The Utah Supreme Court's approval of an increase in State Bar membership dues came with a number of strings attached, including an order to cut expenses by $215,000 a year.

And the justices want a task force to study whether the bar should remain an "integrated" (mandatory) organization, which is a significant concession to critics who object to forced membership.In a press release, the bar announced that the court had approved its petition to raise dues from $225 to $350 a year for most members and that other steps would be taken to cure the organization's chronic financial ailments.

Those other steps are outlined in a four-page minute entry from the Supreme Court:

- The billing cycle will be changed from a calendar year to a fiscal year beginning immediately, which will result in a one-time double collection of dues this year.

- Bar commissioners must make immediate, permanent reductions in operational costs - totaling about $215,000 a year - so that all current, short-term debts can be paid by June 30, 1992.

- There will be no automatic cost-of-living adjustments in dues.

- Future deficit spending by the bar is prohibited.

- All non-regulatory programs that are not self-supporting will be discontinued after April 15, 1991.

- The debt on the Law and Justice Center - which financial consultants identified as the source of many of the bar's financial problems - will be refinanced to permit a 15-year to 30-year payoff.

- Existing, inadequate financial controls and reporting systems must be improved.

- A task force consisting of three bar commissioners, three non-lawyers and five lawyers appointed by the Supreme Court will study the bar structure and report back in mid-1991 on whether the integrated bar should be maintained.

Attorney Brian Barnard, who has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the integrated structure, called the court's directive the first real attempt to identify the role of the bar since it was established in the 1930s.

Barnard said, "One of the things that has caused the current fiasco is that the bar has not had to justify its existence to anyone. It hasn't been accountable to anyone."

If membership were made voluntary, bar officials would have to convince lawyers that membership is worthwhile, Barnard said. "They would have to justify their expenditures."

For example, Barnard has questioned the bar's lobbying activities, which cost $15,000 to $20,000 a year and don't necessarily reflect the attitudes of all members. Because of his complaint, the bar now offers pro rata rebates to members who don't wish to have their dues used for lobbying purposes.

While praising the Supreme Court's orders, Barnard said he was offended by what he considers an attempt by bar officials to mislead lawyers and the public about the contents of those orders.

He was referring to the bar's press release, in which bar president Pamela T. Greenwood was quoted as saying, "In my opinion, the court's approval of our petition, largely without change, indicates their support of a strong and viable bar association."

View Comments

Barnard says Greenwood, an appeals court judge, glossed over the details of the court's minute entry, which reflects a dissatisfaction with the status quo.

As an example, he cited the court's decision to appoint the accounting firm of Grant Thornton as a management consultant to the court. The firm will provide quarterly management progress reports on fiscal controls, payment of debts and other deficiencies identified by the court.

In its order, the court said, "A sound, reasonable direction consistent with the public interest of the justice system will require the time, hard work and cooperation of many parties.

"Therefore, the court rejects short-term, simplistic solutions and remains committed to working towards the best long-term solutions."

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.