D. C. Bar Wants To Raise Dues Ceiling

An announcement on the web page of the District of Columbia Bar should raise a concern for members that I have had for some time – that the recession-proof Bar is soaking its membership as it gorges at the spending trough.

Before the Court of Appeals authorizes raising the dues limit by 1/3, I respectfully suggest that a full and truly independent audit be conducted to see what in the present spending constitutes waste, fraud and abuse.

I’m confident that such an audit would reveal that D.C. has by far the best paid (read most overpaid) employees of any state bar.

Their profligate spending on travel to conferences on our dimes is nothing short of scandalous. 

And we pay through the nose for a disciplinary system that is spectacularly slow and inefficient. The answer to that problem is not to throw more money at it.

The notice

Bar Seeks Dues Ceiling Increase Authorization From Court of Appeals

July 1, 2015

The D.C. Bar Board of Governors has filed a petition with the D.C. Court of Appeals recommending an increase in its dues ceiling to $380 to fund its projected operating expenses for at least the next five fiscal years.

The petition, filed on June 30, 2015, seeks only to set the new ceiling for dues, which currently is $285. The current ceiling was set by the court in 2008 and enabled the Bar to operate for seven fiscal years—two more than originally projected. Actual Bar dues amounts—currently $280 for active members, $145 for inactive members, and $142 for judicial members—are set annually by the Board after an extensive budgeting process and in keeping with the established ceiling.

“The D.C. Bar has demonstrated strong fiscal integrity in the past that should provide confidence in the future,” according to a memorandum in support of the Board’s recommendation. “The Bar, acting through its elected leadership and professional staff, has a history of conservative budgeting.

“We believe that the additional dues authority that would be available through the requested dues ceiling increase is critical if the Bar is to continue to maintain its disciplinary and regulatory functions and to provide the levels of other services that are required by Court rules and that our members have come to expect,” the memorandum stated.

In reaching its recommendation, the Board relied on the work of its special Dues Ceiling Rate Authorization Committee, chaired by former D.C. Bar president Thomas S. Williamson Jr., which examined the Bar’s current and projected finances and used conservative financial modeling to project the funding needed to allow continued operations through 2021. It also noted that the current request represents a smaller percentage increase than the previous request—34 percent versus 40 percent—and that D.C. Bar dues are consistently among the lowest in the country for a bar of its size, and its operations include comprehensive programs to support professional competence, professionalism, and ethical conduct, an attorney discipline system, and a Clients’ Security Fund.

The memorandum also noted the Board’s recent adoption of a series of strategic priorities and objectives to guide the Bar’s operations for the next five years.

Under Rule II, Section 5, of the Court’s Rules Governing the D.C. Bar, the Board’s recommendation will be published by the court for a comment period of at least 60 days and are not subject to member referendum.

To view the full petition, click here.

And that “lowest dues for a bar its size” mantra is a disingenuous dodge that ignores a fact obvious to anyone who understands the true composition of the D.C. Bar.  

D.C. has more out-of-state lawyers than anywhere else. They pay full dues for no service. They are the Bar’s hidden endowment and they fund the profligacy.

The people who propose the raising of the dues ceiling depend on a docile membership to let it happen. Maybe its time for there to be an organized opposition to these looming increases.

It is way past time to rein in the wasteful spending of the self-selected Bar leadership and the apparently life-tenured Bar executives. (Mike Frisch)