In re Petition for Rule to Create Vol. State Bar Assn.

CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 6, 2013
DocketS-36-120001
StatusPublished

This text of In re Petition for Rule to Create Vol. State Bar Assn. (In re Petition for Rule to Create Vol. State Bar Assn.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Petition for Rule to Create Vol. State Bar Assn., (Neb. 2013).

Opinion

Nebraska Advance Sheets 1018 286 NEBRASKA REPORTS

In re P etition for a Rule Change to Create a Voluntary State Bar of Nebraska: to Abolish Neb. Ct. R. Chapter 3, Article 8, and to Make Whatever Other Rule Changes Are Necessary to Transition From a Mandatory to a Voluntary State Bar Association. ___ N.W.2d ___

Filed December 6, 2013. No. S-36-120001.

1. Constitutional Law: Attorneys at Law. A state may constitutionally require a lawyer to be a member of a mandatory or unified bar to which compulsory dues are paid. 2. Attorneys at Law. The compelled association of an integrated bar is justified by the state’s interest in regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services. 3. Constitutional Law: Attorneys at Law. A state may constitutionally fund ger- mane activities out of the mandatory dues of all members. 4. ____: ____. The Nebraska Constitution does not expressly vest the power to define and regulate the practice of law in any of the three branches of government. 5. Constitutional Law. In the absence of an express grant of power to any of the three branches of government, the power must be exercised by the branch to which it naturally belongs. 6. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law. The Nebraska Supreme Court has the inherent power to promulgate rules providing for an integrated bar. 7. Constitutional Law: Attorneys at Law. The practice of law is so intimately connected and bound up with the exercise of judicial power in the administration of justice that the right to define and regulate its practice naturally and logically belongs to the judicial department of our state government. 8. Constitutional Law. Compulsory subsidies for private speech are subject to exacting First Amendment scrutiny and cannot be sustained unless two criteria are met. First, there must be a comprehensive regulatory scheme involving a mandated association among those who are required to pay the subsidy. Second, compulsory fees can be levied only insofar as they are a necessary incident of the larger regulatory purpose which justified the required association.

Petition to create voluntary state bar association. Petition granted in part, and in part denied. Heavican, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Stephan, McCormack, Miller-Lerman, and Cassel, JJ. P er Curiam. INTRODUCTION Scott Lautenbaugh, a Nebraska attorney (petitioner), filed a petition with this court, asking that we abolish, strike, or repeal Nebraska Advance Sheets IN RE PETITION FOR RULE TO CREATE VOL. STATE BAR ASSN. 1019 Cite as 286 Neb. 1018

chapter 3, article 8, of the Nebraska Supreme Court Rules, and make whatever other rule changes are necessary to remove any requirement that attorneys licensed in Nebraska be members of the Nebraska State Bar Association (Bar Association). We invited public comment on the petition and, on September 30, 2013, heard oral presentations on behalf of petitioner and the Bar Association. We deny the petition to create a purely voluntary bar, but we determine that the rules creating and establishing the Bar Association should be amended in the light of developments in compelled-speech jurisprudence from the U.S. Supreme Court since integration of the Bar Association in 1937. In the sections that follow, we (1) recognize the continuing constitutional legitimacy of mandatory or unified state bar associations, (2) recall the constitutional basis for and reasons justifying inte- gration of the bar in 1937, (3) summarize the experience in other jurisdictions, (4) examine the evolution of compelled- speech jurisprudence, and (5) focus on the relevance of “ger- maneness.” Finally, we adopt the administrative changes we deem necessary to serve the important purposes of an inte- grated bar while both (1) ensuring that the Bar Association remains clearly within the permitted scope of constitutional jurisprudence and (2) avoiding the protracted litigation experi- enced elsewhere.

MANDATORY STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONS [1] Petitioner does not challenge the constitutionality of mandatory state bar associations. Analogizing state bar associa- tions to “union-shop” arrangements, the U.S. Supreme Court established long ago that a state may constitutionally require a lawyer to be a member of a mandatory or unified bar to which compulsory dues are paid.1 [2,3] The core of petitioner’s grievance in this matter arises out of the 1990 holding of the Supreme Court in

1 Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820, 842, 81 S. Ct. 1826, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1191 (1961). Nebraska Advance Sheets 1020 286 NEBRASKA REPORTS

Keller v. State Bar of California,2 where it took up the ques- tion of “permissible expenditures” of mandatory bar dues. Relying on Abood v. Detroit Board of Education,3 a govern- mental employee union case, the Court delineated the First Amendment boundaries of a bar association’s expenditures of compulsory dues. Abood held that a union could not expend a dissent- ing individual’s dues for ideological activities not “ger- mane” to the purpose for which compelled association was justified: collective bargaining. Here the compelled association and integrated bar are justified by the State’s interest in regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services. The State Bar may therefore constitutionally fund activities germane to those goals out of the mandatory dues of all members. It may not, however, in such manner fund activities of an ideological nature which fall outside of those areas of activity. The difficult question, of course, is to define the latter class of activities.4 Thus, the Court held, “the guiding standard must be whether the challenged expenditures are necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or ‘improving the quality of the legal service available to the people of the State.’”5 It is that “difficult question” of the use of mandatory bar dues for “germane” versus “nongermane” activities which, as in some other states, forms the basis for the challenge to Nebraska’s mandatory bar which is before us today.

2 Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1, 14, 110 S. Ct. 2228, 110 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990). 3 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 97 S. Ct. 1782, 52 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1977). 4 Keller v. State Bar of California, supra note 2, 496 U.S. at 13-14. 5 Id., 496 U.S. at 14. Nebraska Advance Sheets IN RE PETITION FOR RULE TO CREATE VOL. STATE BAR ASSN. 1021 Cite as 286 Neb. 1018

INTEGRATION OF BAR ASSOCIATION In 1937, this court granted a petition to integrate the bar of the State of Nebraska.6 At that time, the petitioners felt that the majority of the members of the bar favored integration by Supreme Court rule to provide better service to the public by the legal profession, to combat the unauthorized practice of law, and to improve the ethical standards of the profession.7 In general, the 1937 petition sought rules of this court providing for the regulation of the bar of this state. [4-7] In that proceeding, this court for the first time pon- dered its power to integrate the bar by rule of the court, not- ing that the Nebraska Constitution did not expressly vest the power to define and regulate the practice of law in any of the three branches of government. We reasoned that in the absence of an express grant of power to any of the branches, the power must be exercised by the branch to which it natu- rally belonged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education
431 U.S. 209 (Supreme Court, 1977)
Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Hudson
475 U.S. 292 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Keller v. State Bar of California
496 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1990)
United States v. United Foods, Inc.
533 U.S. 405 (Supreme Court, 2001)
Kingstad v. State Bar of Wis.
622 F.3d 708 (Seventh Circuit, 2010)
Romero v. Colegio De Abogados De Puerto Rico
204 F.3d 291 (First Circuit, 2000)
Lathrop v. Donohue
367 U.S. 820 (Supreme Court, 1961)
In Re Unification of the New Hampshire Bar
248 A.2d 709 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1968)
Levine v. Supreme Court of Wisconsin
679 F. Supp. 1478 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1988)
In Matter of State Bar of Wisconsin
485 N.W.2d 225 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1992)
In Re Discontinuation of State Bar of Wisconsin as an Integrated Bar
286 N.W.2d 601 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1980)
In Re Integration of the Bar
93 N.W.2d 601 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1958)
In Re Integration of the Bar
77 N.W.2d 602 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1956)
In Re Integration of the Nebraska State Bar Ass'n
275 N.W. 265 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1937)
In Re Constitutionality of Chapter 315, Laws of 1943
12 N.W.2d 699 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1943)
In Re Integration of the Bar
25 N.W.2d 500 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1946)
In re Unified New Hampshire Bar
291 A.2d 600 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1972)
In re New Hampshire Bar Ass'n
855 A.2d 450 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In re Petition for Rule to Create Vol. State Bar Assn., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-petition-for-rule-to-create-vol-state-bar-as-neb-2013.