Arbiter to rule on Keller case, formal hearing avoided

Listen to this article

A decision on whether the State Bar of Wisconsin can include costs to promote the public image of attorneys in its annual dues is expected by the end of the year.

The arbitrator assigned to the case brought by attorney Steven A. Levine against the State Bar said he has sufficient information from both sides and plans to rule on the matter within the next month.

“After receiving all the documents and briefs, I advised the parties on Oct. 28 that I considered the record adequate as it stood,” arbiter Christopher Honeyman said in an e-mail.

Honeyman confirmed that a tentative Nov. 19 hearing on the matter had been “released” and he said he will rule on the matter by Dec. 28.

The question now is which side Honeyman will choose.

Levine argued that the money allocated by the bar for public image purposes in fiscal year 2009 should have been included in the Keller dues rebate. The approximately $5.15 per attorney cost does not meet the criteria for mandatory charges, according to Levine.

“I think a public relations campaign designed to make people think better of lawyers is fine, if the bar is not using mandatory dues to do it,” Levine said.

But attorney Roberta F. Howell, who filed a brief on behalf of the bar, indicated that Wisconsin Supreme Court rules and case law permit use of mandatory dues for public image campaign purposes.

Howell said such advertisements serve as public relations tools to increase confidence in attorneys and are reasonable expenses assessed to attorneys. She cited several instances in which the bar produced television commercials which were neither politically nor ideologically motivated.

In her brief, Howell wrote, “[E]ven if they were political and/or ideological, the expenses are germane to the purposes which the United States Supreme Court has held justify the existence of the mandatory bar.

“Accordingly, the objector’s challenge is meritless under the law applicable to this proceeding and must be rejected.”

Levine said he remains confident that he and fellow objectors Jon Erik Kingstad and James Thiel will receive a favorable ruling.

“Before the whole briefing, I thought 80 percent, but you never can tell what a decision-maker is going to do,” Levine said.

Since its adoption in 1993, the Keller reduction in its current form allows attorneys to exempt themselves from paying for political activities not related to the legal profession.

Howell said she was unaware if aspects specific to the Keller reduction had been challenged in the past, but arbitration proceedings were held to address challenges to the fiscal year 1993, 1994 and 1995 dues reductions.

“I’m not aware of this issue has been discussed within the bar in the past,” Howell said. “Take the fact that it has been this long without a challenge and that says a lot about how careful the bar is about reviewing activities.”

In fiscal year 2007, the year on which the 2009 dues reduction is based, the bar spent more than $97,000 of mandatory dues on the work of the Public Image Committee – an amount equal to $5.16 per full-time active member – including developing and purchasing media time for the advertising resulting from the Committee’s Public Image Campaign.

According to State Bar statistics, more than 7,400 attorneys opted for the Keller reduction in the fiscal year 2007-08, which equaled almost $40,000 in lost revenue for the association.

At the Board of Governors meeting in February, members approved a 2008-09 Keller reduction of $9.50, which was included on dues statements mailed to bar members in May.

Levine opposed the adoption on the grounds that the reduction should be $14.75, to include the $5.25 each attorney could deduct for money spent on the State Bar’s public image and marketing.