Where does your money go?

Mostly for public protection

by Kathleen O. Beitiks and Nancy McCarthy
Staff Writers

... CONTINUED FROM FRONTPAGE

The breakdown

The remainder of the budget is broken down as follows:

• Legal competence and education programs are projected to cost $6.9 million in 1998 (11.7 percent of the general fund). Those programs include section education and meeting services, professional competence programs such as the ethics hotline, and certification programs.
• Administration of justice programs have a 1998 estimated budget of $2.8 million (4.8 percent of the general fund) and include the Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE) Commission, court reform and research projects and the Conference of Delegates, whose activities Wilson singled out for criticism.
• The legal services budget for 1998 is projected at $2 million (3.4 percent of the general fund), and pays for such activities as lawyer referral services certification and legal services administration.
• Bar relations has a projected budget of $2.1 million next year (3.6 percent), to fund the California Young Lawyers Association, several committees dealing with women and minorities, the bar leaders conference and the bar’s Internet services.
• The 1998 communications budget is estimated at $2.2 million (3.9 percent of the general fund), and includes media relations and public and attorney pamphlets.
• California Bar Journal’s 1998 budget is projected at $1.7 million (2.8 percent), but the Bar Journal production and employee costs have been completely offset by advertising and other revenue for the past three years.

The annual membership fees, which vary depending on an attorney’s status (active or inactive) and number of years in practice, were expected to bring in more than $51 million next year, accounting for 89.5 percent of the bar’s total 1998 revenue.

Other revenue sources

• 3.5 percent ($2 million) in interest revenue;
• 1.2 percent ($663,000) in convention income;
• 2.8 percent ($1.6 million) from the California Bar Journal;
• .9 percent ($531,000) from law corporation fees; and
• 2.1 percent ($1.2 million) from other sources, such as will forms, lawyer regulations and pamphlets.

State Bar President Marc Adelman is asking California’s 156,000 attorneys to voluntarily pay their full dues next year.

$77 to be collected

Without emergency legislation, the bar is authorized to collect only $77 from each active attorney. However, only $27 of that goes into the general fund and is earmarked for discipline; the remainder is split between a building fund ($10) and the client security fund ($40).

Under the bar’s funding formula, the $77 mandatory fee required of an estimated 127,000 active attorneys would generate just over $3.4 million for the general fund.

For inactive attorneys, $40 of their $50 mandatory fee goes into the general fund, and $10 is earmarked for the building fund. Therefore, fees for the 27,500 inactive attorneys would provide $1.1 million.

Together, the mandatory fees would place $4.5 million in the general fund, forcing the bar to limp along on less than 7 percent of its projected budget. That money can be spent only on discipline, which costs more than $3 million per month.

California’s 1,800 judges (of court of record) make up the rest of the attorney population, but they pay no bar fees. While sitting on the bench, they are not technically bar members although they remain on the rolls.

The general fund also pays the salaries of 680 full-time employees, which total $35.2 million. Another 88 employee salaries are paid by revenue-generating programs, such as admissions and the legal services trust fund.

Seeking $458 voluntarily

Adelman is asking active attorneys in practice more than three years to pay the full $458 voluntarily. Those who have been bar members one to three years are asked to pay $390, and those in practice less than a year are asked to pay $359. Each of those amounts includes the mandatory $77 fee.

Adelman has pledged to reimburse or credit any overpayments after passage of a revised 1998 fee bill, which he hopes will occur in January, when the legislature reconvenes.

The budget for attorney discipline saw a significant increase after the bar’s discipline program came under fire for its ineffectiveness and backlog in the late 1980s, resulting in a complete overhaul of the system.

Today, California’s attorney discipline system is considered a model for the nation’s state bars.

In order to fund a revamped discipline system, bar officials obtained permission from the state legislature to increase attorney dues.

Because of the way the law was written, every year the bar must get approval from the legislature to collect $110 of each attorney’s dues for disciplining the state’s errant lawyers.

When bar leaders went back to the legislature in subsequent years to request $27 more for discipline, the statutes were written to make the additional fees mandated. That $27 is included in the $77 mandated fee due on Feb. 1.

However, Wilson vetoed the bill which would have authorized collection of the $110 for discipline.

Discipline impact

The portion of the budget earmarked for discipline includes funding for investigations, trials, intake and State Bar Court, among other things.

Chief Trial Counsel Judy Johnson said the state’s lawyer discipline system would be severely affected if it had to rely solely on the $27 mandated discipline fee and that the bar may be forced to stop receiving new complaints of attorney misconduct by Feb. 1.

In response to complaints of excessive dues for California lawyers, the board of governors approved a $20 decrease in fees last year, dropping annual dues for most active attorneys from $478 to $458.

The 1998 fee bill also added a $10 rebate offer to attorneys, which would have dropped dues to $448. The rebate was offered after the bar sold its San Francisco headquarters for more than originally anticipated. A new San Francisco building has been purchased, consolidating operations from three offices in northern California.

Where does your money go?

Mostly for public protection

by Kathleen O. Beitiks and Nancy McCarthy
Staff Writers

... CONTINUED FROM FRONTPAGE

The breakdown

The remainder of the budget is broken down as follows:

• Legal competence and education programs are projected to cost $6.9 million in 1998 (11.7 percent of the general fund). Those programs include section education and meeting services, professional competence programs such as the ethics hotline, and certification programs.
• Administration of justice programs have a 1998 estimated budget of $2.8 million (4.8 percent of the general fund) and include the Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE) Commission, court reform and research projects and the Conference of Delegates, whose activities Wilson singled out for criticism.
• The legal services budget for 1998 is projected at $2 million (3.4 percent of the general fund), and pays for such activities as lawyer referral services certification and legal services administration.
• Bar relations has a projected budget of $2.1 million next year (3.6 percent), to fund the California Young Lawyers Association, several committees dealing with women and minorities, the bar leaders conference and the bar’s Internet services.
• The 1998 communications budget is estimated at $2.2 million (3.9 percent of the general fund), and includes media relations and public and attorney pamphlets.
• California Bar Journal’s 1998 budget is projected at $1.7 million (2.8 percent), but the Bar Journal production and employee costs have been completely offset by advertising and other revenue for the past three years.

The annual membership fees, which vary depending on an attorney’s status (active or inactive) and number of years in practice, were expected to bring in more than $51 million next year, accounting for 89.5 percent of the bar’s total 1998 revenue.

Other revenue sources

• 3.5 percent ($2 million) in interest revenue;
• 1.2 percent ($663,000) in convention income;
• 2.8 percent ($1.6 million) from the California Bar Journal;
• .9 percent ($531,000) from law corporation fees; and
• 2.1 percent ($1.2 million) from other sources, such as will forms, lawyer regulations and pamphlets.

State Bar President Marc Adelman is asking California’s 156,000 attorneys to voluntarily pay their full dues next year.

$77 to be collected

Without emergency legislation, the bar is authorized to collect only $77 from each active attorney. However, only $27 of that goes into the general fund and is earmarked for discipline; the remainder is split between a building fund ($10) and the client security fund ($40).

Under the bar’s funding formula, the $77 mandatory fee required of an estimated 127,000 active attorneys would generate just over $3.4 million for the general fund.

For inactive attorneys, $40 of their $50 mandatory fee goes into the general fund, and $10 is earmarked for the building fund. Therefore, fees for the 27,500 inactive attorneys would provide $1.1 million.

Together, the mandatory fees would place $4.5 million in the general fund, forcing the bar to limp along on less than 7 percent of its projected budget. That money can be spent only on discipline, which costs more than $3 million per month.

California’s 1,800 judges (of court of record) make up the rest of the attorney population, but they pay no bar fees. While sitting on the bench, they are not technically bar members although they remain on the rolls.

The general fund also pays the salaries of 680 full-time employees, which total $35.2 million. Another 88 employee salaries are paid by revenue-generating programs, such as admissions and the legal services trust fund.

Seeking $458 voluntarily

Adelman is asking active attorneys in practice more than three years to pay the full $458 voluntarily. Those who have been bar members one to three years are asked to pay $390, and those in practice less than a year are asked to pay $359. Each of those amounts includes the mandatory $77 fee.

Adelman has pledged to reimburse or credit any overpayments after passage of a revised 1998 fee bill, which he hopes will occur in January, when the legislature reconvenes.

The budget for attorney discipline saw a significant increase after the bar’s discipline program came under fire for its ineffectiveness and backlog in the late 1980s, resulting in a complete overhaul of the system.

Today, California’s attorney discipline system is considered a model for the nation’s state bars.

In order to fund a revamped discipline system, bar officials obtained permission from the state legislature to increase attorney dues.

Because of the way the law was written, every year the bar must get approval from the legislature to collect $110 of each attorney’s dues for disciplining the state’s errant lawyers.

When bar leaders went back to the legislature in subsequent years to request $27 more for discipline, the statutes were written to make the additional fees mandated. That $27 is included in the $77 mandated fee due on Feb. 1.

However, Wilson vetoed the bill which would have authorized collection of the $110 for discipline.

Discipline impact

The portion of the budget earmarked for discipline includes funding for investigations, trials, intake and State Bar Court, among other things.

Chief Trial Counsel Judy Johnson said the state’s lawyer discipline system would be severely affected if it had to rely solely on the $27 mandated discipline fee and that the bar may be forced to stop receiving new complaints of attorney misconduct by Feb. 1.

In response to complaints of excessive dues for California lawyers, the board of governors approved a $20 decrease in fees last year, dropping annual dues for most active attorneys from $478 to $458.

The 1998 fee bill also added a $10 rebate offer to attorneys, which would have dropped dues to $448. The rebate was offered after the bar sold its San Francisco headquarters for more than originally anticipated. A new San Francisco building has been purchased, consolidating operations from three offices in northern California.