Justices to consider dues increase, removal of BOG members

Listen to this article

State Supreme Court justices on Tuesday are expected to debate requiring aging attorneys to pay dues for five more years.

The State Bar is proposing creating two new subsets of attorneys who still practice into their 70s, a proposal that has been in the works for a few years. It also is asking the justices to consider extending a dues discount for new attorneys.

The proposal is up for a public hearing during Tuesday’s state Supreme Court open rules conference.

A hearing also is scheduled on a rule petition in which the bar seeks to clarify its power to remove a Board of Governors member.

The bar petitioned the court about the dues proposal in July after its BOG voted to support the measure in April. If it passes, it would essentially mean that an attorney would not be eligible for full emeritus status – in which they no longer pay dues – until the age of 75. Currently, the age is 70.

The bar is proposing that attorneys between the ages of 70 and 75 who bill for more than 800 hours a year will have to pay full dues and assessments, which for Fiscal Year 2014 is $460. Attorneys who bill for fewer than 800 hours a year would be required to pay half of normal dues and court assessments, as well as $20 into the client protection fund and $50 into the Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation Inc. or WisTAF.

That total, for Fiscal Year 2014, would be $265 a year. Those already classified as emeritus would not be affected.

The bar also wants to extend a break in dues to attorneys who have been members of the bar for five years or less. Currently, those who have been members for three years or less are eligible to pay half, which, with assessments, totals $265.

The combined effect of the petition calling for the reduction for younger attorneys and increase for aging attorneys would mean the bar would stand to lose $94,640 a year in dues. But bar President Pat Fiedler, said the change should be looked at as “a matter of fairness,” as more attorneys are practicing later in life.

In addition, Fiedler said extending the break for new attorneys can be seen as the bar at least acknowledging that this is a difficult time for recent graduates to break into the field.

“It’s not a panacea,” he said, “but I think what it is is meaningful and symbolic to show what they’re going through.”

Steve Levine, a retired attorney, current governor and past bar president, was the only attorney to file opposition to the bar’s petition. In his brief to the court, he said the idea is just the latest imprudent financial move during a time that the bar needs to be as frugal as possible.

Levine wrote that by changing the full emeritus status to age 75, “the State Bar removes that honor and disrespects the status of emeritus members because of the Bar’s financial condition.”

In an interview, Levine said “The bar hasn’t provided any records or facts to show that …. the number of attorneys [practicing over age 70] has increased over the number of years.”

Levine said he also plans to argue Tuesday against a proposed rule change that would clarify that the BOG has authority to remove a member, as well as how to fill vacancies if there is an unfilled governor seat.

The BOG voted in June to change its bylaws to allow for such removals, and its petition to tweak the related state Supreme Court rules seeks to ensure the new bylaws don’t clash.

In documents supporting its brief to the court, the State Bar cited situations in other states where a bar leader got into legal trouble, thus emphasizing the need for a clearer removal mechanism.

Fiedler acknowledged Thursday that such a situation has yet to happen in Wisconsin. But the possibility is there, he said, and the rule change is designed to ensure that the mechanism can be used if something were to happen.

“If we were to attempt to give a laundry list that lists all types of conduct that would be grounds for removal,” Fiedler said, “[we could] miss something.”

But Levine, in his brief opposing the move, as well as in his own petition which asks the court to review the newly-passed bylaws, states that he takes issue with a clause that explains that a governor can be removed if he or she “engages in conduct which is contrary to the best interest of the State Bar.”

That clause, Levine said, gives very broad power to remove a member. That power, he said, could mean governors could be voted out if they speak their mind.

“It’s difficult for me to think,” Levine said in an interview, “how a rational group could want the authority, especially the group of lawyers, to eject somebody based on expression of the First Amendment.”

Levine said that, at most, the BOG should have removal authority – which requires the approval of 75 percent of the total board – if a governor is suspended or revoked from practicing law.

Fiedler said the changes are not aimed at crushing those who oppose a certain measure.

“I don’t think anybody has any problem,” he said. “We are all lawyers, and there is healthy dissent, and we shouldn’t agree on everything.” Follow @eheisigWLJ