Lawsuit Fights 'Coerced' Mandatory Texas Bar Membership
Three Texas lawyers say they have no desire to be members of the State Bar of Texas and do not support its "diversity" initiatives or other programs aimed at assisting immigrants who have crossed the border illegally or those based on lawyers race, gender and sexual orientation.
March 07, 2019 at 05:01 PM
5 minute read
Three Texas lawyers are seeking to unwind mandatory dues for their state bar, claiming in a lawsuit that their “coerced” membership helps support programs for minority, immigrant and disadvantaged communities that they do not endorse.
It is one of at least four lawsuits filed nationally challenging mandatory bar membership in the wake of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions last year impacting states' ability to require union or professional dues as a condition of employment.
The federal lawsuit filed Wednesday in Texas' Western District pointed to the Janus v. AFSCME ruling in challenging that state's requirements of bar membership to hold a law license.
Janus overturned decades of precedent in June after the justices ruled that public-sector non-union workers cannot be required to pay union dues as a condition of employment. In December, the justices cited Janus in remanding a decision upholding the authority of North Dakota to require bar membership back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Filed on behalf of two active Texas bar members and one on inactive status, the Texas complaint said that being required to join the bar and pay dues violates their First Amendment rights “for several independent reasons.”
First, it said, there is no compelling state interests in forcing lawyers to join the bar. It noted that “19 states regulate attorneys directly without forcing them to join a state bar, and there is no indication that attorneys are insufficiently regulated in those jurisdictions.”
Even if there are legitimate regulatory interests in requiring bar membership, the Texas Bar “engages in numerous activities” that are “inherently political or ideological,” it said.
Among those activities are “diversity” initiatives “based on attorneys' race, gender, and sexual orientation” and the promotion of programs seeking to “prevent the deportation of individuals who entered the United States without authorization through the southern border,” it said.
It also takes issue with the bar's lobbying program that “drafts and advocates for the passage of legislation,” and assails a $65 “legal services fee” assessed on most lawyers in private practice to support legal aid programs.
State Bar of Texas annual dues start at $68 for lawyers licensed three years or less; it rises to $148 for those licensed for four to five years, and tops out at $235 for all other active members. The legal services fee is added for lawyers below the age of 70 and those who do not work in local, state or federal government; are employed by certain nonprofits; or are out-of-state residents who don't practice in Texas, it said.
Inactive members must pay $50 a year.
The complaint, filed on behalf of Tony McDonald, Joshua Hammer and Mark Pulliam, names Bar President Joe Longley and dozens of co-defendants who are officers or bar board members as defendants, and was filed by William Consovoy, Jeffrey Harris, Cameron Norris and Samuel Adkisson of Consovoy McCarthy Park.
They did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.
The Consovoy law firm is also involved in the Harvard admission policies litigation, and name partner Michael Park is currently a nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. His nomination advanced to the Senate floor Thursday.
Longley himself has questioned how the Janus decision might impact bar operations. On Jan. 22, he sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asking for guidance after some members voiced concerns over how elections for board members representing the Texas Young Lawyers Association might be impacted by the decision, and raising some of the same issues listed in the complaint.
Some members “have objected to the Bar charging mandatory dues that support other activities and programs (e.g., various legislative programs and programs funded by the Bar) that the objecting members assert violate their First Amendment rights, including free-speech and associational rights,” Longley wrote.
“Thus, I request guidance from the you, as our state's Chief Legal Officer, as to when the Bar may legally and constitutionally collect compulsory dues from Bar members under Janus” and prior rulings.
In response to queries, the bar provided a statement saying: “The State Bar of Texas is confident it is fulfilling all statutory responsibilities as the administrative arm of the Texas Supreme Court consistent with the Court's authority to regulate the legal profession. The pending legal action will be addressed accordingly.”
Paxton's office did not respond to requests for comment.
Two other actions challenging mandatory bar membership are pending in Oregon.
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 AllPartner Compensation, Billing Rates Are Trending Higher in Dallas Than Houston
3 minute readOn a Texas Growth Surge, Paul Hastings Signs New Leases in Houston, Dallas
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Nelson Mullins, Greenberg Traurig, Jones Day Have Established Themselves As Biggest Outsiders in Atlanta Legal Market
- 2Immunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
- 3How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 4Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 5Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
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