Bill to reform corrupt Arizona State Bar passes in the House!

HOUSE BILL 2221 PASSES!

THIS IS GREAT NEWS AND A HUGE WATERSHED WIN.

THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS AND SUPPORT!!!

By a vote of 31 to 29, HB 2221 passed out of the House this afternoon. The roll call is below. Thank the House Members who supported First Amendment principles and greater transparency.

BILL STATUS VOTES FOR HB2221 - Third Reading

Y = Yes
N = No
NV = Not Voting
EXC = Excused
V = Vacant

Member Name	Vote	Member Name	Vote	Member Name	Vote
J. Christopher Ackerley	Y	John M. Allen	Y	Lela Alston	N
Richard C. Andrade	N	Brenda Barton	Y	Jennifer D. Benally	N
Reginald Bolding Jr.	N	Sonny Borrelli	Y	Russell "Rusty" Bowers	Y
Paul Boyer	Y	Kate Brophy McGee	N	Noel W. Campbell	N
Mark A. Cardenas	N	Heather Carter	Y	Ken Clark	N
Regina Cobb	Y	Doug Coleman	N	Diego Espinoza	N
Karen Fann	N	Eddie Farnsworth	Y	Charlene R. Fernandez	N
Mark Finchem	Y	Randall Friese	N	Rosanna Gabaldón	N
Sally Ann Gonzales	N	Rick Gray	Y	Albert Hale	N
Anthony Kern	Y	Matthew A. Kopec	N	Jonathan R. Larkin	N
Jay Lawrence	Y	Vince Leach	Y	David Livingston	Y
Phil Lovas	Y	Stefanie Mach	N	Debbie McCune Davis	N
Juan Jose Mendez	N	Javan D. "J.D." Mesnard	Y	Eric Meyer	N
Darin Mitchell	Y	Steve Montenegro	Y	Jill Norgaard	Y
Justin Olson	Y	Lisa A. Otondo	N	Warren H. Petersen	Y
Celeste Plumlee	N	Franklin M. Pratt	N	Rebecca Rios	N
Tony Rivero	Y	Bob Robson	Y	Macario Saldate	N
Thomas "T.J." Shope	Y	David W. Stevens	Y	Bob Thorpe	Y
Kelly Townsend	Y	Michelle B. Ugenti-Rita	Y	Ceci Velasquez	N
Jeff Weninger	Y	Bruce Wheeler	N	David M. Gowan Sr.	Y

AYES: 31   NAYS: 29   NOT VOTING: 0   EXCUSED: 0   VACANT: 0

THE CAMPAIGN NOW MOVES TO THE SENATE!

MORE THAN EVER, WE NEED YOUR HELP. MAKE NO MISTAKE; THE STATE BAR WILL BE DOUBLING DOWN ITS EFFORTS AND PULLING OUT ALL THE STOPS TO STOP THE BILL IN THE SENATE.

PLEASE EMAIL THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ASAP.

ASK FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF HB 2221.

STATE THE BILL IS CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND. PROTECTS THE FIRST AMENDMENT. BRINGS TRANSPARENCY TO THE BAR. THE BAR WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST. AND HB 2221 RAISES NO SEPARATION OF POWERS CONCERNS.

Sylvia Allen                        sallen@azleg.gov

Nancy Barto                        nbarto@azleg.gov

Carlyle Begay                      cbegay@azleg.gov

Andy Biggs                         abiggs@azleg.gov

David Bradley                     dbradley@azleg.gov

Judy Burges                       jburges@azleg.gov

Olivia Cajero Bedford         obedford@azleg.gov

Lupe Contreras                   lcontreras@azleg.gov

Andrea Dalessandro           adalessandro@azleg.gov

Jeff Dial                              jdial@azleg.gov

Susan Donahue                  sdonahue@azleg.gov

Adam Driggs                       adriggs@azleg.gov

Steve Farley                        sfarley@azleg.gov

David C. Farnsworth           dfarnsworth@azleg.gov

Gail Griffin                          ggriffin@azleg.gov

Katie Hobbs                        khobbs@azleg.gov

John Kavanagh                   jkavanagh@azleg.gov

Debbie Lesko                       dlesko@azleg.gov

Barbara McGuire                bmcguire@azleg.gov

Robert Meza                        rmeza@azleg.gov

Catherine Miranda              cmiranda@azleg.gov

Lynne Pancrazi                   lpancrazi@azleg.gov

Steve Pierce                       spierce@azleg.gov

Martin Quezada                  mquezada@azleg.gov

Andrew Sherwood              asherwood@azleg.gov

Don Shooter                        dshooter@azleg.gov

Steve Smith                        ssmith@azleg.gov

Bob Worsley                        bworsley@azleg.gov

Steve Yarbrough                syarbrough@azleg.gov

Kimberly Yee                       kyee@azleg.gov

FOR MORE BACKGROUND ON THE BILLS AND OUR POSITION, VISIT: http://workingforabetterbar.org/

Thank you and warmest regards,

Mo

First bill to reform the Arizona Bar passes the House, other two coming up for a vote next

Dear Colleagues:

House Concurrent Memorial 2002 PASSED this afternoon. This was the resolution asking the Arizona Supreme Court to modify its rules related to the State Bar to ensure compliance with Keller to protect our First Amendment rights and to improve transparency about how the Bar spends member dues.

HOUSE BILL 2219 DID NOT PASS this afternoon. It fell short by one vote.

BUT WE ARE FAR FROM DONE! The plan is to set HB 2219 for RE-VOTE next week.

HB 2221 will be voted on tomorrow afternoon, February 25, 2016. We OPTIMISTIC about its chances tomorrow. WE ARE THIS CLOSE!  

PLAN TO WATCH THE LIVE VOTE PROCEEDINGS TOMORROW VIA WEBCAST AT: http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=6

NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO LET UP!

PLEASE EMAIL THE FOLLOWING 8 REPRESENTATIVES.

ASK FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF HB 2221.

STATE THE BILL IS CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND. PROTECTS THE FIRST AMENDMENT. BRINGS TRANSPARENCY TO THE BAR. THE BAR CONTINUES TO EXIST. AND HB 2221 RAISES NO SEPARATION OF POWERS CONCERNS.

Bob Robson                       brobson@azleg.gov

Doug Coleman                   dcoleman@azleg.gov

Noel Campbell                   ncampbell@azleg.gov

Franklin Pratt                    fpratt@azleg.gov

Diego Espinoza                  despinoza@azleg.gov

Jonathan Larkin                jlarkin@azleg.gov

Juan Jose Mendez             jmendez@azleg.gov

Heather Carter                  hcarter@azleg.gov

FOR MORE BACKGROUND ON THE BILLS AND OUR POSITION, VISIT: http://workingforabetterbar.org/

Thank you and warmest regards,

Mo

Read more about the bills here
See also azaacpr.org and azbarwatch.com

Tonight! Conservative comedian Evan Sayet performs in Scottsdale

How Conservative Comedian Evan Sayet Competes With the Top Comedians

Conservative comedian

Evan Sayet is proving that conservatives can be successful in entertainment. Somehow he figured it out despite intense opposition toward conservatives in Hollywood. Last year, Evan Sayet started a national tour of his long running comedy show, The Right to Laugh, which did so well he’s now embarking on a return tour.

I attended his show last year when he came to Scottsdale, Arizona, and have never laughed so hard. Dennis Prager calls him “The funniest man in America.” Warning: I do not recommend bringing a progressive to his show if they don’t have a really good sense of humor. Evan’s style is sort of a cleaner version of Dennis Miller. What I personally enjoy about Evan is he is a true star, but he is also classy and nice. Can’t say that about many of the progressives in Hollywood.

Politichicks asked him why there are so few conservative comedians, and he

explained,

There are a good many reasons, but first and foremost amongst them is that people in the entertainment industry make so much money at such an incredibly early age that they are totally isolated from reality. The majority of conservatives in America only became conservative once they entered the real world and tested the theories of their childhood against reality. The entertainer, if you’ve heard his name, has never had to enter the real world and thus he never grows up to become a conservative.

Read the rest of the article at Townhall 
Click here to buy tickets

Hysterically funny conservative comedian Evan Sayet is back this Wednesday at Scottsdale's Laugh Factory

If you missed conservative comedian Evan Sayet last year when he was in town, you can catch him this Wednesday in Scottsdale. I went last year and had a blast, he insults the left nonstop, reminds me a little of Dennis Miller. Click here to buy tickets, only $20 (there may be a two drink minimum but you can buy pop).

Please spread the word, conservative comedians are shunned by the mainstream media so he relies on us conservative activists to get the word out. We've gotta support our conservative entertainers!

I interviewed him last year here. 

smile emoticon

AZ House Judiciary Committee passes two bills to reform and eliminate the corrupt mandatory Arizona State Bar

Mark Lynch testified about massive fraud and perjury by attorneys he's seen as a mediator, but the Bar won't do anything about it.

Rep. Anthony Kern, the main sponsor of HB 2219 and HB 2221, opened the hearing explaining that the bills were being run based on recommendations of an ad hoc committee which studied the issue this past year. There are concerns that attorneys' First Amendment rights are being violated because they are forced to pay dues in order practice law. Consequently, the bills propose to move the regulation of attorneys back under the Arizona Supreme Court, which is what the Arizona Constitution mandates.

JOHN PHELPS

The first person to testify was John Phelps,* the CEO and Executive Director of the State Bar. He makes $225,000 annually. He said that Clint Bolick, the respected libertarian litigator who was just appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court, says our legal system is the best in Arizona. So? What else is he going to say, now that's been appointed to the court? This is the same Clint Bolick who served as a mentor for me while the Bar was targeting me, so I could continue to practice law while appealing. Read what you want into that...

Then he said the ad hoc committee found no problems with the Bar. Is he out of his mind? I sat through the ad hoc committee meetings and the committee discussed nothing else but problems with the Bar. 

He said the appropriate place to bring these problems is to the Arizona Supreme Court. Well, that's his opinion, they haven't done anything so far, whereas the legislature started bringing one of these bills last year. He noted that the court set up their own ad hoc committee and found no problems with the Bar. The committee was stacked with Bar insiders! Of course they're not going to find anything wrong with the Bar. 

Next, Phelps claimed there wasn't any research done on how much it will cost to move the regulatory functions over under the Supreme Court. Really? Again, I sat through the legislative ad hoc committee hearings and there was plenty of discussion of costs, especially by Mo Hernandez, and they were all much lower estimates than what the Bar currently racks up in costs.

When asked what the Bar does that is invaluable, Phelps said the ethics hotline. He said a voluntary bar's ethics advice wouldn't carry the same weight. Really? I'd be plenty happy with ethics advice from the voluntary Maricopa County Bar and use that in my defense should something happen. 

He was asked if the Bar had conducted a survey about these bills and he said no, but brought up the tired old "satisfaction survey" that has been refuted as meaningless previously. The Bar claims that 70% of attorneys say they are satisfied with the Bar — but only 11% responded! Attorneys don't bother responding because they feel they have no input, no real say. He claimed that the Pima County Bar surveyed its members on the mandatory bar bill and 80% opposed it — but he couldn't say what the participation rate was! Probably the usual handful of insiders. 

Rep. Eddie Farnsworth commented, "89% of your members didn't respond, that's a little disturbing to me. I am an attorney and I talk to attorneys in my district. They don't like the Bar, they don't like the compulsory nature of the Bar, they don't feel they have any say." 

Rep. Sonny Borrelli added, "I've polled attorneys in my district too, and they are concerned if they respond unfavorably there may be repercussions." I'd add that Phelps said the surveys are anonymous, but it is my understanding that even if they assign a number to the survey instead of a name the Bar can easily track it back to an individual attorney.

Phelps claimed that the mandatory Bar is necessary since "people in rural counties don't get the support they need especially in regards to CLE." Really, how do attorneys in the 18 states that don't have mandatory bars get CLE then? The reality is, the Bar's CLE is overpriced and it is simple to take an online interactive CLE from thousands of other providers.

He said that the Bar adheres to the legal decision in Keller; attorneys can request to take out a pro rata share if they disagree with some lobbying position. However, how many attorneys even know this? He then claimed that the Bar is not involved in political campaigns. Really? Much of it is done behind the scenes. What about the Bar's current effort to make attorneys take loyalty oaths saying they will not discriminate against LGBT? 

He said he doesn't consider it a trade association, which is strange since the Bar files its tax returns with the IRS as a 501(c)(6), which are essentially trade associations. Regardless, I think due to its mandatory nature it is really a labor union and should be a 501(c)(5). 

He said one of the crucial aspects of the mandatory Bar is its call-in line for Spanish speakers and others to get free advice.He said, "People who want or need legal help aren't getting it." Well that's a ruse, because the voluntary bars already provide that service. Several years ago I answered phone calls for the voluntary Maricopa County Bar with other attorneys during an evening they provided free advice to the public.

TERRY DECKER

The next person to testify, Terry Decker, said when Steve Wilson represented the Bar in 2010-11 to the state legislature, he never saw one time where he didn't misrepresent the truth. He noted that he thinks the Bar is really a trade association.

MARK LYNCH

Mark Lynch introduced himself as a mediator. As such, he attended the Bar symposium, where he listened to appellate court judges talk. He asked them if the Bar was subject to open meeting laws and they said no, it's private. He sees perjury and fraudulent documents submitted in court all the time by attorneys. He complains to the Bar and gets responses so poor they don't even cite the correct statutes.He can't get any satisfaction from the Bar or other areas of the courts. So his only recourse he has is filing actions in federal court. He would prefer a public body where the grownups can keep an eye on things with public records and open meetings.

MO HERNANDEZ

Mo Hernandez, who is spearheading much of this effort, pointed out that doctors don't have a union. He said 18 state have voluntary bars, and they operate much less expensively. He said there is little transparency with how members' dues is spent. The bar calls itself Keller pure (dues limited to a narrow purpose of administration, etc., not politics), yet its own regulations say it can do anything justified by law. "It's so broad you can not only drive a dump truck through it but unload it!" As for the ethics hotline, that's a false nexus, look at other states that get by without a mandatory Bar. He said the Bar started out as voluntary in 1895, and remained that way for 30 years, with joint oversight by the legislature and judiciary. That sunsetted in 1955.

PAUL AVELAR

Institute for Justice attorney Paul Avelar noted how the Bar's board of governors is made up of almost all lawyers, who represent lawyers. Even the few nonlawyers are elected by lawyers. The key public protections of the Bar have already been taken from the Bar and given to a committee of the Arizona Supreme Court: admissions, unauthorized practice of law and the client protection fund. He said there is an unconstitutional separation of powers problem - the Bar claims to be private but it has been given regulatory powers. Our own Arizona Supreme Court as well as the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled this cannot happen.

DAVID ALGER

David Alger said the Bar has not protected the public. He spent five years in family court as a citizen. He finds it unfair that $520 (mandatory annual Bar dues) is overriding his rights. He just retired from the military and he didn't serve his country in order to have his rights violated. He's never heard back from the Bar once. Whenever he's gone to the Bar, it's been dismissive and unhelpful. He said there was a big ethics violation last year, there were changes made to Rule 74, and a parenting coordinator sat on the committee making the changes. The Bar did nothing about it. He's seen a criminal statute violated, where neither the attorney nor judge said a word.

JACK LEVINE

Jack Levine, who has served on the Bar's board of governors and campaigned for a voluntary bar for years, said he's talked to thousands of lawyers over 52 years of practicing law, and found that 85% are in favor of a voluntary bar. The 15% who oppose it are in large law firms. They control governing boards, executive offices, etc. So there is no competitive bidding. Large law firms now bill $1,500/hr and more. They contribute large amounts to politicians then get their business. The Bar does nothing. The lawyers should protect the public, not the lawyers.

LAURA HALL

Laura Hall, the girlfriend of internationally renowned boxer Michael Carbajal, testified about his horrible experience dealing with the Bar. He has hired many attorneys and been embroiled in litigation for nine years. He's filed complaints with the Bar but nothing has been done. It has crippled them financially. He has proven there are forged checks, where lawyers accepted the money. She said,  "I'm not going to stop until each of these lawyers is held accountable. They are protecting their own."  

At the conclusion of the hearing, both bills passed 4 to 1 (with a fifth member absent). Now the bills head for the Rules Committee, and after that the House. 

HB 2219

This would eliminate the mandatory nature of the Bar, and was unsuccessfully introduced last year.

HB 2221 

This transfers the regulatory functions of the Bar to the Arizona Supreme Court. Note that Rep. Kern added an amendment clarifying that the public can request records from the Bar.

For more information, see workingforabetterbar.org and azbarwatch.com

*During the first public meeting of the ad hoc committee, Phelps had the nerve to bring up a screenshot during a Powerpoint presentation showing the disbarment information on Lisa Aubuchon. Her disbarment was one of the most egregious actions ever taken by the Bar. Completely unprofessional and classless. This is who is running the mandatory Bar.   

Refuting lies put out by the Arizona State Bar about bills to reform its corruption

Thanks to the website Working for a Better Bar for this excellent refutation of the propaganda coming from the Arizona State Bar in order to protect its union/monopoly. It's time to stop playing favorites with attorneys and members of the public, targeting political enemies of the Bar and rewarding cronies. Arizona is a right to work state, it is unfair that we are one of about half the states that has a mandatory Bar, which sets it up to be rife with corruption; it's not a government agency so it's not open to sunshine laws, yet it's been granted a monopoly so there is no incentive to be efficient or moral. The bills will be heard tomorrow morning in the House Judiciary Committee.

Rebutting the Arizona Bar President’s Latest Email Blast Misstatements.

 Posted on February 9, 2016    by Working For A Better Bar -- A Voluntary Bar

This afternoon, State Bar of Arizona President Geoff Trachtenberg sent out his latest blast email update “about pending legislation that could impact the practice of law and your Bar.”

Find below, Mr. Trachtenberg’s key points and the accompanying rebuttals.

---

“Colleagues:

“HB2219 is identical to a bill that was defeated in the Legislature last year. It would eliminate our current Bar and require the Arizona Supreme Court to create an entirely new division to handle attorney discipline and assess Arizona attorneys for this expense.”

REBUTTAL: This is what HB 2219 states:

A. THE SUPREME COURT SHALL LICENSE ATTORNEYS FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THIS STATE. THE SUPREME COURT SHALL ADOPT RULES TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION INCLUDING:
1. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSURE.
2. TESTING REQUIREMENTS.
3. REQUIRING A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION BEFORE OBTAINING A LICENSE.
4. DISCIPLINING ATTORNEYS.
5. DISBARRING ATTORNEYS.
B. AN ATTORNEY SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE A MEMBER OF ANY ORGANIZATION TO BECOME OR REMAIN A LICENSED ATTORNEY IN THIS STATE.

There is no language in HB 2219 that “eliminates our current bar.”  In fact, HB 2219 does not eliminate the State Bar of Arizona. It makes membership consensual not mandatory. Furthermore, the Bill gives the State Bar the free-market opportunity to sell membership on the merits not by coercion. Arizona lawyers who thereafter join the State Bar will do so by choice not by compulsion. And unlike the current Bar, a voluntary association member can then truly claim it as “My Bar.”

Nor is there language that “requires the Arizona Supreme Court to create an entirely new division to handle attorney discipline and assess Arizona attorneys for this expense.”

Lawyers in Arizona and in every state of the nation are already assessed 100% of the cost of their regulation and discipline. An “entirely new division”? It’s pure speculative scaremongering along with the specter of new incremental assessments on lawyers. But why the groundless conjecture? In the 18 voluntary bar states, the average regulatory cost lawyers pay their respective supreme courts is $210. And even where lawyers elect to join their voluntary bar associations, in most cases it is lower than the $490 Arizona lawyers are now required to pay (eventually increasing to $520). Again using the 22,000 member Ohio Bar Association as an example, Ohio lawyers pay $175 per year in court-mandated lawyer regulatory registration fees ($350 biennually) and $305 to belong to the voluntary Ohio State Bar. The total annualized cost for both is $480.

Besides, placing all the public protection functions directly under the active supervision of the Arizona Supreme Court merely finalizes what the Court has already virtually accomplished. In 2011, it removed most of the State Bar’s core public protection functions from the oversight of the lawyer-elected Board of Governors. Having stripped the core public-protection powers from the mandatory Bar’s Board of Governors, the Court currently runs them separately or through Bar professional staff as a regulatory-only agency free from Board of Governor control.

In Colorado, for example, the voluntary bar state similar in size to Arizona and upon which Arizona based its 2011 revamped lawyer discipline system, attorney regulation is administered by the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel under appointment of the Colorado Supreme Court. A nine-member Attorney Regulation Committee is composed not by state employees but by lawyers and lay persons and an Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge to administer the procedures. No tax dollars are used to fund the attorney regulation process in Colorado.

---

“HB2221 is a new bill that creates new issues. It would require all Arizona attorneys to belong to the Bar but it would create a two-tier membership system. Only those paying an additional fee would be entitled to various services, such as those mentioned in my previous email, and it remains unclear which of those services would survive this type of a restructure.”

REBUTTAL: House Bill 2221 does not create two-tiers of membership. What it does, in an argument to moderation employed by another state supreme court, is “limit the use of mandatory assessments to the arena of regulation of the legal profession . . . [to] ensure that the Bar Association remains well within the limits of the compelled-speech jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court and avoid embroiling this court and the legal profession in unending quarrels and litigation over the germaneness of an activity in whole or in part, the constitutional adequacy of a particular op-in or opt-out system, or the appropriateness of a given grievance procedure.” In Re Petition For Rule To Create Vol. State Bar Assn. 286 Neb. 1018, 1035 (2013)

What HB2221 additionally does is uphold lawyer First Amendment Freedoms; improve public transparency; assure no government growth at taxpayer expense; fight further bar bureaucratic bloat; affirm Arizona Supreme Court state constitutional authority over lawyer regulation; and transfer all lawyer regulation authority from the lawyer-controlled state bar to the Court to better protect the public. The State Bar of Arizona continues to exist as a professional association empowered only to collect voluntary non-regulatory dues from lawyers.

In sum, HB 2221:
1. Reaffirms lawyer regulation under the state supreme court;
2. Places all lawyer regulation assessments under supreme court control;
3. Limits bureaucratic expansion since the state bar is authorized to only collect voluntary membership dues for non-regulatory programs and services and requires the bar to file annual independently audited public accountings;
4. Subjects the bar to open records and public meeting laws if the supreme court delegates any of its regulatory authority to it.

The State Bar of Arizona can continue to offer programs and services on their merits. In Nebraska where nonregulatory activities are financed solely by revenues other than mandatory assessments, the Nebraska State Bar Association continues to offer programs and services and practice tools, including such benefits such as:

Casemaker	Lawyer Referral	ABA Retirement Program	Probate System V
Free & Reduced Cost CLE	Leadership Academy	Credit Card Processing	Software
Child Support Calculator	Insurance	Hotel Discounts	Student Loan Refinancing
NebDocs	Conference Calling	Office Supplies	Wardrobe
On-Call Interpreter Service	Nebraska Lawyer Magazine	Payroll Processing

---

“My view is that your Bar is an effective and efficient organization. Having considered these Bills, I agree with those who are concerned about a separation of powers issue between the Legislature and the Arizona Supreme Court. I also believe the changes proposed by these Bills would ultimately harm both attorneys and consumers in Arizona.”

REBUTTAL: Perhaps only the President of the State Bar of Arizona is in any position to determine whether the Bar is “effective and efficient.” As for mainstream members, who knows? The Bar refuses to provide drilled-down expense details of how it spends members’ money. Indeed, but for federal law that it must make public its IRS Form 990 returns, members would not know, for example, that the Bar spends upwards of $1.2M in executive compensation out of a $15M annual budget. HB 2221 would finally require the Bar to become more transparent to the public and to its members.

As for the separation of powers issue, the interplay between the coequal branches of state government has an interesting history. The Arizona Territory was formed in 1865 and the first statewide bar association was created in 1895 as a voluntary membership organization. It remained voluntary for the next 38 years. But thanks to the concerted lobbying of lawyers who in part sought legislative protection against unauthorized legal practice, the Arizona Legislature passed the State Bar Act in 1933. And for the next 52 years, the Arizona Legislature and Judiciary jointly exercised their respective state constitutional powers with respect to the regulation of the practice of law in Arizona. Under a sunset law provision, the State Bar Act terminated in 1985 along with statutory protections against the unauthorized practice of law.

As concerns harm to consumers, the truth as pointed out here is that the opposite is true. “To ensure that the regulation of the practice of law is done solely for the benefit of the public as a whole, and not for the benefit of lawyers, the State Bar should not be a mandatory association.”

---

“That said, there are at least two sides to every story. For two independent and divergent views on the subject, please see SaveTheBar.com and WorkingForABetterBar.org.”

REBUTTAL: There are indeed “two sides to every story.”Unfortunately, the one-sided State Bar only wants its self-interested side widely heard. Last week, Mr. Trachtenberg contacted me to ask for a website link for inclusion in his next member blast email to provide, in his view, “equal time” to voluntary bar advocates. When asked instead for real “equal time”through access to blast email the members rather than via subordinated hyperlink, his response was akin to the sound of crickets in the desert night.

So the inclusion of a hyperlink to “Working for a Better Bar – A Voluntary Bar” is not even a half-measure of fairness and equal time. And audaciously, while Mr. Trachtenberg characterizes “SaveTheBar” as a “divergent” viewpoint from its own, in actuality, that can scarcely be said. Notwithstanding its unsuccessful effort to inoculate itself from the accusation by proclaiming “this is not a cheerleading page for the Arizona State Bar,” that is precisely what SaveTheBar is. Visit the website yourself. It is tantamount to a proxy for the State Bar — even using some of the Bar’s own “efficient” and “effective” descriptors to gush about the Bar. Compare it to this website to see which is really “divergent.”

---

“The other two items are House Memorials. The proposed House Memorials are a result of an Ad Hoc Study Committee on the Mandatory Bar that met a few months ago. Notably, both of these Memorials accept the conclusion that the Legislature does not have the authority to change the Bar’s structure because it is controlled by the Arizona Supreme Court.”

REBUTTAL: Inasmuch as House Concurrent Memorials 2002 and 2003 are not engrossed, i.e., in final version, I will defer a complete rebuttal here. Nevertheless, to be clear, the purposes of the resolutions are simple. Considering that to the extent provided by the Arizona Constitution, the regulatory functions relating to the practice of law, including the regulation of attorneys in this state, are within the authority of the Arizona Supreme Court, the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, requests (1) That the Arizona Supreme Court modify its rules related to the State Bar of Arizona to ensure compliance with Keller and the protection of the First Amendment freedoms of Arizona attorneys; and (2) That the Arizona Supreme Court establish improved transparency measures with respect to the practices and policies of the State Bar of Arizona in spending member dues.

If you have a question or want more information, contact info@workingforabetterbar.org

– M.R. Hernandez, Esq.

---

Credits: A broker feigning deafness to avoid paying the doctor who cured him. Coloured etching, 1786, Wikimedia Commons, public domain; The Meeting, 1884, by Marie Bashkirtseff, Wikimedia Commons, public domain; Help your fuel watcher save fuel at work, by Clive Uptton, The National Archives (United Kingdom), catalogued under document record INF3/182, Wikimedia Commons, public domain; Mr. Seafall’s talk button, Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons Share and Share Alike Attribution License.

 Posted in Conflict of Interest, Costs to practice, First Amendment Freedoms, State Bar of Arizona, Voluntary Bar Legislation    Leave a comment   

Post navigation

← VOLUNTARY BAR BILLS TO BE HEARD FEBRUARY 10, 2016 IN JUDICIARY COMMITTEE