State Bar trustees review organization of other bars
By Laura Ernde
The State Bar’s Governance
in the Public Interest Task Force last
month heard the pros and cons of how other State Bars and regulatory agencies
are organized and governed.
The meeting was the first of five in which the task force
will explore changes to the bar to enhance public protection and ensure that
protection of the public is the highest priority in the licensing, regulation
and discipline of attorneys.
long been considered a national leader in the attorney discipline arena,”
Executive Director Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker said. “Even so, we can learn by
taking a deep and broad look at our counterparts.”
Among the weighty
questions the task force is considering is whether the unified bar structure
best serves the public interest when there are real or perceived
conflicts between the bar’s dual missions of protecting the public from bad
lawyers and enhancing the legal profession.
It’s difficult to
compare California with other State Bars because of its size and the large
number of activities it supports, Parker said. In addition to its core
functions – admission and discipline of lawyers – the State Bar supports dozens
of committees and commissions working to enhance the administration of justice
as well as 16 self-funded voluntary sections.
One feature that
makes California unique is its oversight by the state Legislature, Washington
State Bar Association Executive Director Paula Littlewood told the task force. Most
of the country’s 33 unified bars get funding authority through their state
Supreme Court or governing board.
In California, the Legislature created the unified bar with the State Bar Act of 1927.
However, the State Bar is part of the judicial branch, and the Legislature provides
oversight by setting the amount of mandatory fees collected annually from
In contrast, Washington’s
bar is overseen only by its Supreme Court. Historically, lawyers became a
self-regulated profession because of the need to remain independent from the
legislative branch and to guard against over- or under-reaching by the
government, Littlewood said.
have no idea that we are a self-regulated profession, and they have no idea
why,” she said.
also re-examining all of its activities in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court
decision, North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, which raises antitrust issues for bar
organizations. The decision said the dental board’s effort to put teeth whiteners
out of business was anti-competitive because the board was made up of a
majority of market participants and was not subject to active supervision by
The task force
also heard from:
- Yvonne Choong, vice
president for the Center for Health Policy at the California Medical
Association (CMA), a trade association for California’s 140,000 physicians. The
medical profession has had separate licensing and trade association
organizations since the beginning of the century. The arrangement was
formalized by the state Legislature in 1975. One advantage of being independent
is that CMA can lobby on broader health policy issues. But since membership is
not mandatory, fundraising can be a challenge, she said.
- San Diego County Bar
Association Executive Director Ellen Miller-Sharp. Noting she was not speaking
in her official capacity, Miller-Sharp said it’s up to the task force to decide
what governance structure would best protect the public. From her perspective
as a longtime bar leader, she said the State Bar can take a more active role in
leading the legal profession than local bar organizations because of its
“powerful convening authority.”
- California Insurance
Commissioner Dave Jones. Previously appointed by the governor, the insurance
commissioner has been chosen by a statewide election since 1988. It’s the largest
consumer protection agency in the state. Jones, a lawyer, praised the State
Bar’s work to assist organizations and individuals that provide legal services
to the poor.
- California Commission
on Judicial Performance Director-Chief Counsel Victoria Henley. She described
the important role the commission’s public members play in its mission of
disciplining judges. Non-lawyers bring a valuable perspective and improve
public confidence in the system, she said.
- State Bar of Wisconsin
Executive Director George Brown. As in California, bar membership is mandatory
in Wisconsin. However, the bar functions much like a voluntary bar and its
discipline and admissions functions are handled separately by the Wisconsin
Supreme Court’s Office of Lawyer Regulation.
The task force
also heard from Donna Parkinson and Perry Segal, members of the State Bar’s
voluntary Sections, which are studying the advantages and disadvantages of
remaining affiliated with the State Bar. In recent years, the sections have
seen an increase in the amount of overhead they must pay the bar in order to
Also, new open
meetings rules going into effect April 1 make it challenging for the far-flung
volunteers across the state to have conference calls and use email to conduct
their business, which largely consists of planning attorney educational events.
The new rules were implemented ahead of schedule by the Board of Trustees,
which was already operating under similar open meetings rules.
The task force
will hold two public hearings – April 4 in San Francisco and April 25 in Los
Angeles. Two additional working meetings will be scheduled before the task
force issues a report to the Board of Trustees by mid-2016. The report will
then go to the Supreme Court, the Legislature and the governor.