D.A. Settles With State Bar Over Membership Fees

The Ventura County district attorney’s office has reached a settlement with the State Bar of California in a lawsuit that alleged that membership dues paid by county prosecutors were being improperly used to fund political activities.

Under terms of the settlement, the State Bar will study challenges by Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury and 78 county prosecutors to determine whether to increase a refund available to bar members statewide.

An arbitrator will consider the challenges along with complaints filed by more than 100 other attorneys statewide, bar spokeswoman Anne Charles said.

The challenges question whether attorneys are entitled to more than a $3 refund that State Bar officials have already agreed to return to members who do not want their dues used to help pay for political lobbying or to go to politically active groups, Deputy Dist. Atty. Kevin DeNoce said.

In the case of Ventura County’s prosecutors, the $478 annual dues for membership in the State Bar total more than $37,000 and are paid by the district attorney’s office instead of by individual prosecutors.

Before filing a lawsuit against the State Bar two weeks ago, Bradbury had sought to challenge the amount of the refund for himself and all 78 of the prosecutors on his staff who had signed a group protest letter, DeNoce said.

While agreeing to review Bradbury’s individual challenge, however, State Bar officials had taken the position that the other challenges were filed too late, and that all 78 prosecutors had to sign separate complaints.

But under terms of the settlement, the State Bar backed away from that stance and agreed to automatically increase refunds for Bradbury and all 78 of his prosecutors if a decision is reached that refunds should generally be increased.

The State Bar is taking up the refund question at a weeklong arbitration session that began in San Francisco on Friday and will continue next week.

Bradbury will represent the Ventura County prosecutors during the proceeding, Charles said.

The challenges could have an effect statewide if the arbitrator rules that the bar underestimated the amount spent on political activities.

The State Bar has about 128,000 members.

As part of the lawsuit settlement, Ventura County prosecutors agreed not to file suit against the State Bar on the refund issue for the remainder of the year, DeNoce said. The prosecutors may also have the arbitrator’s ruling reviewed in court, he said.

“Our main goal was to get the staff attorney challenges submitted to arbitration, and we did,” DeNoce said. “In return, we felt dismissing the lawsuit was in the best interests of everybody.”

The suit was based on a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibits the State Bar from forcing members to pay dues if any of the money is used for activities such as political lobbying.

After the Supreme Court ruling, the State Bar estimated that about $3 of the annual dues could be returned to members, Charles said.

But because the members do not have access to State Bar expenditures, prosecutors in the district attorney’s office question whether the State Bar is using the dues improperly, DeNoce said.

“Our position is the State Bar is using and has been continuing to use bar dues to fund activities unrelated to the practice of law,” DeNoce said. “Based on what we see going on in the political arena in Sacramento, it seems they’re throwing more money at it than $3 a person.”