Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Close vote puts member services first

By: dmc-admin//August 18, 2008//

Close vote puts member services first

By: dmc-admin//August 18, 2008//

Listen to this article

Member service: That’s the first goal of the American Bar Association, the world’s largest bar association.

So decided the ABA’s policy-making body, the House of Delegates, which met Aug. 11-12 at the association’s Annual Meeting in New York.

A spirited debate ensued about proposed revisions to the group’s statement of mission, goals and objectives. The last time the ABA examined its purposes was 25 years ago, drafting 11 goals.

This year, the ABA’s Long Range Planning Committee proposed condensing them into four “co-equal” goals in the resolution. Despite that purported equality, the order in which they were to be listed generated some controversy.

The four goals, as initially proposed, were: to serve members, to improve the profession, to eliminate bias and enhance diversity, and to advance the rule of law. An amendment called for advancing the rule of law to read as goal one.

Milwaukee lawyer Michael Rosenberg, one of those representing the State Bar of Wisconsin, said in an interview that the ABA’s membership has been declining in recent years, giving rise to speculation that the association does not serve the interests of “the lawyer on Main Street.” Supporters of the amendment countered that putting member service first, before advancing the rule of law, sends the wrong message to the general public.

By a 214-201 vote, the amendment failed — and member service prevailed.

That was the correct outcome, said Grant C. Killoran of Milwaukee, another Wisconsin bar representative. “I think service to the members is crucial, if we want to be relevant to our members. And, you don’t necessarily have to be a member of the ABA to foster the rule of law.”

All of the Wisconsin delegates voted that way, noted Richard J. Podell, who serves as a delegate representing Wisconsin, chosen by the state’s ABA membership.

Podell said boosting the organization’s membership is a top priority for the newly-selected president-elect, Carolyn B. Lamm. She is creating a task force charging with devising strategies to boost the rolls, and has asked Podell to serve on it.

The other issue that created a stir culminated with the narrow defeat of a proposal to amend the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to allow firms to hire a lateral attorney or partner who has a conflict of interest with a firm client and keep that client, providing the lateral is not involved in that client’s representation and notifies his or her former client about the new relationship.

Twenty-one states already have rules similar to the latest iteration that was debated at the ABA meeting, including Wisconsin. SCR 20:1.10 would allow such representations if the incoming attorney “performed no more than minor and isolated services” at the former firm, if he is timely screened from any participation in the matter and receives no part of the fee, and written notice is promptly given to any affected former client.

All the Wisconsin delegates, sans Podell, voted to table the measure indefinitely in a 192-191 vote. But the proposal will likely be resurrected, for debate and probably a vote, at the ABA Midyear Meeting in Boston next February.

“There wasn’t enough debate on the merits for me to decide, one way or the other. So, it seemed to make sense to me to table the measure, so we can take the time to look more deeply as it,” said Killoran.

Rosenberg said there were just too many last-minute amendments.

“There were concerns about the way it was written. The first version didn’t even call for written notification to the client,” he said. That’s why all the amendments were going back and forth…. And, the people opposing the Model Rule amendment were concerned that the new rule wouldn’t be adequately protecting the clients’ interests — that it’s too pro-lawyer.

“I am supportive of Wisconsin’s rule, however, which I think reasonably protects clients’ interests.”

But Podell said that as each of the amendments was made, they brought the proposed Model Rule closer and closer to Wisconsin’s. Also, the Wisconsin delegates met the day before the House of Delegates meeting, and heard from individuals representing both sides of the issue. That was enough for Podell to create an informed opinion, and should’ve sufficed for the others, too, he said.

Finally, the ABA’s Criminal Law Section had four resolution, all of which passed unanimously.

Among them was a measure, co-sponsored by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, recommending that Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure be amended to call for availability of information received from parties and non-parties to ensure that both the government and the defense have an opportunity to review information to be considered by the sentencing court.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests