BAR REPORT - NJSBA members to vote on bylaws proposals this month
NJSBA members to vote on bylaws proposals
March 09, 2020 at 08:00 AM
7 minute read
A more inclusive governing body, advances in how we connect and communicate, and low attendance are reasons General Council should be dissolved, Board of Trustees proposes
The New Jersey State Bar Association's (NJSBA's) General Council traces its roots to 1930, when a group of attorneys organized a conference of county bar associations, which they hoped would help open the doors of the state organization to them. Soon, the group became an official part of the NJSBA —with a mission to bring issues to the organization—and it obtained a seat on the Association's Nominating Committee, earning it the power to influence the state bar group's leadership.
The official purpose was to serve as a forum for the county and affinity bar associations, as well as the NJSBA's sections and committees, and flag issues of concern that could impact the practice of law and the role of attorneys in society.
For many years, General Council did just that: selected people from its membership to serve on the Nominating Committee and brought issues from the larger legal community to the attention of the NJSBA for consideration and action. Another hallmark of General Council was an annual gathering where hundreds of its members got together to discuss the issues of the day.
But in recent years, participation in the group has waned. Fewer than 100 have attended the General Council's annual forum since 2011, with less than 50 attending in the last three years; only a fraction voted in elections to select members for the Nominating Committee; and it has been almost a decade since General Council presented a resolution about an issue for the NJSBA's consideration.
Now, after years of efforts to revive the group and extensive deliberation and discussion among the state's legal community, including county and affinity bar groups, and the NJSBA's Diversity Committee, the Board of Trustees has agreed it is time for a new approach.
Members of the NJSBA this month will be asked to vote on a proposed change to the bylaws that will preserve the spirit of General Council and the role its members played on the Nominating Committee, while recognizing that the practical value of the group has come to an end. Namely, the proposed bylaw amendments ensure the council's seats on the Nominating Committee continue to serve the constituencies as they did for General Council. In addition, members will be asked to vote on a proposal to change the deadline for the Board of Trustees to designate underrepresented groups, to allow for a more meaningful analysis.
"Upon recommendation of the General Council Executive Committee, and after consultation with county and affinity bar groups, as well as the NJSBA's Diversity Committee, the NJSBA Board of Trustees proposes amendments to the bylaws that would dissolve the General Council (GC). The proposal is made in recognition of a more inclusive NJSBA Board of Trustees, technological advances that make communication easier, and low participation in recent GC activities. Under the proposal, the size of the Nominating Committee remains the same, but the intent of the GC's role in the Nominating Committee makeup is maintained through the designation of GC's two seats for: a member from an underrepresented group and a general member of the NJSBA. In addition, to allow for more meaningful analysis each year, the time for designation of underrepresented groups by the Board of Trustees is extended to be consistent with the timeframe for other nomination and election policies," according to a statement from the Board of Trustees.
A Concerted Effort
The General Council Executive Committee noticed that activity was declining several years ago and doubled down in its efforts to reinvigorate the group.
First, General Council held a town-hall style in-person meeting at the New Jersey Law Center. That, however, was largely attended by trustees following a board meeting held earlier in the day.
Then, General Council held meetings at two Annual Meeting and Conventions, scheduled during a time when there were no other competing programs. Those gatherings also received less than 50 attendees.
Last summer, the NJSBA made additional effort to engage General Council groups to appoint representatives. That resulted in the General Council's rolls swelling to nearly 800 members, and many had to be educated about what General Council did before assigning delegates. However, only a fraction participated in the fall election for a member to serve on the Nominating Committee.
Changing Times
There are likely many factors that have contributed to declining participation in General Council. Key among them is that the NJSBA has transformed to be more responsive to the needs of the larger legal community.
Since General Council was first established, there have been numerous changes to the overall structure of the NJSBA that have resulted in a much broader and more diverse composition on both its Board of Trustees and its Nominating Committee.
The NJSBA board now includes a designated seat for every county, nine seats for section and committee representatives and eight seats for members of diverse backgrounds. All of the groups represented in General Council are now directly represented on the NJSBA board, allowing for direct input from all segments of the legal community on NJSBA decisions, as opposed to through General Council recommendations.
Likewise, the NJSBA's Nominating Committee now includes designated seats for county representation and at-large representation, allowing for direct input into the Nominating Committee process.
The NJSBA now regularly holds regional bar meetings with county and affinity bar associations, an annual roundtable with leaders of those groups and individual state bar nights with county bar associations. These gatherings seem to serve as the forum envisioned by General Council, allowing for the exchange of ideas and the discussion of issues directly among bar leaders. In addition, with technology advancements, expressing concerns or garnering support for developments in the legal community can occur quickly and easily through email, listservs and social media.
The majority of resolutions considered, most notably those relating to judicial appointments and funding for legal services, have been addressed by other means.
The Path Ahead
The role of General Council today, was considered at the regional meetings with county and affinity bar leaders, with little reaction or comment.
After a lengthy analysis, the General Council Executive Committee concluded the group has outlived its meaningful purpose and should be eliminated given the current, more expansive NJSBA governance structure; technological advances that make coordination and communication easier; the low participation in General Council activities; and the considerable time, effort, resources and funds needed to administer the group.
The Diversity Committee also discussed the future of General Council and reported to the board, "the original objectives of the General Council are being met via other avenues…as it is currently operating, (it) has outlasted both its efficacy and purpose."
The Board of Trustees agreed.
Now it will be up to the NJSBA members to make the final determination. Members will vote this month on a bylaws proposal that dissolves General Council.
Notably, the proposed changes to the bylaws will retain the heart of the General Council's role in the Nominating Committee. General Council held an annual election where a member was selected to a seat on the Nominating Committee. The council had two seats on the committee.
Under the proposal, the size of the Nominating Committee will remain the same, and two seats, rather than one, will be held for a member from an underrepresented group, and three seats, rather than two, will be for general members of the NJSBA.
"General Council served an important purpose in our legal community for many years, but despite efforts to keep it vibrant, involvement has seriously declined. This proposal retains some of the critical elements of General Council. I urge our members to vote yes to approve this proposal," said NJSBA President Evelyn Padin.
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
© 2025 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 AllNeighboring States Have Either Passed or Proposed Climate Superfund Laws—Is Pennsylvania Next?
7 minute readAn Overview of Proposed Changes to the Federal Rules of Procedure Relating to the Expansion of Remote Trial Testimony
15 minute readTrending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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