Working for the Crack Down: State Bar cracks down on lawyers who lapse on their MCLEs

State Bar cracks down on lawyers who lapse on their MCLEs.

The most interesting aspect of this may be that the State Bar’s own press release uses the words “crack down” and that the press release was released at all.   Not only is the State Bar getting tough in discipline, admissions and other areas, like continuing legal education, but it is telling everybody that it is as often as possible.  The State Bar’s transformation from a bar association to a law enforcement agency has been long but seems nearly complete.

I expect that the State Bar will soon propose increases in the amount of continuing education required of lawyers and perhaps more in-person instruction.   Originally, 36 hours was required; that was reduced to the current 25 after the State Bar shutdown in 1998, prompted in part by complaints from attorneys that the requirement was onerous.  Given the power shift in the State Bar’s governing body, now known as the “Board of Trustees” it isn’t likely that lawyer complaints about MCLE will have much traction.

Not long ago, I met a new lawyer member of that Board of Trustees.  I asked what district the Trustee represented.  “I don’t represent a district;  I represent the People of the State of California!”  was the reply, evidently a well-schooled one.  The last pretense that California lawyers are self-regulating has fallen away, and appropriately so, as that actually ended many years ago.  The de facto firing of Jim Towery as the discipline chief last year, has to be seen in this light.  Towery was a lawyer’s lawyer but the new State Bar didn’t need a lawyer running discipline but a prosecutor and an aggressive one.

Stranding Astride History Shouting “No”? Ethics 20/20 Commission Suspends Campaign to Draft a Proposal on Nonlawyer Ownership of Law Firms – News – ABA Journal

The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 has decided that it will not develop a proposal for consideration by the association\’s policy-making House of Delegates on whether nonlawyers should be allowed to have some form of limited ownership interest in U.S. law firms. In a joint statement released today, co-chairs Jamie S. Gorelick and Michael Traynor confirmed that the commission agreed at its meeting last week in Washington, D.C., to shelve plans to submit a proposal on nonlawyer ownership for consideration by the House in when it convenes during February\’s 2013 ABA Midyear Meeting in Dallas. Gorelick and Traynor indicated that feedback received from other bar associations and individual members of the profession did not suggest a groundswell of support for revising the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct to permit a limited form of nonlawyer ownership. The Model Rules, which are the direct basis for professional conduct…

via Ethics 20/20 Commission Suspends Campaign to Draft a Proposal on Nonlawyer Ownership of Law Firms – News – ABA Journal.

It turns out that there is distinct lack of enthusiasm in the profession for rules diluting the “core value” of lawyer control of law firms.  Should we be surprised? Does this and the end of Jacoby & Meyers’ Quixotic assault on New York’s version of Rule 5.4 may mean the United States will remain an exception as non-lawyers become increasingly involved in the provision of legal services?