State Bar Leaders Eye Big Dues Increase to Salvage Budget
"We need to provide the legislature the information they've asked for, which is the case for a fee increase," said board chairman Jason Lee.
November 16, 2018 at 07:34 PM
3 minute read
California's state bar leaders will submit a preliminary budget to the legislature next week that they say makes the case for an ongoing $100 annual fee increase for active attorneys in 2020, plus a one-time $210 charge for capital projects.
Bar trustees, meeting in San Francisco on Friday, said that without additional revenues the agency faces years of mounting budget deficits as well as potential hiring freezes, deferred maintenance and a slowdown in processing lawyer disciplinary cases.
“We need to provide the legislature the information they've asked for, which is the case for a fee increase,” said board chairman Jason Lee. “Because we've asked for a fee increase for a number of years [and] they've … pushed us off.”
The legislature, which authorizes the bar to charge a specific amount of dues in annual legislation, has kept fees flat for almost two decades—most recently because of criticisms about poor board oversight of the agency and significant changes to its operating structure. The bar will undergo a state audit and a review by the legislative analyst's office next year, the results of which will shape lawmakers' decision on whether to approve higher dues for attorneys.
Next year's budget is expected to include a $15.3 million deficit and will rely heavily on reserves to cover the shortfall. Nearly $9 million is slated for spending on capital projects in that bar's two offices, including a $3.7 million budget for prepping the San Francisco building's third floor for a private lease.
Some trustees asked whether it's wise for the bar to spend money on projects like that with the budget running in the red. Leah Wilson, the bar's executive director, said the agency will probably be criticized whether trustees choose to pay for the office improvements or channel the money to the disciplinary unit.
“If the board decides to make the investment so that we can lease out the third floor, the criticism could be, 'Why are you making a discretionary choice to spend money to lease a floor? You don't have to do that,'” Wilson said. “But if the board decides not to, the other criticism that we've experienced for the last two years is you're not maximizing the value of the building that you own.”
Any budget proposal is likely to change in the coming months. The annual dues bill, too, will shape future spending plans as lawmakers make amendments throughout next year's legislative session.
Read: 2019 State Bar Preliminary Budget and Five Year Forecast
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 AllMorgan Lewis Shutters Shenzhen Office Less Than Two Years After Launch
Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
4 minute read‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readState Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Relaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
- 2Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 3With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 4Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 5Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
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