Happy New Year D. C. Bar: Pay Up!
The wasteful and pernicious dues increase proposed by the District of Columbia Bar’s powers that be has been blessed by the Court of Appeals
On December 22 the District of Columbia Court of Appeals approved a new dues ceiling, or maximum authorized dues rate level, for the D.C. Bar as recommended by the Bar’s Board of Governors.
The D.C. Bar dues level has consistently been among the lowest in the country for a bar of its size, ranking in the bottom 20 percent of all unified bars, according to a recent American Bar Association report. The Bar’s operations include comprehensive programs to support professional competence, professionalism, and ethical conduct; an attorney discipline system; and a Clients’ Security Fund.
In a petition filed on June 30, 2015, the Board recommended the new dues ceiling to fund the Bar’s projected operating expenses for at least the next five fiscal years. The new ceiling amount of $380 was suggested by the Board’s Dues Ceiling Rate Authorization Committee, which studied the Bar’s current and projected finances to determine the funding needed for the Bar’s continued operations through mid-2020.
The court approved the Board’s proposal to raise the Bar’s ceiling on annual membership dues from $285 to $380, effective July 1, 2016, until further order of the court.
The new ceiling does not represent the actual dues rate assessed to Bar members but rather a maximum.The dues rate is set annually by the Board after an extensive budget review process.
Now the best-paid bar employees in America can increase their salaries, travel to every domestic and international bar-related party and buy themselves a fancy building with primo views, all at the expense of a membership that had no say in the process.
One fact got ignored here: plenty of out-of-state attorneys find it convenient to keep an active D.C. Bar license. That “hidden endowment” is why D.C. bar dues are relatively modest. Many of the out-of-staters may resign or go inactive if the dues costs go too high.
When they do, the dues will be jacked up on the rest of us.
And if the building investment fails to meet expectations, it is the membership that will hold the bag.
Here, a pernicious and selfishly-motivated idea did not get the proper vetting it deserved and required.
It has now been foisted on a passive membership.
My prior Cassandra-like warnings are linked here, here and here. (Mike Frisch)