High Court to Decide on State Bar Limits

The California Supreme Court agreed Thursday to decide what limitations may be placed on lobbying efforts by the California State Bar and whether the organization can use mandatory membership dues for political purposes.

In a brief order, the court said it would review a decision last May by the state Court of Appeal in Sacramento that sharply restricts the Bar’s political activities and that says its leaders violated members’ constitutional rights by supporting voter confirmation of the four Supreme Court justices on the 1982 ballot.

The appellate court said the Bar, a public corporation established by law to regulate the legal profession, had no authority to engage in “purely political or ideological activities.”

Lobby for Legislation

The court said the Bar could still lobby for legislation related to regulating the practice of law and improving the legal system. But when lobbying raises ideological concerns, the Bar must meet the heavy burden of showing a “compelling governmental interest” before it can use dues over members’ objections, it said.

A statute passed by the Legislature in 1984 now prohibits the Bar from making public evaluations of any appellate or Supreme Court justice facing confirmation. But the Bar’s ability to lobby or take positions on other political issues remains in doubt until the court rules in the case.

All of the state’s 90,000 lawyers are required to join the Bar and pay annual dues of $208. Bar officials said about 5% of its $22-million annual budget goes for political activities.

The case arose when a group of former state prosecutors represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation brought suit challenging the use of mandatory dues for a wide range of Bar activities, including a “public education” program in 1982 supporting the confirmation of Justices Allen E. Broussard and Cruz Reynoso and now-retired Justices Frank K. Richardson and Otto M. Kaus.

Anthony Murray, a Los Angeles attorney who was then president of the Bar, said in a speech at a 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.”

A Sacramento trial court dismissed the suit, but the appeals court reinstated it. The appellate court said that the distribution of speeches by Murray and other material was “election campaigning pure and simple,” and violated the First Amendment rights of members whose dues were used to finance the program.

The Bar appealed to the state Supreme Court, saying the appellate ruling created uncertainty over the permissible scope of Bar activity and jeopardized its public service programs.

Anthony T. Caso, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said the plaintiffs may refile an earlier motion urging members of the court who were involved in the 1982 or 1986 elections to take themselves out of the case to avoid conflict of interest, or the appearance of impropriety.

‘Especially Surprised’

Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and Justices Stanley Mosk, Reynoso, Joseph R. Grodin, Malcolm M. Lucas and Edward A. Panelli are on the 1986 ballot.

The court’s order saying it would hear the case was signed by Bird, Mosk, Broussard and Grodin--the minimum number required to grant review. There was no indication any member of the court would not participate in the case when it is heard. A decision on when the case will be heard is expected after the November election.