Court Restricts Involvement in Politics by Bar

A state appellate court Friday severely restricted the California State Bar’s right to get involved in politics and ruled that it violated its members’ free speech rights by supporting the reelection of four Supreme Court justices in 1982.

The court also said the Bar must limit its lobbying efforts to matters strictly related to the court system and criticized its yearly conventions in which the Bar has taken stands on matters ranging from opposition to aid to contras , the U.S.-backed Nicaraguan rebels, to support of a nuclear freeze.

Noting that all 90,000 lawyers in California are required to join the Bar and pay yearly dues, the court said the Bar must set up a way for dissident lawyers to direct that their dues be used solely for the Bar’s state-mandated duties--the licensing and disciplining of lawyers.

The court said lawyers must be given a choice of whether or not to pay that portion of their $208 yearly dues that is spent on “legitimate” political activity, such as lobbying on behalf of bills affecting the legal system justice.

The court dismissed the Bar’s argument that it had a right to speak out on political issues unrelated to the justice system, saying, “The State Bar does not have plenary power to rove about to right every wrong and speak to every issue.”

The court said the Bar has no legal “authority to engage in purely political or ideological activities” not specified by the State Bar Act. The act set up the Bar as an arm of the state and requires that it license and discipline lawyers and “promote” the administration of justice.

The case stems from a suit by four state prosecutors and the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation challenging a broad range of activity by the Bar, including its lobbying efforts in Sacramento, its foray into the 1982 Supreme Court election and actions by the Bar’s Conference of Delegates at the Bar’s annual convention.

Support for Justices

The lawyers were particularly disturbed by the Bar’s decision to support the 1982 reelection of Supreme Court Justices Allen Broussard and Cruz Reynoso and now-retired Justices Otto Kaus and Frank Richardson.

Then-State Bar President Anthony Murray said in a speech at the 1982 Bar convention that opponents of the justices were “self-seeking prosecutors and lawyers who want to be judges” and “political mercenaries who are trying to pull down our legal system.”

“Naturally, dissenters are offended by being forced to underwrite their own public vilification,” the court said in an opinion by Court of Appeal Justice Keith F. Sparks and joined by Justices Frances N. Carr and Robert K. Puglia.

Murray, chairman of the committee supporting Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird’s reelection, called his comments in 1982 “perfectly legitimate.” He acknowledged that his remarks were “rhetorical,” but he said they were “not political.”

“I think that eventually we will be vindicated,” Murray said, adding that the decision will be appealed.

The court ruling comes at a time when the state Legislature has been critical of the Bar. Last year lawmakers held up the Bar’s budget because of criticism over its lax system of disciplining lawyers. Several legislators also criticized the Bar because its delegates took stands on the contras and other matters outside the administration of justice.

Political Stands Scrutinized

The Bar’s budget was approved by the Legislature early this year, but lawmakers are still scrutinizing the Bar’s political activities.

The Bar’s Board of Governors is trying to improve its discipline system and said last December that its delegates can no longer take positions on such controversial political issues.

Additionally, Bar President David M. Heilbron said, the Bar is taking no role in this year’s Supreme Court election in which six of the seven justices will be on the November ballot.

“I don’t believe the Bar has done anything improper for as long I have been associated with it,” Heilbron said. “By no means do I think the Bar acted improperly at the time (1982).”

Heilbron also defended the Bar’s lobby effort, as well as the actions of the Conference of Delegates, a group of 1,700 lawyers who are elected by other lawyers and meet at the Bar’s annual convention.

The bulk of the delegates’ resolutions deal with legal matters of law and administration of justice, Heilbron said. But he also noted that he disliked the delegates’ practice of dealing with political issues, such as aid to the contras.

Lobbying Cited

A Pacific Legal Foundation lawyer, Thomas Caso, who argued the case, said the Bar in past years has lobbied on bills ranging from comparable worth and the equal rights amendment to whether laws against drug paraphernalia are constitutional.

Caso estimated that 15% to 20% of the Bar’s annual $22-million budget goes to political causes. The Bar estimates that 5% is used for such activity. Lawyers pay the bulk of the Bar’s $22-million budget through dues of up to $208 a year.

“This decision,” said Ronald Zumbrun, director of the Pacific Legal Foundation, “ends the tyranny of the State Bar leadership and its insistence that they are free to use our dues to advance their political agenda.”