The right compromise

by ANDREW J. GUILFORD

The State Bar restructuring bill (AB 1669) authored by Assemblyman Robert Hertzberg is under attack from the left and the right and from bar supporters and detractors.

Thus, it appears to be the perfect compromise to a complex dilemma for Californians.

Do I like everything in AB 1669? No, but again this is evidence of a good compromise.

Mr. Hertzberg drafted AB 1669 after careful review of the important issues arising from the present crisis at the State Bar, and the bill reflects a thorough understanding of the needs of Californians.

The prompt enactment of AB 1669 as an urgency measure is necessary to maintain the quality and availability of legal services in California and to protect Californians — all with no increase in taxes.

How did we get into this crisis and how does AB 1669 deal with the important issues involved?

Over the years, the State Bar has chosen to get involved in politics. Usually this has been good for California. The administration of justice in our state has benefitted greatly from a vast amount of legislation sponsored by the State Bar. Unfortunately, the State Bar has at times been careless in pursuing political agendas.

I have attended every Conference of Delegates since 1983, and I have seen carelessness there and elsewhere. Since the State Bar has chosen to be political, it is not surprising that it has received a political response.

It is also not surprising that, like all bureaucracies, the State Bar is susceptible to inefficiencies. Thus, we must remain vigilant in reviewing the State Bar.

One of the few checks and balances on the State Bar is in the process of obtaining a dues bill. This year, the dues bill was used to place a check on the State Bar.

The task now is to find a suitable balance between competing concerns. The task is particularly challenging because lawyers are such easy targets in the political arena.

Many critics of the State Bar now ask whether we even need a State Bar and question whether the legal profession is different from any other line of work.

This is a proper question and we should all be skeptical of any group that claims it is special.

Yet lawyers are different, and that difference does justify some of the special structure of the State Bar.

Our difference lies in the fact that we are an integral part of the third branch of our government — the judicial branch cannot exist without lawyers.

As this important branch of government is under attack, it is not surprising that lawyers are also under attack.

Thus, in the present crisis, we must be sure that the administration of justice in California does not suffer from unfair attacks on lawyers, the State Bar and the legal system, but we must also balance this with suitable limits on our mission.

Does AB 1669 strike a suitable balance? Yes, since AB 1669 involves all of the following:

• The commitment in California to improve the quality and availability of legal services and the administration of justice.

• The significant reduction in dues.

• The requirement for vigorous belt-tightening and review.

• The significant limitation of lobbying activities.

• The end of member dues support for the Conference of Delegates and sections.

• The retention of enforcement and regulatory functions by the mandatory bar.

• The creation of a voluntary bar organization.

• The significant restructuring of the State Bar.

There is enough here to anger and edify both sides of this important debate.

It is a compromise that is the best solution to the crisis facing California.

Andrew J. Guilford represents Orange County on the State Bar Board of Governors. He chairs the board’s planning committee.