Oklahoma Bar Argues Mandatory Dues Are Constitutional in Lawyer's First Amendment Suit
Oklahoma attorney Mark Schell sued Oklahoma Bar Executive Director John Morris Williams, who filed a motion to dismiss the case Wednesday, arguing that the bar's compulsory membership and mandatory dues are constitutional.
April 25, 2019 at 04:09 PM
4 minute read
The Oklahoma Bar Association—like counterparts in Texas, North Dakota and Oregon—is facing a lawsuit alleging it's unconstitutional to force lawyers to join the bar and pay dues, only to have that money spent on alleged political and ideological speech.
Oklahoma attorney Mark Schell in late March sued Oklahoma Bar executive director John Morris Williams, who responded Wednesday with a motion to dismiss the case.
William's pleading argued that the bar's compulsory membership and mandatory dues are constitutional, and there are already safeguards in place to ensure that lawyers' dues only pay for regulating attorneys and improving legal services.
Lawyers have made similar claims in cases in three other states, relying on a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court case, Janus v. AFSCME, that ruled that public sector nonunion workers cannot be required to pay union dues as a condition of employment.
“Since the Supreme Court's decision in Janus, they shouldn't be spending money on any sort of political speech unless a member has given affirmative consent in advance,” said Jacob Huebert, senior attorney with the Goldwater Institute, which is supporting similar litigation in North Dakota, Oregon and Oklahoma. He said Schell “thinks on principal, his bar fees shouldn't go to any political speech, whether he agrees with it or not.”
Oklahoma Bar president Charles Chesnut wrote in an email that he feels good about the law at issue and hopes the court sees it that way, too.
“I believe that the OBA has done nothing wrong and certainly has the right to exist under its present structure. Secondly, it appears that Mr. Williams is not a proper party,” Chesnut said.
Schell claimed in his March 26 complaint in Schell v. Williams, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, that he opposes and doesn't want to associate with the bar's alleged political and ideological speech and making him do so violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He also claimed that the bar opposed legislation on tort reform and judicial selection methods and that the Oklahoma Bar Journal has published articles critical of campaign finance law, oil and gas regulations, and more. Schell claimed that the bar has failed to use safeguards to ensure dues aren't spent on such activities.
The lawsuit recommends that the state could regulate lawyers without requiring them to join the bar association, or the state could ensure the bar uses dues only for core functions. Another way would be creating an “opt-in” system for lawyers to give affirmative consent when they do want to subsidize the bar's speech.
Williams argued in his April 24 motion to dismiss that all the speech Schell has complained about counts as protected government speech because the Oklahoma Supreme Court has significant control over the bar's activities over budgeting, which ensures its expenditures all advance the bar's purpose.
According to the motion, there is well-settled case law that it's constitutional for states to require lawyers to become bar members and pay dues in order to become licensed.
Williams argued that Janus pertains to unions charging dues to nonmembers, and it shouldn't become controlling case law for bar associations and lawyers. Other cases, Lathrop v. Donohue and Keller v. State Bar of California, apply specifically to the bar and lawyers. Williams argues that the Oklahoma Bar maintains an open, public budget process, and it does have an opt-out procedure for lawyers to object to spending they disagree with, which follows requirements in Keller.
Williams added in the motion that the court should dismiss Schell's case, since he never mentioned whether he participated in the bar's budget process, or whether he sought a dues refund then was denied.
The motion also said that Schell has sued the wrong person because Williams doesn't have the enforcement power that's necessary to provide relief. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has power over licensing requirements and the bar's board of governors has authority over dues.
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 AllAre Counsel Ranks Getting 'Squeezed' as Nonequity and Associate Pay Grows?
5 minute readVinson & Elkins Expands Environmental Team with Chair of Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
4 minute readNondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech
6 minute readHouston Trial Lawyer Mary-Olga Lovett Leaves King & Spalding to Open Boutique
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Has New York Sentence Commuted by Trump
- 2Settlement Allows Spouses of U.S. Citizens to Reopen Removal Proceedings
- 3CFPB Resolves Flurry of Enforcement Actions in Biden's Final Week
- 4Judge Orders SoCal Edison to Preserve Evidence Relating to Los Angeles Wildfires
- 5Legal Community Luminaries Honored at New York State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting
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