Under State Bar procedures, members of the bar may
file a specific objection to challenge the accuracy of any of the determinations by the
board of governors that a legislative position is chargeable to the annual membership fee
under Keller v. State Bar (1990) 496 U.S. 1.
A challenge by a member to any of the legislative positions listed
below must be made individually and in writing. The written challenge must include the
challenger’s name, address, telephone number and bar membership number and should
identify the challenged legislative position.
A challenger must sign the challenge, postmarked on or before Aug.
17, which is the 45th day following the publication date of this issue of the California
Bar Journal, or delivered in person to the State Bar’s San Francisco office by 5 p.m.
on or before Aug. 17, directed to Judy Johnson, Executive Director, State Bar of
California, 180 Howard St., San Francisco 94105-1639.
Challengers are still required to submit payment of the 2000
membership fee less only the $5 lobbying deduction. Failure to timely submit a challenge
shall constitute a waiver of any right to object to a particular legislative position
within this notice.
Objections properly filed within the deadline will be considered by
the board of governors at its next regularly scheduled meeting following the deadline or
as soon thereafter as the matter may be considered. The board shall decide whether to give
a pro rata refund to the challenger or to submit the dispute for expeditious arbitration
before an impartial arbitrator according to procedures described in the January 2000
California Bar Journal.
If the dispute is submitted to arbitration, the arbitration process
will determine whether the challenged positions are within the scope of permissible
activities for which mandatory fees may be used under applicable constitutional law. Upon
receipt of a properly submitted and timely challenge, the State Bar will place the
disputed amount of the challenger’s fee in an interest-bearing escrow account.
The list of legislative positions approved and determined chargeable
on June 10, 2000, by the board of governors for the year 2000 is as follows:
1. Supports AB 1858 (Romero) relating to immigration consultants, if
it is amended as proposed, including requiring immigration consultants to include in all
advertising a statement that the consultant is not an attorney and deleting the provision
which would have required attorneys to place State Bar numbers on all advertisements,
letterhead and business cards.
2. Opposes AB 2107 (Scott) relating to elder abuse, unless it is
amended (1) to specify that a compensated referral arrangement between a lawyer and a
financial services agent is not per se prohibited, but only if such arrangement fails to
comply with the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct, and (2) to move this provision
of general applicability to attorneys from the article of the Insurance Code relating to
senior insurance to an article of general applicability or limit its applicability only to
compensated referral arrangements involving seniors.
3. With respect to SB 1782 (Morrow) regarding reciprocal admission to
practice in California, recommends, based upon significant questions of public policy and
the complexity of the issues of reciprocal admission to practice law in California, that a
study be conducted by the Supreme Court and the State Bar to consider the implications of
changing the way in which the practice of law is regulated.
4. Supports SB 1988 (Speier) relating to insurance fraud, if it is
amended (1) to resolve concerns about vague, uncertain and inaccurate terms in proposed
legislative intent language concerning attorney discipline based on insurance fraud, and
(2) to eliminate proposed blanket mandate for the State Bar to commence disciplinary
action against an attorney without waiting for the outcome of a criminal proceeding
involving insurance fraud.
5. Supports proposal to remove the sunset on the Out-of-State
Attorney Arbitration Council Program.
6. Authorized the Committee of Bar Examiners to take its own position
on AB 1042 (Cedillo) relating to the First Year Law Students’ Examination. |
