 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bar News - April 9, 2004 Commenting on 'Facts' in Attorney Hodgdon's Article By: Russell F. Hilliard I know what you're thinking - Russ, I've heard enough and read enough about the referendum on unification of the Bar, and if anything, I'm suffering from information overload. I understand, but if you can bear with me, it is important that I respond to some of the factual assertions in a letter from Attorney Mark Hodgdon, which is being published in this issue. While he is entitled to his opinions, and the Bar News encourages debate on any issue affecting members of the Bar, it is critical that accurate and complete information be available in these pages. Therefore, let me make a few observations. A "massive campaign"? Yes, by volunteers active in the Bar who believe strongly that a unified bar benefits lawyers and the public. A "decision not to count the ballots"? The Supreme Court ordered the referendum to proceed while the challenge to the constitutionality of the legislation mandating it is being considered. The Court further ordered that the ballots remain sealed until "further notice of the court." "Afraid to ask the members"? As has been reported previously, the Bar specifically offered, while the legislation was pending last year, to conduct a voluntary referendum of its members on unification, and report the results. This did not satisfy a legislature bent on retribution, as Governor Shaheen noted in her veto message of similar legislation in 2002. We believe the legislature has no business mandating this referendum and possible deunification; that is the critical issue pending before the Court. "Not focused on member service"? Contrary to the impression Attorney Hodgdon tries to make, the activities and budget of the Bar are overwhelmingly focused on responding to member needs and interests, including support for the many committees and substantive law sections, CLE programming, Casemaker, insurance agency products, and many other services. The point we have made is that voluntary bars have to devote scarce resources toward recruiting and retaining members, i.e., marketing, rather than focusing on delivering those services, which we can do. Lobbying "out of control"? First, only four percent of the Bar's collected dues (and less than 2 percent of the overall budget) is devoted to legislative activities. More importantly, the Bar has scrupulously followed the Chapman procedures in determining whether and how to get involved in any particular legislative measure. Regular updates on the Bar's legislative positions are posted on www.nhbar.org, under News Releases and if any member takes issue with any particular provision, he or she should feel free to voice that concern (none have). And, yes, Bar leaders do speak out about the adequacy of resources for the judicial branch. Ask most members, and they will agree that serving as an advocate for the legal system -on behalf of our clients as well as for those who work in it- is an important part of the Bar's work. "Only 40 percent would join"? I do not know where Attorney Hodgdon came up with this. Our neighboring associations, Maine and Vermont, have membership of over 60 percent and 90 percent respectively. A voluntary New Hampshire bar would survive just fine, but would lack the cohesion and strength of a unified bar, such as exists in more than 30 states. "Hand-picked officers"? Let me briefly explain governance of the New Hampshire Bar. We have an open nomination process and a democratically elected Board of Governors, consisting of 21 members. Eleven represent counties (Hillsborough North and South each have one), five are elected at large, and the remainder are officers. The president is not "hand-picked," but succeeds to that office following election as vice president, and service for a year as president-elect. The purpose of this structure ensures a smooth transition from year to year, but have no doubt that the members get to choose the president, just two years in advance. "Fifth highest dues in the country"? New Hampshire Bar dues are $250 per year, one dollar higher than the national average of $249, and 14th among the 33 states, which have unified bars. I do not know how Attorney Hodgdon arrived at his number, but perhaps it includes the attorney discipline and public protection fund fees assessed by the Court (and collected by the Bar with its dues). These fees would not go away if the Bar was deunified, but rather would likely increase due to the cost of administrative functions now conducted by the NHBA, and additional licensure fees would be imposed as well. More than enough said; this is not an exhaustive list of corrections and clarifications, and I leave the reader to the information which has been set forth at length in these pages. What is important is that you vote in this referendum, and, I hope, make an informed choice. There is no more important issue facing the New Hampshire Bar. Thanks for reading. Russell Hilliard is the 2003-2004 NHBA President, and practices with the law firm of Upton & Hatfield.
|
|
Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store New Hampshire Bar Association |
