Public lawyers and the bar

by MICHAEL CAPIZZI

As the district attorney for Orange County, I ask the lawyers of this state to think long and hard before voting to abolish the State Bar and giving up self-regulation to an unknown entity. Proponents of abolishing the bar have offered no clear plausible alternative to the State Bar. If we vote to abolish the bar, who will regulate us? Who will provide all of the programs for lawyers that the State Bar currently provides? We cannot afford to take this risk without plausible alternatives clearly spelled out.

Knowing many government lawyers may not be familiar with what the unified bar does for us, I have listed some of the reasons why I believe government lawyers should vote no on the upcoming plebiscite.

Contrary to popular myth, the State Bar is not a faceless bureaucracy controlled by downtown law firms and an elitist "old guard." In fact, among the 16 lawyers who serve on the Board of Governors and are elected by their colleagues from districts throughout the state, one-third are public attorneys. This year's board also has two corporate counsels and three solo practitioners.

Although only 11 percent of all California lawyers work for a government agency, over the past five years the percentage of State Bar section and committee members who are public lawyers ran between 13-16.

Among the prominent government lawyers who now guide the destiny of the State Bar: Judy Johnson, chief trial counsel, came out of the San Francisco district attorney's office; another San Francisco assistant DA, Teri Jackson, chairs the Committee of Bar Examiners; Los Angeles head deputy DA Michael Delaney chairs the bar's Client Security Fund; and deputy attorney general Clara Slifkin chairs the Council of Section Chairs.

I hope this gives you a sense of the role of public lawyers in the administration and regulation of the State Bar. We are afforded a high degree of participation in shaping our profession.

The medical profession, which is regulated by the Department of Consumer Affairs, is not as fortunate. Don't take my word for it; ask any doctor you know about his/her level of participation in the California Medical Board, where political appointees totally control the oversight of the medical profession.

The State Bar has worked hard to oppose anti-lawyer legislation, such as mandatory pro bono, bar licensing of legal technicians and administering the bar exam to all lawyers every five years. If we kill off a strong, unified bar, regulation of the profession will be transferred to nonlawyers and politicians.

Finally, abolition of the bar will not save lawyers money. No matter what structure is in place, lawyers will be regulated and lawyers -- not taxpayers -- will pay for the regulation. Those who propose abolition have not outlined what will replace the unified bar or told you how much your dues will be under a new system.

I can tell you one thing: a new Sacramento-based bureaucracy will not be cheaper. Given today's challenges to lawyers and the legal profession, California lawyers should vote no in the plebiscite and reaffirm our commitment to professionalism and self-regulation.

Michael Capizzi is the district attorney for Orange County.

Public lawyers and the bar

by MICHAEL CAPIZZI

As the district attorney for Orange County, I ask the lawyers of this state to think long and hard before voting to abolish the State Bar and giving up self-regulation to an unknown entity. Proponents of abolishing the bar have offered no clear plausible alternative to the State Bar. If we vote to abolish the bar, who will regulate us? Who will provide all of the programs for lawyers that the State Bar currently provides? We cannot afford to take this risk without plausible alternatives clearly spelled out.

Knowing many government lawyers may not be familiar with what the unified bar does for us, I have listed some of the reasons why I believe government lawyers should vote no on the upcoming plebiscite.

Contrary to popular myth, the State Bar is not a faceless bureaucracy controlled by downtown law firms and an elitist "old guard." In fact, among the 16 lawyers who serve on the Board of Governors and are elected by their colleagues from districts throughout the state, one-third are public attorneys. This year's board also has two corporate counsels and three solo practitioners.

Although only 11 percent of all California lawyers work for a government agency, over the past five years the percentage of State Bar section and committee members who are public lawyers ran between 13-16.

Among the prominent government lawyers who now guide the destiny of the State Bar: Judy Johnson, chief trial counsel, came out of the San Francisco district attorney's office; another San Francisco assistant DA, Teri Jackson, chairs the Committee of Bar Examiners; Los Angeles head deputy DA Michael Delaney chairs the bar's Client Security Fund; and deputy attorney general Clara Slifkin chairs the Council of Section Chairs.

I hope this gives you a sense of the role of public lawyers in the administration and regulation of the State Bar. We are afforded a high degree of participation in shaping our profession.

The medical profession, which is regulated by the Department of Consumer Affairs, is not as fortunate. Don't take my word for it; ask any doctor you know about his/her level of participation in the California Medical Board, where political appointees totally control the oversight of the medical profession.

The State Bar has worked hard to oppose anti-lawyer legislation, such as mandatory pro bono, bar licensing of legal technicians and administering the bar exam to all lawyers every five years. If we kill off a strong, unified bar, regulation of the profession will be transferred to nonlawyers and politicians.

Finally, abolition of the bar will not save lawyers money. No matter what structure is in place, lawyers will be regulated and lawyers -- not taxpayers -- will pay for the regulation. Those who propose abolition have not outlined what will replace the unified bar or told you how much your dues will be under a new system.

I can tell you one thing: a new Sacramento-based bureaucracy will not be cheaper. Given today's challenges to lawyers and the legal profession, California lawyers should vote no in the plebiscite and reaffirm our commitment to professionalism and self-regulation.

Michael Capizzi is the district attorney for Orange County.