REGULARS

OPINION

Over the years, some critics have had various complaints about the State Bar. Some complained about what they saw as excessive dues. Some complained about the lobbying done by the State Bar. Others complained about "this" and yet others about "that."

In large measure, the State Bar made few changes in response to the critics because the leadership of the bar disagreed with the critics and the critics did not have the power to force the changes in which they were interested.

Gov. Wilson's veto of the 1998 State Bar dues bill brought complaints about the bar to center stage. His veto also galvanized the bar's critics. The critics who had long been sidelined found that they now had the whip in hand.

The governor's veto posed a dilemma for the bar leadership. A majority of members who voted in the recent plebiscite endorsed the current structure and mission of the State Bar. A majority of the board of governors supported the current form of the State Bar. A majority of the legislature had voted for the original dues bill, which contemplated little change in how the bar operated. But now, even though the critics of the bar have the support only of a minority of those who voted in the plebiscite, a minority of those on the board of governors and a minority in the legislature, because of the veto, this minority could preclude the enactment of a dues bill.

All agree that most of the State Bar's budget is spent on the non-controversial core functions of admission and discipline. These core functions benefit both the public and the profession. Other activities that had long been part of the bar's agenda (such as the sections and the Conference of Delegates) had far smaller costs, but these functions were the target of much of the criticism.

The governor and most of the critics wanted to jettison all but the core activities. The problem was how far should the State Bar go towards stripping off these controversial functions that are supported by many attorneys in order to accommodate the minorities' stranglehold on the budget needed for the core functions.

The leadership of the State Bar concluded that we had little bargaining strength. In an effort to placate the critics so that the State Bar could have sufficient funds to preserve its important public service aspects, the bar leadership cast overboard one program after another.

Instead of satisfying the critics, this jettisoning of program after program led to a feeding frenzy in which critics demanded that yet more and more of the State Bar's programs be tossed overboard.

Ultimately, believing that they could see a deal, some of the bar governors were even prepared to toss over our right to elect representatives to the board of governors. Fortunately, at the last minute, the governor overreached and the deal then in the works foundered.

So where should we go from here? I believe we need to sift through the criticism leveled at the bar, identifying those critical comments that are meritorious. For example, we should make the sections be self-funding, but we should not sever them from the bar.

We should distance the State Bar from the lobbying efforts of the Conference of Delegates, but there should still be a place for a self-funded conference in the State Bar.

The State Bar, on its own, should take steps to make these changes. This should be our first priority. Then, having made these changes, we should take the trimmed-down, leaner State Bar program back to the legislature and ask for an appropriately sized dues bill.

Palmer Brown Madden, a partner in the Walnut Creek office of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Ener-sen, is the District 3 representative on the bar board of governors.