The following is a verbatim reprint of a letter that the Grand Rapids Bar Association sent to its members. It includes both the rationale for the position taken, and a description of the process through which it came to that position.
To All Members of the Grand Rapids Bar Association:
The Grand Rapids Bar Association (GRBA), through its Board of Trustees, has voted to oppose SB 743, which proposes to make the State Bar of Michigan (SBM) a voluntary Bar Association. Before taking this position, the GRBA solicited input from its membership. Members overwhelmingly opposed the legislation. The GRBA Board of Trustees carefully considered member rationales both supporting and opposing the legislation. It also considered the wisdom of taking any position at all. In addition, the Trustees kept in mind this organization’s own mission statement, which charges the Board “[t]o promote justice, professional excellence and respect for the law, foster the dignity and integrity of the profession, provide law-related services to the community, and serve the needs of our members.” With these considerations in mind, the GRBA Board unanimously concluded that the advantages of having a mandatory state bar association overwhelmingly outweighed the disadvantages, for our members, for the profession, and for the public as a whole.
A mandatory state bar ensures that the integrity of the profession is maintained through self-regulation and judicial oversight. Through self-regulation, lawyers, who are an essential part of the justice system, are themselves accountable to the judiciary for their own conduct and the conduct of their peers. Supervised self-governance ensures that lawyers continue to serve the justice system professionally and fairly.
Since a voluntary state bar cannot be charged with the regulation of attorneys who are not members, adoption of SB 743 would create a need for an alternative vehicle for licensing and regulation. SB 743, however, makes no provision for replacing the professional licensing and disciplinary system operated by the SBM. It is fair to assume that the role will fall to government, likely under the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. Whereas currently the regulation of attorneys through the SBM is inexpensive, because it takes advantage of the voluntary services of bar members, if the SBM is made voluntary, attorneys and taxpayers undoubtedly will pay more to the government for licensure and regulation. As it presently stands, Michigan bar dues, including the costs of licensing and regulating the profession, are below the national average for bar dues nationwide; they are less than half of the dues of the most expensive state bar association -- a voluntary bar association.
In addition, a mandatory state bar creates economies of scale for both members and clients. Michigan=s continuing legal education is inexpensive -- sometimes free -- to all lawyers in the state. The SBM has successfully negotiated with vendors to provide members with access to reduced-price services necessary to their practices. Further, because the SBM is mandatory, the administrative cost per member is reduced, leaving a greater percentage of dues dollars for member and public services.
The legal profession, as part of and dependent upon the justice system, owes a duty to improve that system and to provide access to those who cannot afford to purchase legal services. While voluntary bar associations, like our own GRBA, strive to provide such essential public services, the SBM, as a mandatory bar association, possesses far greater capacity to help lawyers to meet their essential professional obligations.
Moreover, to the extent that the SBM takes positions on pending legislation, it carefully observes the constraints of the First Amendment on those activities, limiting them to “those necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or ‘improving the quality of the legal service available to the people of the State.’” Keller v. State Bar of Calif., 496 U.S. 1, 14 (1990) (quoting Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820, 843 (1961)); see also Falk v. State Bar of Mich., 418 Mich. 270, 281; 342 N.W.2d 504, 506 (Mich. 1983) (holding that the First Amendment restricts activities of the SBM “to those duties and functions of the State Bar which serve compelling state interests and which cannot be accomplished by means less intrusive upon the First Amendment rights of objecting individual attorneys”). While not all members will always agree on every decision,
decisionmaking is highly democratic, encouraging vibrant discourse among members and their representatives.
For all these reasons, and in the absence of evidence suggesting that the present system fails to meet its obligations, the GRBA opposes passage of SB 743. By copy of this letter, we are advising the State Bar of Michigan of our decision.
Board of Trustees,
Grand Rapids Bar Association
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
