Sharing the pain

San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi argues that we should exempt public defender’s offices from budget cuts (April). While I’m fully supportive of competent and effective defense representation for the accused, I believe that Mr. Adachi fails to follow his argument’s logic to its conclusion.

If PDs offices are exempt from cuts, then the cuts will fall harder on other areas of the budget. Does Mr. Adachi really think that defense is more important to society than, say, keeping the homeless housed? Treating sick people who can’t pay for treatment? Providing pre-natal care for infants and pregnant mothers-to-be? Should his department be funded at the expense of these and other important needs?

We have constitutional rights to certain things, but people, particularly poor people, have natural needs for many other services that only the state can provide. To exalt the constitutional areas over other needs does not make public policy sense.

Better for Mr. Adachi to remember that there are lots of other people and departments who need funding, share the pain with everyone else, and start working on a better tax system for California. We could start by repealing Proposition 13.

John Marshall Collins
San Jose

Base dues on income

Kudos to Kristin Casey and Robert Zadek for articulating what needs to be done to reduce the size of the State Bar and its fees (March). For attorneys making seven-figure incomes it may not matter, but for the rest of us, the dues are completely out of proportion for the value we get from them. In fact I don’t see that we get any value for our money other than permission to practice. It’s outrageous that we “good guys” have to pay for the bad apples, especially when some of the apples aren’t really bad enough to deserve being prosecuted. (Like being late on paying bar dues. Can you say “self interest” on behalf of the bar?) I for one would be willing to work on a committee to propose changes to reduce the size and cost of the bar.

Fredrica Greene
Tiburon

• Editor’s note: No one is prosecuted for not paying dues. Non-payers are automatically suspended by the Supreme Court.

Law makers still have role

Re: “Fewer lawyers make the laws” (March). Many people do not know that no bill makes it into print without being thoroughly reviewed, and often written, by at least two lawyers. Those lawyers work for the state in the Office of Legislative Counsel. If it weren’t for these counselors to the Legislature, our elected officials, lawyers or not, would likely be even more overwhelmed by the prospect of writing laws that affect over 37 million people.

Gwynnae Byrd
Sacramento

Hooray for term limits

It won’t be necessary to “kill all the lawyers” to ensure a more responsive and responsible legislature. Term limits and the voting public have done the job!

Paul N. Wenger
West Hartford, Conn.

Proposed amendment

As an ardent reader of advance sheets, I urge this amendment to the California Constitution: “No person shall be appointed to the Court of Appeal unless he/she signs an affidavit that he/she will not author an opinion unless it is three pages or less in length.”

Gert K. Hirschberg
Calabasas

No gloating

Re: “State Bar discipline unit scores three wins on the same day” (March). While I am all in favor of protecting the public and am no friend to prosecutors who can’t be trusted or attorneys who either abandon clients or file meritless claims, I found the tone of the above-referenced headline repugnant. Does our bar believe that it is only successful when it is punishing lawyers? When the State Bar Court hands down rulings in favor of lawyers, do you report it as a failure?

I think, rather, that this story represents multiple failures — a failure to educate and instruct a prosecutor who, no doubt, evidenced a willingness to bend rules that his supervisors ignored, a failure by the bar or its members to assist an ailing practitioner, and a failure by the judiciary to protect itself from an advocate who obviously feels strongly in his positions; seriously, must the court look to the bar to remove an annoyance? The fact that these failures have been remedied to some degree by the destruction of three careers does not justify the self-satisfied tone of the article.

I suppose the discipline column is eagerly awaited by some, but shouldn’t those who are responsible to look for the best possible arguments in favor of any client at least accept a corresponding duty towards one another? Can’t we at least afford those fallen from grace the courtesy of not gloating about their demise? This story reflects anything but a “win.”

J. Brian Watkins
Glendora

Blatantly political

Re: the April article regarding the demands made to the bar board to cancel its contract at the Manchester Grand Hyatt for the annual convention on the grounds that the hotel’s owner financially supported Proposition 8 and the hotel is non-union:

That the bar board would consider cancelling the contract for these reasons is troubling at best and a blatant political statement at worst. That the board hides behind legal precedent that forbids it from spending mandatory dues on political issues is weak at best.

This is an implicit statement by the board that it would have cancelled the contract if there had been no liquidated damages clause or other obligation to pay money to break a contractual agreement. This, in itself, is a political statement in opposition to Proposition 8 and nonunion shops.

Sheldon B. Chernove
Encino

PC run amok

The bar is going through undue contortions to justify not breaching a contract. Lost in the minority’s outcry (and journalistic incompleteness) is the fact that the hotel boycott protests the will of a majority of California voters.

While the decision to keep the convention at the Manchester Grand Hyatt is legally and financially justifiable, couldn’t the bar have refused to change locations on the basis that kowtowing to pressure would be a slap in the face to half of its membership and half of the state that it serves? Why must all decisions be politically correct, instead of just correct?

Kurtiss Jacobs
Concord

Will of the voters

Your article never even mentions the other obvious reason why a move should not be considered: “Yes on 8” was passed by the voters. Even if the bar were not constrained legally to get involved in a political decision, why would some members presume that the bar would change its location based on a minority viewpoint? We still live in a democracy.

Thomas P. Aplin
Laguna Niguel

Full disclosure sought

Thank goodness our bar did not capitulate to special interest pressure to cancel our convention hotel reservation and forfeit the $425,000 deposit. However, I hope that was not the only reason for refusing to bow to pressure exemplified by a small minority of our membership.

If in fact it was, please in the future disclose to all bar members in a timely manner the race, religion, sexual orientation, political party and voting record of persons, corporations or other entities with whom you plan to do business.

Many of us have very strong feelings about these matters and ought to be given the information so we can exert pressure or act in a way that will convince our leaders to be sensitive to our minority sensibilities.

George W. Granger
Bakersfield

Time to move on

You have got to be kidding. A state agency (the State Bar) is supposed to boycott a hotel because it does not like the fact that the hotel owner contributed to a political cause that some of the bar members oppose? Some bar members, myself included, opposed the election of President Obama. Should we demand that the bar boycott any business that contributed to President Obama’s election? Come on, guys.

A democracy cannot exist if its members will not accept the result of an election and move on. It is only a short road from boycotting when you lose an election to rioting when you lose an election.

Robert L. Pippin
Palm Desert

Opposes hotel position

I am extremely disappointed that the upcoming convention will be held at the Manchester Grand. While I understand the dilemma of the governing body, I fear that holding our bar convention at this hotel will be misinterpreted by many as support and/or apathy of the passage of Prop. 8. My hope is that at the convention the governing board will take steps to visibly demonstrate that the convention’s presence at the Manchester Grand not be interpreted as support of the owner’s political agenda.

Gary G. Dye
Burbank

Supports hotel position

I will attend the meeting at the Manchester Hyatt, particularly because of their support of Proposition 8. This was a measure which was passed by the majority of Californians, myself included. The State Bar should not punish those of us who chose to support a cause and exercised our rights in doing so. Many attorneys supported Prop. 8, and I would happily do so again, with my money and time. Thank you for respecting our differences in opinion and allowing my State Bar dues to be used in a fiscally conservative manner (i.e., not incurring the cancellation fees).

Esther R. Valdes
San Diego

No leadership

If the Manchester Grand Hyatt’s owner had supported an initiative to discriminate against people because of their sex, race, color, national origin, age, religion or disability, then would the board of governors still support holding the bar’s yearly convention there? I think not. The State Bar may have its board of governors but it still lacks leadership.

Ron Chen
Westminster, Colo.

No place for bullying

The bar board needed “two formal meetings to hear advice from its lawyers” to decide whether or not to cancel its contract with (the Manchester Hyatt) and then cites economic reasons for not cancelling. Really, it needed two formal meetings for that?

In my opinion, the bar board’s analysis should never have gone beyond the following: We will honor our contractual obligations, especially since we are lawyers and supposed to set the example. Prop. 8 has nothing to do with that. (I voted “No” on 8 by the way, but that should also have nothing to do with that.)

Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples is about equal rights to all, and society respecting those rights whether or not one agrees with another’s lifestyle. I am pretty sure that trying to bully a party who supported a cause (which it had every right to do) by curtailing its contractual rights is not the way to get to that kind of society.

Mark Goossens
San Francisco

Off with their heads

I find it difficult to contain my anger at the board of governors’ conduct. Rather than apologize or make excuses about why the hotel contract was not cancelled, the response, if any, should have been that the board would not even consider such a request based on a partisan political issue. No consultation with their lawyers — nothing. To make it even more outrageous, individual board members, speaking in that capacity, expressed personal support for the gay marriage advocates and regret that nothing could be done. They should be removed. Their conduct is inexcusable.

William M. Rose
Sacramento

Waste of time

Why does the bar even consider such protests? For the half century I have been a member, I always believed that it was our duty, as lawyers, to uphold the laws of the land. Regardless of our feelings about a law, we are duty bound to obey it.

Unless, and until, a law is repealed or overturned by the courts, our position should be that we cannot take a stand contrary to a valid statute. We may feel that a law is unwise, but individuals are then free to try and correct that law, rather than punish a person who believes it to be a wise one.

Ronald Ross
Rancho Palos Verdes