 If
there is one thing lawyers around California agree upon, it is that
the State Bar can be improved. As I have traveled the state this year,
time and again I have heard suggestions for improvement. I know that
some State Bar denizens react defensively to these critics. My
reaction is: Hurrah for our critics. We owe a debt of gratitude to
those members of the profession who invest the time and effort needed
to call to the attention of all of us their perception of ways to
improve the State Bar. It is the critics who will point the way
towards needed improvements.
Most attorneys are overwhelmed with the
day-to-day task of lawyering. Not surprisingly, these hard-working
souls think only rarely about the State Bar. That is as it should be.
Attorneys should not have to devote time away from their clients and
family to fiddle with the politics of the State Bar. That said, some
attorneys are sufficiently motivated that they do take time away from
other pursuits to formulate their criticism of the State Bar. Bless
them for this effort.
Consider all of the changes I have seen in the
last four years that have come about because of critics of the State
Bar. First and foremost, under Executive Director Judy Johnson's
flinty eye, the State Bar has become much more efficient. As a result
of these efficiencies, this year we were able to cut our dues by 20
percent. There is no doubt in my mind that this fiscal austerity has
become a focus for the staff because of concerns raised by our
members. Second, the State Bar's accounting has become much more
transparent, so that subsidies are no longer invisible and it is now
possible to discern the cost of our programs. Third, after several
years of effort, board member Jim Otto finally was able to reduce the
cost the bar imposes on attorneys who file their dues late. Some of
the above are big issues, some not so big, but all came about in
response to comments from our members.
Now, I do not for a minute believe that critics
of the State Bar are always correct. The State Bar is frequently
caught in a whipsaw between competing critics, some who say it is
doing too much while others say it is doing too little. For example, I
frequently receive calls from consumers who are unhappy that the State
Bar is not prosecuting a case against some attorney. But I also get
calls from attorneys who complain that the State Bar is persecuting
them for some trivial offense.
In these situations the State Bar has to hew to
the rule that its first job is public protection. That said, the
public is not benefitted by the State Bar putting attorneys through
the wringer over trivial problems. For that reason, the bar has
developed guidelines that cut minor infractions out of our normal
prosecutions. On top of that, the bar has developed a number of
diversion programs and is continuing to look at new ways to avoid
making mountains out of molehills - all to the good.
There are some critics who have philosophical
complaints about the State Bar that strike at the heart of some
issues. For example, some believe that the California Department of
Consumer Affairs should handle attorney discipline. Others believe
that the State Bar should be responsible for discipline and
admissions, but not any of the "trade association" programs like
the sections or committees. As to these critics, the trick is for the
bar to listen carefully to what they say. Even if, on balance, the
State Bar is not willing to adopt the recommendations of these
critics, there may be a good idea within the criticism that the bar
can adopt.
For example, those who objected to the State
Bar's "trade association" programs, like the sections, objected
in part because they did not believe it appropriate to use mandatory
dues to fund these activities. Their point is that mandatory dues
should only support core disciplinary and admission programs. While
some say that the State Bar should do nothing outside of these core
activities, they have a fallback position that any non-core activities
should be self-funding. For years the bar resisted this criticism. But
when forced to require self-funding of the sections and the Conference
of Delegates, we have found that the sky has not fallen. In fact,
self-funding has given increased vitality to both of these programs.
On the board of governors, we find that self-funded sections and the
conference are more assertive. Again, all to the good.
Similarly, the State Bar now has on its dues
statement two lines that allow attorneys to make voluntary
contributions to support (a) lobbying by the State Bar and (b) the
State Bar Foundation. Last
year, 85 percent of the active attorneys in the state voluntarily
contributed money to support the bar's lobbying efforts and gave
$700,000 to our foundation. By focusing the bar on having to earn the
support of its members, I think both of these voluntary programs will
be stronger in the long run.
The bottom line is that the legal profession is
indebted to the critics of the bar. Even when those in charge, on the
board of governors or on the staff, do not agree with the conclusion
of a given critic, we constantly must be on the lookout for ways that
the thoughts of our critics can help us improve the State Bar. |
