The Connecticut General Assembly
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
August 19, 1994 94-R-0393
TO:
FROM: George Coppolo, Chief Attorney
RE: Unified Bar Association
You asked for information concerning unified bar associations, especially how they are formed.
SUMMARY
A unified bar association is a mandatory membership bar. It is an established either by court rule or legislation. Lawyers must join in order to practice law in that jurisdiction. These entities were initially referred to as integrated bars to distinguish them from voluntary membership organizations. Currently, the term "unified" is more commonly used. But some court cases still use the term "integrated."
The following information was obtained from an American Bar Association Report on Unified Bar Operations published in January 1993. A copy is enclosed.
Thirty-two states have a unified bar:
Alabama Idaho Nevada South Carolina
Alaska Kentucky New Hampshire South Dakota
Arizona Louisiana New Mexico Texas
California Michigan North Carolina Utah
Florida Mississippi North Dakota Virginia
Georgia Missouri Oklahoma Washington
Hawaii Montana Oregon West Virginia
Nebraska Rhode Island Wisconsin
Wyoming
Eighteen states have a voluntary association:
Arkansas Indiana Massachusetts Pennsylvania
Colorado Iowa Minnesota Tennessee
Connecticut Kansas New Jersey Vermont
Delaware Maine New York
Illinois Maryland Ohio
Nine states were unified by legislation (Alabama, Alaska, California, Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota).
Sixteen states were unified by court rule (Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wisconsin).
Seven states were unified by legislation and court rule (Kentucky, Michigan, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
Attached is a chart outlining the history of bar unification. The chart includes the date the bar was unified, the method of unification, the founding date, and original structure.
PRINCIPAL FUNCTIONS OF UNIFIED BARS
Unified bars differ widely in their interpretation principal functions. Some have clearly defined and specific guidelines; others exercise broad judgment in determining purposes and programs. Discipline is a required function for 25 unified bars, mandating continuing legal education for 22, a client protection fund for 19, and fee dispute arbitration and lawyer substance abuse programs for 11.
UNIFIED BAR RELIEF MECHANISM'S FOR DISSENTING MEMBERS
In a 1990 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "the use of compulsory dues violates First Amendment rights of free speech where not necessary or reasonably incurred for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services. (Keller v. State Bar of California 110 S. Ct. 2228). The court cited the need for a relief mechanism for dissenting members including an opportunity to challenge funded activities before an impartial decision maker, and an escrow account for the disputed amounts while challenges are pending.
Twenty-one unified bars have relief mechanisms to meet the court's criteria: four offer a deduction option that permits members to reduce their annual dues by a set dollar amount prior to remittance; sixteen offer a refund option that requires members to challenge, in writing, bar activity to which they object; and three offer a diversion option that permits members to authorize a set dollar amount of their annual dues to be remitted to another bar-related entity, such as the bar foundation.
The 1993 report of the ABA Division for Bar Services indicates that as a result of their constitutional privilege as established by Keller; nearly 25,000 members took advantage of unified bar relief mechanisms. Unified bars in California, Michigan, and Wisconsin were hardest hit: over 15,0000 California lawyers withheld nearly $40,000; over 5,000 Michigan lawyers withheld nearly $92,000; and around 5,3000 Wisconsin lawyers withheld over $26,100. Thirteen unified bars that do not engage in political or ideological activity, or do so using only voluntary finds, do not have a relief procedure for dissenting members. Twelve bars limit their lobbying activity to administration of justice issues because of Keller.
GC:tjo