May 25, 2016
Arizona Bar still doesn't get it. It again misconstrues what this is about.

Having suffered a near-loss at the Arizona Legislature this term, the State Bar of Arizona now says it plans to inoculate itself from “hostile legislation” — by working to “be even more open and transparent.” But the extent of that effort

April 28, 2016
North Dakota Bar's Family Law Task Force and the propensity of mandatory bars to tread on lawyer First Amendment rights.

Right now, the State Bar of Arizona can spend attorneys’ mandatory dues on anything it wants to so long as the expenditure is related to improving the practice of law through the regulation of attorneys.  That could mean lobbying, advertising

April 26, 2016
Yes on HB 2221!!! State Bar Transparency.
March 28, 2016
HB 2221 Strengthens Attorney Regulation.

Consumer protections like the Ethics Hotline and the Client Protection Fund are preserved under HB 2221, and the Arizona Bar will never be able to divert money from these programs to fund lawyer amenities or political activities. HB 2221 makes

March 20, 2016
Refuting the Bar's misinformation about consumer protection and HB2221.

The Bill does not eliminate any consumer protection programs. Most importantly, the Bill does not eliminate the best consumer protection program, which is lawyer regulation that disciplines unethical lawyers by taking them out of circulation. Lawyer regulation remains a requirement and

March 19, 2016
Arizona Lawyers Shouldn't Be Misled: They Have Constitutional Rights, Too

On March 17. 2016, the Arizona State Bar sent an email to the state’s lawyers urging them to oppose House Bill 2221, a bill that would eliminate the Bar’s ability to force attorneys to fund its operations. The email warned

March 18, 2016

On March 17, 2016, State Bar of Arizona CEO and Executive Director John Phelps took to the bully pulpit paid for by all members — even those in favor — to lobby against Arizona House Bill 2221. The Bill, which

March 15, 2016
"Don't Bar Free Speech."
March 5, 2016
The truth about House Bill 2221.

HB 2221 was not proposed by the Arizona Legislature because the Legislature wanted to dictate the way that lawyers practice. It was proposed because many members of our Bar wanted these changes, believing that the current mandatory membership provisions violate

March 2, 2016
Rebutting the State Bar of Arizona about HB 2221.

Attorneys who want to practice law in Arizona must pay the State Bar of Arizona mandatory member dues. The State Bar of Arizona uses this money to regulate the practice of law and to engage in other activities, including lobbying

March 2, 2016

By a vote of 31-29, House Bill 2221 passed out of the Arizona House this past Thursday, February 24, 2016. The bill, which protects attorneys’ free speech rights by requiring that mandatory dues be used only for regulatory functions, moves

February 4, 2016

PHOENIX — “The State Bar of Arizona cannot effectively serve two masters. The interests of the public and the interests of lawyers are not the same.” With this declaration, District 20 House Member Anthony Kern introduced House Bill 2119 this

February 2, 2016
U.S. Supreme Court to hear case that could impact lawyers in mandatory bar states.

Free speech and free association relief for lawyers may be on the way. On February 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Janus v American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a case that revisits the issue

February 13, 2016
Arizona Bar's new Public Records Policy falls short.
February 10, 2016
Two groups who should be opposed to Arizona's mandatory bar association: Arizona lawyers and everyone else.

There are two groups of people who should be opposed to Arizona’s mandatory bar association: Arizona lawyers and everyone else. Arizona lawyers should object because mandatory association inherently threatens their First Amendment rights. Here I want to focus on why

By Working For A Better Bar
February 6, 2016
A Blast Email Rebuttal.

This past November, State Bar of Arizona President Geoff Trachtenberg sent out a blast email to members with arguments against a voluntary bar. Proponents of a voluntary bar, on the other hand, don’t have the same bandwith to present their

By Working For A better Bar
February 8, 2016
Coerced membership violates the Constitutional rights to free speech and free association.
Coerced membership violates the Constitutional rights to free speech and free association.

The Goldwater Institute opposes conditioning the practice of law on bar membership in Arizona because coerced membership violates the rights to free speech and free association guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions. Because of this, we support efforts

February 4, 2016
Beneath the Bar's Mask.

The Problem The stated mission of the State Bar of Arizona (SBA) is: “Protecting the Public of Arizona and Advancing the Legal Profession.”1 History teaches us, with all too much repetition, this is an enormous fallacy and neither the public

By Richard W. Morris, J.D., Ph.D
February 4, 2016
What is the big deal? It is only $500.00
What is the big deal? It is only $500.00

The Bar requires those of us who have been licensed for some years to currently pay $490.00 annually, which soon enough increases to $520 to maintain our license to practice law in Arizona. Five hundred dollars for what?

February 4, 2016
Some history about mandatory bars, including Arizona's
By References: "Our State Bar Associations: The State Bar of Arizona." American Bar Association Journal August 1961 Vol. 47: 809-811. Photo Credits: graph-background, morguefile.com,no attribution ; Arizona Map, 1909, Wikimedia Commons, public domain;