Washington State Bar the Same as Washington D.C.

Posted: May 8, 2012 in Contributors, Political Opinion
Tags:

As an attorney, I’m required to be a member of the Washington State Bar Association and had to pay $450 a year in dues.  I belong to the California State Bar Association to which I pay dues as well.

This year, a Spokane attorney got enough signatures to have a referendum voted on to lower the dues for all attorney members from $450 to $325.  According to the author, the median fee among the State Bars is $317.  Even the bar dues in NY, which is a very pricey place, are less than in Washington state.

The whole concept of reducing fees is so much like the budget talks inWashington D.C.  No one wants to cut taxes, Bar dues or spending.

The plea from the WSBA’s President to vote “no” on the referendum even included a calculation that the difference in the dues is only $.34 a day!  He went on and talked about all the services the Bar provided to him and everything that will have to be eliminated if, God forbid, the Bar Association didn’t continue to take in the same amount of money it had for years.  And while it may not look like a whole lot of money, I know attorneys who are out of work or working in areas they know nothing about just to get by.

In another email from one of the Bar’s Governors, he gave me his reasons for voting “no” on the referendum.  “A cut in license fees of this magnitude would put many valuable services and programs at risk of being eliminated or cut, including:  casemaker free legal research tool; ethics line; law office management assistant program; free and low-cost CLEs for young lawyers; WSBA leadership institute and other diversity programs; home foreclosure legal aid project; and the moderate means program.  Sounds a whole lot like the waste we see in Washington D.C.

As an attorney, I’m also required to take 45 hours of continuing education here in Washington every three years.  As far as I’m concerned, the whole “CLE” thing is a money-maker for some and a waste of time and money for the rest of us.  I have to belong to a local bar association which offers free CLE credits.  I don’t know why I have to pay $450 to the WSBA and it can’t even offer a few free CLEs once in a while.

Except for the check I write every December, I have no contact with the Bar.  I do get its nice glossy magazine every month which could easily be produced for a lot less money.  It could go the way of California and save a lot of money by emailing it to me.  In other words, I get absolutely no benefit from belonging to the WSBA but it gets my $450.

Every small business has had to make cuts.  Our local government has had to make cuts.  Corporations have had to make cuts.  All across the nation, municipalities, cities, counties and states have had to make budget cuts.

This is not a new issue.  The WSBA like all governments should’ve cut their fees and then created a budget within those means.  As far as I’m concerned, the only purpose for a Bar Association is to oversee attorney admissions and discipline.  Otherwise, the Bar should stay out of my life.  I don’t want it telling me how to vote on anything, and I don’t understand why the Bar needs to fund any of these so-called “outreach programs” like the Lawyers Assistance Program which counsels lawyers, judges and laws students.  Why aren’t these programs managed by pro bono lawyers?

And let’s not forget all the lobbying efforts with which the WSBA is involved.  As an example, a few years back I exchanged emails with one of the Bar’s Governors who agreed to an increase of the Business & Occupations Tax from .15% to .18% to help the State out with its budgetary problems.  Thanks to the WSBA, we pay more B&O Tax and I don’t expect the rate to ever go down again.

Politicians in D.C. can’t or won’t cut taxes and the WSBA wouldn’t reduce its fees voluntarily. If States with far more attorneys can get by with far less, I don’t know why the WSBA couldn’t have done the same.  Fortunately, the referendum passed by 52% although I can’t imagine why it didn’t pass by 90%, but a win is a win.

In an email I received, the President wrote, “In the next several weeks the Board of Governors will begin grappling with some very difficult decisions on how to achieve a $3.6 million reduction in WSBA’s budget.”I can visualize the wringing of hands, weeping and gnashing of teeth and staffers wearing black armbands at the WSBA offices.

I don’t get it, but if you do, God bless you.

Author Bio:

For over twenty years, Leona has tried to heed her husband’s advice, “you don’t have to say everything you think.” She’s failed miserably. Licensed to practice law in California and Washington, she works exclusively in the area of child abuse and neglect. She considers herself a news junkie and writes about people and events on her website, “I Don’t Get It,” which she describes as the “musings of an almost 60-year old conservative woman on political, social and cultural life in America.” It’s not her intention to offend anyone who “gets it.” She just doesn’t. Originally from Brooklyn, and later Los Angeles, she now lives with her husband, Michael, on a beautiful island in the Pacific Northwest, which she describes as a bastion of liberalism.
Author website: http://www.idontgetit.us
  • https://me.yahoo.com/a/mWIyeTh7tNn4E6x9ywgLUoxSLJL5zrbrLAxDT.Yo#4067b libsRdumb

    Who decided  you MUST become a member of anything to practice Law?  Why the he-ll do you need a license?  Just another needless bureaucracy to milk people of cash.   How about this, the Politicians write Laws that are clear legible and have a purpose, are accountable and has a sunset clause.  If this was the case we wouldnt need Lawyers, everyone is a Lawyer by Nature.

    • Ron F.

      Milton Friedman would agree with you.  He argued that people should be able to practice almost any profession without being licensed and the consumers could figure it out.

  • Chief98110

    If you use your common sense you can observe that almost all organizations from religious to secular  by their nature seek to expand.  I look at the agendas of the two bar associations I am required to support and not one thing benefits me beside the license.

  • cmacrider

    Leona:  From my experience at the bar (Canadian) the Bar Association served two purposes:
    1.  It created endless amount of bureaucracy which favoured the large law firms to the detriment of the smaller law firms … otherwise large law firms could not compete;

    2.  It served as a bureaucratic haven for those who could not “cut it” in private practice.

    Otherwise I have to agree with your column wholeheartedly.

  • Ron F.

    The problem with the Washington State and California State Bars are they are mandatory if you want to practice laws in those states.  I have no problem with local bars, which are voluntary, doing whatever they want.  We are not required to join those bar associations.  The mandatory bars should be limited to admissions and discipline.  They should not be able to use mandatory dues for any other purpose, not matter how noble the Bar governors might think the other purposes are.

  • Rick Johnson

    Bureaucracies that don’t answer to profit/loss and sales results tend to operate the same, unfortunately. Every year they want more and provide less. There are no sales reports to worry about, so they tell you all the supposed stuff you’re missing.

    Most of my career I worked for a large corporation. We had annual budget wrangles. Some years we could do more (profits up) and some years we did with less (profits down). Some years we cut drastically because we were losing money. But what we chose to charge for our product was based on the market.

    The WSBA wouldn’t exist if they were a market based corporation. The service likely wouldn’t be worth the price. Otherwise, they wouldn’t need the government to require your participation.