State Bar May Raise Dues to Improve Ability to Discipline Errant Lawyers

Conceding that the State Bar’s much-maligned system for disciplining attorneys is “not one we can be proud of,” the president of the California State Bar announced plans Thursday to raise membership dues by 68% next year to fund improvements in the organization’s disciplinary arm.

Delivering a “State of the State Bar” address to the Lawyers Club of San Diego, President Terry Anderlini said attorneys must shoulder a dues increase to help pay for needed changes in the system or risk losing control of the discipline process altogether.

“I don’t think we have a choice in the matter,” Anderlini said after news of the proposed increase triggered a chorus of groans from the luncheon crowd. “If we turn this over to (another state agency) . . . they will gladly do it. But they will use our money and they will have people on the board who are political appointees--non-lawyers who don’t understand our profession.”

“I think it’s time to tighten our belts, swallow hard and pay the money. Let’s get this problem off the table,” Anderlini said.

From $275 to $450

The proposal, which has cleared two State Bar committees and will be considered by the organization’s 23-member Board of Governors at a meeting here Saturday, would raise a member’s dues from $275 to $450 a year for three years, beginning in 1989. That amount would dip to about $400 after 1992.

The increase is by far the largest ever proposed by the State Bar. Dues for 1988 were increased by just $15 over the previous year’s level. Any increase must be approved by the state Legislature.

Anderlini said that nearly all of the revenue generated by the increase--or an estimated $17.5 million--would be used to help correct defects in the Bar’s system of handling citizen complaints about California’s 110,000 attorneys. Roughly 11,000 complaints are filed each year, and the bar currently has a backlog of 1,500 cases awaiting investigation.

Funds raised through the dues increase and money freed through cuts in other bar services will be used to increase the salaries of secretaries, investigators and lawyers, who are now paid about 20% below market rates for similar positions, Anderlini said. That will help reduce turnover and boost morale, he said.

Move to Computers

In addition, the money will be used to centralize the discipline staff and computerize the system used for processing consumer complaints.

Robert Fellmeth, a University of San Diego law professor appointed State Bar discipline monitor by Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, praised the planned increase in an interview Thursday but said it is insufficient.

“They are attempting a very extensive reform of their discipline system and they ought to be praised for it,” said Fellmeth, who harshly criticized the discipline system in two reports last year. “But the $450 won’t do the job. If they are serious about improving the system, they’re going to have to spend more.”

Fellmeth estimated that an increase to $600 would provide sufficient resources for implementing a series of reforms he has advocated, including the hiring of judges to replace volunteers who hear attorney discipline cases, raising salaries, adding investigators to reduce the complaint backlog and strengthening the appellate process for complaints against lawyers.

“I don’t think that’s unreasonable,” Fellmeth said. “Remember, this is a profession whose members spend between $4,000 and $6,000 a year on malpractice premiums. This is a profession that can easily afford these dues.”

According to Anderlini, the large increase is necessary because state bar budgets have failed to keep up with the soaring number of attorneys practicing in the state and the attendant increase in client complaints. Ten years ago, there were 54,000 lawyers in the state and the discipline system “could be run like a mom and pop grocery store.”

“Today, we need professional staff to deal with the complaints,” said Anderlini, a civil attorney from San Mateo who took office as president in June. “Otherwise, we’ll keep sinking deeper and the problems and our image will just keep getting worse.”

Widespread Criticism

The state bar’s discipline system has been the target of widespread criticism for several years. Some have suggested stripping the bar of its authority to discipline its members, which the board of governors has resisted strongly. In January, 1987, Van de Kamp appointed Fellmeth to review the system and make recommendations for improvements.

Fellmeth’s first report, released in June, criticized the bar for its use of volunteers instead of salaried judges, noting that volunteers have unpredictable schedules that result in discipline cases dragging on interminably. He also charged that the bar has done little to uncover or prevent improper behavior of lawyers, including drug and alcohol abuse.

“A reading of hundreds of investigative files within the State Bar office generates one overwhelming impression: The detection and initial acceptance of the case for discipline depends on an aggressive and articulate complaining witness,” Fellmeth said.

Last year, 106 lawyers were disbarred and 280 were disciplined under the State Bar’s system. Anderlini said the bar has doubled the amount it spends on discipline over the last three years.