Strict diet required

Your article about the State Bar facing a deficit (February) raised the question: why not just get rid of it, or reduce its size so significantly that we “members” (we have no choice in this, but we’re still euphemistically called “members”) won’t have to worry about being dinged more each year just to keep this bureaucracy afloat? Many of us are solo practitioners who work hard and keep our overhead low in order to serve our clients. We operate within our means.

The State Bar is clearly bloated, and with 80 percent of the budget being spent on staff salaries, it’s obvious that the entire thing needs to be drastically reduced. The State Bar quite literally does nothing for us — we pay for so-called “services” such as MCLE courses. Cutting back, contrary to the thought expressed in your article, would not “harm public safety or our members.”

It was particularly appalling to find out that the State Bar funds the “Lawyer Assistance Program” above its legislative mandate. I have always objected to being forced to pay into a fund for attorneys who screw up due to alcohol or drug abuse and hurt the good name of California lawyers generally. Do us a favor and meet the fiscal challenge by going on a severe diet.

Kristin N. Casey
St. Helena

A nice place to meet

I quote the following from the Bar Journal reporting a statement by State Bar CFO Peggy Van Horn: “At a board meeting in La Quinta, Van Horn projected a deficit of $3.7 million this year.”

La Quinta? Is that a clue where to start budget cutting?

Kent C. Wilson
Calexico

• Editor’s note: The board of governors voted to hold the 2010 planning meeting at a State Bar facility rather than La Quinta.

Solving bar budget woes

Perhaps the bar can save a whole lot of money if it didn’t spend exorbitant resources on taking solo practitioners to the mat for minor infractions — like filing appeals when the practitioner wins in State Bar Court?

Stephany Yablow
Studio City

Keep it simple

It all seems quite simple to me. Beef up enforcement to protect the public, keep a department to handle admittance to the bar, and jettison the rest until you arrive at a budget surplus.

Michael Keith
San Rafael

Easy cure

There is an easy cure for the State Bar budget problems. Since I believe that around 80 percent of the budget goes towards attorney discipline, why not have the attorneys who are found guilty pay a large fine, in addition to their other punishment? Since they are the ones who cause the expense, they (and not the rest of us) should bear the cost of the system. If you design the schedule of fines properly, the disciplinary system could pay for itself, and the dues of the attorneys who “play by the rules” could go down to $1.50 a year.

As an additional benefit, the fines might further discourage bad behavior. If guilty attorneys cannot pay the fine at one time, just have them pay in installments, with the payments being a further condition of their remaining in good standing. At worst, they will miss a payment and we will be rid of one more bad attorney.

Robert Zadek
San Francisco

Dangerous and absurd

I can hardly believe that Professor Alison Dundes Renteln could be serious in proposing a criminal defense based on culture (February). If the law were to ever adopt her proposed “cultural defense,” then the human rights of untold thousands of victims will be violated when folks of other cultures begin to think they are a protected class in some respect; or that their sentences can be mitigated due to their particular culture.

By the way, does the “mother insult” defense only apply to Mexicans? And does the “genital touching” defense only apply to Armenians? Her proposal is at minimum absurd, but more than that it would be dangerous if ever adopted.

Richard Joseph
Beverly Hills

Using different standards

We read with interest Ms. Curtis’ article about Ms. Renteln’s call for consideration of the cultural defense in criminal matters. We agree. Equal protection and the rule of law should be jettisoned. Everyone should be judged according to his or her own individual cultural standards.

Maybe our cultural standard should be to not pay taxes. No wait, that’s Geithner’s. Oh, now we get it!

Al Plotkins and Dann Boyd
Los Angeles

View from a troglodyte

I am a geezer troglodyte. If people want to retain their so-called cultural practices, they should stay where such practices are the norm, not try to impose such behavior standards in the United States.

Bruce A. Richardson
Damascus, Ore.