ON JUNE 24, both chambers of the Legislature approved a conference committee version of HB 175, a bill that seeks to place additional restrictions on the legislative lobbying activities of the Bar beyond those outlined by case law. The bill also mandates that the New Hampshire Bar Association periodically hold membership votes on its unified status. At press time, Gov. Benson had not yet signed the bill.

"We believe this bill is unwise and unnecessary," said Concord attorney Russell Hilliard, who at the Annual Meeting last weekend officially took office as NHBA President. "We are considering our options if this bill becomes law, because we do not believe it is in the best interests of the people of New Hampshire or of the legal system." He added that the bill creates unnecessary constitutional conflicts.

The Bar’s Board of Governors met recently to discuss its options if the bill in its present form is passed and signed into law. Hilliard said the Board will be meeting again after final action on the bill to determine the Bar’s response. He said a more detailed statement of the Bar’s position and its specific objections to the bill would be presented at that time.

In the course of discussions with the legislative committee, Bar leaders, authorized by the Board of Governors, had offered to conduct a non-binding referendum asking the membership whether it favored continuation of the unified bar and to certify the results to the Supreme Court if the conferees of the House and Senate would amend the bill and drop the requirement that the Bar hold a referendum. This would have preserved the authority of the court to make the final decision about the membership structure of the Bar while providing it with information about the sentiments of members on the issue. At the same time, it would not have put the Legislature in the position of risking an intrusion into areas of authority regarding the practice of law. The amendment favored by the Bar also would have codified the Bar’s current lobbying guidelines.

However, the legislative conferees did not accept the compromise. Hilliard said that, as a result, the Bar’s offer to hold a non-binding referendum was withdrawn, although he did not rule out the possibility that the Bar may, on its own, seek input from Bar members on this issue.

The Bar was joined in opposition to the bill by the Concord Monitor. It opined that the public has benefited from a unified Bar which provides sufficient resources to operate its Pro Bono Program and other services that annually provide thousands of low-income people with legal help. "While it’s true that lawyers have not had [freedom of choice] since the unified system was adopted in 1968, the tradeoff for both lawyers and the public has been worth it," the Monitor wrote in an editorial.

Accompanying this article is a timeline of NH Supreme Court rulings regarding the unification of the New Hampshire Bar and a ruling, the Chapman decision, which refined the limitations on legislative activity by a unified Bar.

June 4, 1990 - Keller v. State Bar of California , 496 U.S. 1

"The guiding standard for determining permissible Bar expenditures relating to political or ideological activities is whether the challenged expenditures are necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services. Precisely where the line falls between permissible and impermissible dues-financed activities will not always be easy to discern. But the extreme ends of the spectrum are clear: Compulsory dues may not be used to endorse or advance a gun control or nuclear weapons freeze initiative, but may be spent on activities connected with disciplining Bar members or proposing the profession’s ethical codes."

"... the Association should limit its activities before the General Court to those matters which are related directly to the efficient administration of the judicial system; the composition and operation of the courts; and the education, ethics, competence, integrity and regulation, as a body, of the legal profession."

" The New Hampshire Bar Association, having prospered and grown in stature under the supreme court’s December 1968 temporary unification order, the supreme court ordered the bar association to continue as a unified bar without limitation of time, under the court’s continuing jurisdiction."

"We have considered and weighed the arguments for and against the establishment of a unified Bar in this state by decree of this court. We are of the opinion that it is in the interest of the administration of justice, of the legal profession, and in the public welfare, that a unified Bar be established and tried in New Hampshire."

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer