The phrase “unified bar” has a positive ring. Who is not for joining together for the good of all? Likewise, “segregated bar” has a negative connotation. So why should the California State Bar end its “unified” structure, combining its public regulatory functions and its trade association activities, and move to a “segregated structure?” The reasons have to do with what these terms mean here.
Another set of terms also has emotional resonance: “checks and balances,” “restraints of trade” and “a government of the people.” It is understandable for the bar, as with all of the profession and trade licensees, to view its own control of regulatory agencies with beneficence. But should people in the very group this public agency regulates not just influence the bar, but actually constitute it?
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
