High-Salaried Lawyers Should Pay More in Dues Than Others: Lawmaker
The California Legislature has not increased licensees' fees, previously called dues, since 1998 despite bar leaders' regular pleas for more money.
April 08, 2019 at 06:46 PM
4 minute read
A key state lawmaker says his colleagues should use their authority over the annual bar dues bill to “restructure” the fee schedule so high-salaried attorneys pay more than their lower-earning counterparts in the profession.
Assemblyman Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley, told members of the Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, that bar leaders' pending request to the Legislature for a $100 annual fee hike—plus $330 in one-time assessments in 2020—is “our opportunity to take some of the regressive nature of that fee structure out.”
“That's where we could have the biggest effect on attorneys who are at the low end of the wage scale because not all attorneys are making as much money,” Stone said at a recent committee hearing. “And especially those attorneys where those firms are very large and expensive, and the firms pay for the fees anyway, I think there should be a lack of sympathy to the burden that that provides.”
Stone's comments came during a hearing on legislation that would make mandatory a now-optional $40 fee on lawyers' dues bills that funds legal aid programs. The committee advanced the legislation but not without a debate over the fairness of making all lawyers pay the same amount.
Forty dollars “represents about six minutes of work for the average big-firm attorney,” said Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, a former attorney at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights.
“The reality is, 90 percent of all attorneys work for the top 10 percent of America, which means that 10 percent of all attorneys represents everyone else,” Chiu continued. “And that's just not a situation that is tenable.”
In endorsing a $100 fee increase last month, state bar trustees directed staff to work on a scaling mechanism that would lower dues bills for attorneys who earn less, either based on their salaries or their household incomes. The bar's executive director, Leah Wilson, noted, however, that any discount for some lawyers would trigger higher charges for others to maintain the same revenue stream for the agency.
This year's fees bill, in its current form, calls for a dues charge of an “unspecified amount” plus a 25 percent discount for active licensees with gross individual incomes of less than $60,478. Today, only lawyers with gross incomes of less than $40,000—just under 14,500 licensees fell into that category, according to a 2017 bar survey—qualify for a free break.
The Legislature has not increased licensees' fees, previously called dues, since 1998 despite bar leaders' regular pleas for more money to cover increasing labor costs and disciplinary workload.
In 2016, a dispute between the Assembly and the Senate—with the Assembly pushing for immediate changes to the bar's structure and practices—led to the Legislature failing to enact an annual fee authorization bill. The California Supreme Court authorized the bar to collect dues on an interim basis, and the full Legislature endorsed a new fee bill that included structural reforms to the agency in 2017.
“I know there's been a lot of pushback in this committee to this notion of increasing dues anyway,” Stone said at the Judiciary Committee hearing. “So it's our opportunity to restructure it. With that, I'm going to need your help … and I'm hoping we can come up with an approach that all of us can stand together. We've made some significant changes in the bar over the last couple of years by standing together.”
This year's fees bill is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 30. The state auditor is also expected to release a report on the agency's operations that day. Bar trustees will meet in closed session Tuesday to review a draft copy of that report.
The dues bill author, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, has said whether the bar gets the dues increase its seeking will depend in part on what that audit and an upcoming report from the legislative analyst's office say.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawsuit Asks California Supreme Court to Expand Use of Electronic Case Recording
4 minute read'We Will Sue ... Immediately': AG Bonta Says He's Ready to Spend $25M Battling Trump
4 minute readDeception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250