If a lawyer doesn’t want to practice law any more, why do they need to “retire their license”? Why does Donofrio or the Obamas do this? Are there ongoing fees or continuing education that are too onerous to keep up with? Maybe a lawyer could comment.
Good question.
In California, a non-practicing lawyer, such as a law professor, can go on inactive status. This stops the continuing education requirements. You still have to pay annual dues to the Bar, but it is less than half the regular Bar dues, so you are saving yourself a few hundred bucks. If you want to restart your career, you just mail a letter to the Bar saying you are back on the job.
If you really wanted to resign from the bar, you could do that, I guess, also with a letter.
Well, if you’re not going to practice law, why would you keep paying for it? They’re not cheap.
I think it does not have to do so much with continuing education costs as it does an active license incurs liability when dealing with people much as a doctor who is not on duty.
As an officer of the court there are certain responsibilities in certain situations for declaring that you are a lawyer such as say entering a contract for investment or forming partnerships.
There is also liability insurance to maintain.
To avoid potential conflicts with implied responsibilities it is best to become inactive.
Maybe Leo just hit the weed and the Jose Cuervo a little too hard over the weekend. He’s probably hitting the Hold Em tour and just doesn’t have time for the blog right now. He’ll be back.