2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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