an online school. Currently, Northwestern California University School of Law charges only $2850 per year for this 4-year degree. It is going to increase to $3650 after this month. But even then it will be an incredible bargain for anyone who wants to become a lawyer. I hope changes are enacted where graduates will be able to practice law in other states as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.