The Price Is Not Right
Regrettably, coming on down is the last thing on the California State Bar's mind.
Here’s the latest from my State Bar of California. In January, it mailed all licensees to explain why it needed a large fee increase for the 2025 dues. Reasons include the following: dues assessed have been outpaced by inflation (so what else is new?); a high workload with funds spread thin (the bar says that California handles more complaints per attorney than any other state, so?); only one dues increase in the past 20 years (a lack of planning?); and, the need for an increase to fund disciplinary functions (no comment about this one).
The California Legislature holds the purse strings for the State Bar’s budget. I would think that there’s no shortage of groveling going on in Sacramento, given the Girardi fiasco and the bar’s apparent continuing inability to do more with less. (Why should it be different than anyone else in these times?)
AI’s Impact On Law Firms Of Every Size
The State Bar seeks input from its licensees on possible ways to increase dues using different criteria in an effort, as the bar says, to “improve equity and sustainability.” (Ahem.) It’s looking into alternative fee structures based on years of practice, areas of practice, and income. The email suggests lawyers can comment on an “interactive thought exchange” through early March.
A dues structure built on years in practice might make sense, especially for newer lawyers, many of whom struggle to get a toehold in practice and don’t make much money, especially in the first five years or so (except if they are in Biglaw and then Biglaw firms usually pay bar dues as do many corporate law departments.)
This option is that the longer you’re an active licensee, the more you pay, regardless of income. Boo-hiss. Going inactive is not the answer if you want to continue to practice, whether for pay or pro bono, as inactive status can lead to unauthorized practice of law claims. Years in practice do not necessarily mean what the bar thinks it means — that the longer you practice, the more money you make. Not.
Dues structure based on income? How to calculate a fee structure based on income? Audit tax returns? I think not. Sign some kind of verification under penalty of perjury as to stated income? We all know how well “stated income” worked in the financial train wreck some years back.
Sponsored
Why Do AI And Legal Professionals Make The Perfect Partnership?
Law Firms Now Have A Choice In Their Document Comparison Software
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
Another option is the “practice sector based fee.” How would THAT work? What if your practice spans a number of areas? Do you say “eeny, meeny, miny, mo” and choose the practice area that provides the least amount of income so as to reduce the dues?
Lastly, there is the current “share and share alike” model of the flat fee. I think that’s the fairest. (I’m ready for incoming flak.)
Lawyer comments show they are not happy campers. Many are figuratively blowing their stacks at any dues increase, given how many think that the bar has failed miserably in its job of “public protection.” Others think that basing fees on years in practice is a form of age discrimination, especially for those attorneys who are retired or semi-retired but who want to retain their active status.
Here’s a sample from the almost 3,000 or so posted to date:
“A ‘years in practice’ model penalizes those who have been in practice many years but who do not earn high income. One earning lower income despite many years in practice should not be caused to suffer high registration fees.”
“A 25% increase is outrageous and the idea of inflation-adjusted fees is specious. Similar states (NY, FL, TX) currently have lower fees than CA. CA has some of the highest bar dues already. Asking for more dues in the wake of a massive attorney discipline failure is embarrassing.”
“Significantly increasing fees without addressing Bar mismanagement is unacceptable. A lot of people making a lot of money are not doing their jobs competently.”
“The operative question should be how to cut unnecessary costs (e.g., by adopting the multistate bar exam), not how to equitably raise the fee. It’s telling that efforts to reduce cost is [sic] not even in the conversation. Both the attorneys and CA consumers are poorly served by the current system.”
“Years in Practice? Absurd and a violation of fairness to retirees or those with few cases, especially as this discriminates on [sic] elderly licensees. Can’t afford it.”
“Any fee increase in this time of high inflation and after the pandemic is egregious and should not happen. Lawyers are suffering except those in big firms (who don’t even pay their own dues). Any substantial fee increase will cause many to leave practice.”
“I want the State Bar to explain why they need to increase our fees. I want to know how the State Bar came up with this need to increase fees.”
“We already pay a significant licensing fee to be a member of the State Bar. I don’t exactly understand what I am paying for. This feels like a shake down.”
Sponsored
AI’s Impact On Law Firms Of Every Size
How Transactional Lawyers Can Better Serve (And Maintain) Their Clients
No words minced in these samplings. They highlight lack of transparency, mismanagement, and dismay at the seeming inability to manage the disciplinary function successfully. So, which fee structure increase would you choose? “None of the above” is not an option.
Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.
