 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bar News - June 20, 2003 Morning Mail Out-of-State Attorney Favors Deunification The arguments, pro and con, regarding bar deunification ignore an important reason why some attorneys might prefer deunification: because we don’t live or do business in New Hampshire, and membership in the association under such circumstances is at a cost (even though reduced) and with little or any benefit. I am a trade policy analyst for the U.S. Dept. of Commerce in Washington, DC. I took the NH bar exam and was admitted because of ties to the state and with the idea that someday, I might wish to return to NH. At present, however, the mandatory annual dues are the cause of resentment. I do not have a "freedom of association" issue: Indeed, when first admitted, I looked for the opportunity to associate with other, more experienced members of the Bar via the mentoring program, only to be told that it was not available for out-of-state members. With regard to the Association’s positions, I simply don’t know enough about what is going on in New Hampshire to care about the NHBA’s activities before the Legislature, and I assume that those activities are undertaken for the good of the majority of lawyers in the state. Like most recent law school graduates, I am deeply in debt. While federal government salaries are commensurate with or higher than those of other new attorneys in New Hampshire, they are significantly lower than those of many attorneys in the much more expensive area where I presently live. Furthermore, my employer does not pay my Bar dues, yet the NHBA gives no discount for public interest lawyers. The CLE programs offered by the NHBA are irrelevant to my practice area; ditto the legal research system. In short, the money I spend on inactive bar membership would be much better spent on membership in the ABA or an international trade organization. Unfortunately, in order to hold open the possibility of someday returning to New Hampshire and practicing law there, I must write a yearly check to an organization with which I have virtually no contact. I am also admitted to practice in Maryland, which reportedly has a thriving voluntary bar association (to which I don’t belong, either). New Hampshire is a much smaller state, and perhaps without mandatory membership, the NHBA would be unable to maintain a critical mass. That is the best argument for continued unification. Characterizing those who oppose it as being on a "jihad" (an offensive choice of word, especially in these times) or implying that opposition is largely due to some libertarian bias is a simplistic response. Edna Boyle-Lewicki Integrated Bar an Unqualified Success? When I read the title to Frederic Upton’s article printed in the May 23, 2003 Bar News, "Unification of the New Hampshire Bar Has Been an Unqualified Success," I could not help but ask myself a question: If the integrated Bar is such a success, then why are the Bar Association and the court system so afraid to allow the attorneys to vote on whether they want to continue with the integrated Bar? The only answers that come to mind are that the Bar Association and court system do not think attorneys are intelligent enough or are too naive to know what is in their best interest; the Bar Association and court system may think attorneys are not intelligent enough or are too naive to know what is in the best interest of the profession. Either of these answers is insulting and not a correct reflection of the members of the Bar with whom I come into contact on a daily basis. The decision to become an integrated Bar Association occurred, I believe, over 30 years ago. I suspect that most of the Bar members who voted on the referendum have retired or are near retirement at this time. If the Bar Association and court system were willing to trust the attorneys with a vote then, they should be as willing to trust the attorneys now. The Bar Association and the court system do not want this vote, I submit, because the integrated Bar has not been an unqualified success and vested interests would be jeopardized if the Bar Association were dependent on the members deciding whether the services provided are worth the cost of membership. Diane G. Bolander Bar President Marty Van Oot’s response: The Board of Governors’ opposition to a legislatively imposed referendum on unification does not stem from "fear" of its outcome, but from the Bar’s respect for principles of separation of powers and the lack of indication of a groundswell of support for deunification. HB 175 raises several troublesome issues, including its apparent overriding of the balance of powers between the Legislature and the judicial branch. It is the judicial branch that has the authority to regulate the legal profession, and it used that authority, by court order, to establish the unified Bar. Also, the Bar does not believe that the Legislature can dictate to a private organization how it handles its affairs, and what it will ask its members. It is also worth pointing out that although there are members of the Bar who have expressed opposition to the validity or desirability of the unified Bar, these members have not utilized the avenues already open to them through the Bar itself to put this issue to a vote. The Bar’s Board of Governors is democratically elected by the members; there was no opposition to any of the candidates that ran for the Board this year, and none ran on a "deunification" platform. Issues may be put to a vote by the membership via petitions, but neither the unified status of the Bar nor its lobbying activities have been the subject of any recent petitions. Ms. Boyle-Lewicki’s letter raises questions about the services provided to out-of-state members of the Bar, and for attorneys in public practice. We appreciate her input and we will try to do more to provide services to benefit a broader cross-section of the Bar. We do believe that the services we provide – including Bar News, Bar Journal, substantive law sections and the free Casemaker law library – provide important practice resources of value to all attorneys, particularly as they relate to New Hampshire legal matters. Opinions in Bar News UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, opinions expressed in letters or commentaries published in Bar News are solely those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the New Hampshire Bar Association Board of Governors, the Bar News Editorial Advisory Board or the Bar Association staff.
|
|
Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store New Hampshire Bar Association |
