As we approach Law Day, bar associations across the nation will be heard congratulating themselves on all they do to promote justice and protect the public. (see our post) At this weblog, “we” think such self-aggrandizement should be avoided in favor of a bit of soul-searching. Most bar groups spend much of their time acting like guilds — promoting the interests of their members, and“protecting” the public from competition, information, innovation and choice. Maybe Law Day 2005 (May 1st) can be an occasion to re-align our priorities and becomepublic service organizations, improving the profession for the sake of our clientsthe justice system and the entire public.
Because I’ve been following the unlawful joint boycott activities of
assigned counsel in Massachusetts over the past two years (with “bar advocates”
using coercive behavior to achieve higher fees), I’ve observed the Bay State bar
more closely than I might have done otherwise. As a proponent of the rights of
clients, I have not been edified.
Instead, I’ve come to the conclusion that members of the Massachusetts bar, when
acting in groups and given the opportunity, far too often put the interests of lawyers
above those of clients and the public. And, they do it with arguments so petulant
or specious that even their legitimate concerns seem suspect. [If I had to name the
archetypal Bay State law firm, it would be "Wein, Karp & Mone, Unlimited".]
“tinyredcheck” Thus, I was a little skeptical when I read at Ben Cowgill’s Legal Ethics
[We]blog last week that a Task Force of the Massachusetts Bar Association has
released a report on the State’s lawyer discipline system. (MBA Press Release,
April 20, 2005). That’s despite — or maybe because — the Report is titled
“Protecting the Public: Reforming the Disciplinary Process”. I discuss this
topic below.
First, I want to give you a few examples:
-
In March 2005, the House of Delegates of the Massachusetts Bar
Association (MBA) voted to oppose a Rule that would require lawyers
to disclose whether they maintain malpractice insurance. MBA’s Attorney
Financial Responsibility Disclosure Task Force voiced the concern that
mandatory disclosure would lead to a requirement that all lawyers carry
malpractice insurance (watch those slippery slopes). The chairman of the
Task Force noted: “We’re puzzled as a subcommittee as to why the ABA
adopted it and why the SJC is considering adopting it.” (This weblog supports
such requirements, which exist in at least 8 states.)
-
Last year, MBA’s Task Force to Define the Practice of Law in Massachusetts
proposed what appears to be the broadest definition in the nation — thus making
more conduct fall within the Unauthorized Practice of Law . In December 2004,
the FTC and the Department of Justice submitted Comments to MBA, saying
that such an overbroad rule would hurt consumers by raising prices and limiting
choice, and was not justified by their consumer protection rationale. (Federal
Trade Commission press release, Dec. 16, 2004). In May, 2004, one Task Force
member got to the nub of their proposal (as reported in the MBA Lawyers Journal::
“Business and government is seeking to level the playing field on the theory
that consumers will have more choice and this will drive prices down for
legal services,” said task force member Jon Davis in helping co-chairs Denise
Squillante and Lee Gartenberg introduce the proposal. Citing several reasons
why the bar should consider adopting a definition, Davis added, “we are
going to be marginalized out of practice.”
-
Also, in 2004, MBA was faced with HB 180, a bill in the Massachusetts House that
would enable nonlawyers to compete with lawyers to perform certain real estate closing
services. FTC and Justice Department staff urged the Massachusetts Legislature to
pass the legislation. According to the FTC press release (Oct. 12, 2004)
The bill, HB 180, would amend the General Laws of Massachusetts to
authorize nonlawyers to perform real estate closing services, such as
drafting deeds, mortgages, leases and agreements; examining titles;
issuing title certification or policies of title insurance; and representing
lenders as their closing agents. “As the staff analysis shows, HB 180 is
likely to benefit consumers in Massachusetts by encouraging competition
that leads to lower prices, more convenient services, and the option to use
Internet-based loan services,” noted FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras.
How did MBA react to HB 180? Its House of Delegates voted to oppose the Bill.
Kathlleen M. O’Donnell, who was then chair of the Property Law Section (and is now
President of MBA) called HB 180 “an attack on the practice of attorneys.” Jon Davis,
president of the Real Estate Bar Association of Massachusetts, warned: “This bill is
ominous . . . “This bill is not based on any benefit to the consumer. It’s only for the
benefit of the corporations backing it.” [Davis also noted that most states in the U.S.
don't require lawyers at closings, as Massachusetts does.]
-
In 1997, a Pro Se Committee Report from the State judiciary on probate and family
court issued a “Challenge for the Future”, asking for the cooperation and assistance
of bar leaders, and recommending the creation of educational materials for pro se litigants
and court staff, plus Self-Help facilitators, hotlines, simplified forms, unbundling efforts,
and more. Four years later, the then-President of MBA, Edward P. Ryan, Jr., gave the
bar group’s response, in an address to a statewide conference on the unrepresented ligitant.
It’s entitled Educating pro se litigants on the need for counsel. As suggested by its title,
Ryan asserts that self-represented litigants (plus judges and court employees) must be educated
so they understand that every litigant needs a lawyer. He states that a program would be
established, that would match pro se litigants with attorneys who would charge them for their
services (but, maybe a little less than usual, if necessary to get the business). Ryan also
complained that the self-represented got too much help at court, giving the “represented” clients
the impression that they too might not need lawyers the next time they are at court. (prior post)
-
You might have thought that the The Massachusetts Association of Court
Appointed Attorneys (MACAA) and MBA would have been thrilled with the
Report issued earlier this month by a special commission formed to study the
“indigent defense crisis” in the State. The Report recommends a 50% increase
in fees over the next three years (on top of a 25% increase received this year),
and the establishment of two pilot projects that would use more public defenders
in two rural counties, helping to bring Massachusetts closer to national standards,
which advise against the almost total reliance on private attorneys for indigent
defense that now exists in those and other Massachusetts counties. (see our post
on the Report, and on MACAA’s response; and MACAA press release, April 22, 2005))
Sadly, you’d be wrong. Both MBA and MACAA have instead called for immediate 
implementation of the full pay hike (MACAA wants even more, including interest,
for a total of a 113% increase in the past two years) and for full rejection of the pilot
concept (see MBA press release; Mass. Lawyers Weekly, April 11, 2005). The
answer to my question “will MACAA react like a guild to indigent defense report?” is
clearly in the affirmative. Saving private counsel jobs and increasing their fees will
clearly come before the public interest or the smooth operation of the justice system.
On April 17th, MACAA’s board voted unanimously that rates should be “fully
implemented now” and that the pilot programs should be rejected. In paragraph
after paragraph, MACAA President Thomas Workman whines that “No professionals
in Massachusetts have ever had pay rates ‘phased in’” (nor have assigned counsel
in any other state or nation!). Of course, Workman doesn’t mention the size of those
other pay hikes or the fiscal situation (imagine giving policemen or judges, or independent
snow plow operators a 67% increase in one year). As for the pilot projects that would use
state-employed public defenders MACAA’s Board states:
“Pilot programs are only needed to collect data, and this is not
necessary. Either the programs are being implemented for some
ulterior purpose, or they are not needed. In either case, the state
should not waste money on unnecessary pilot programs.”
[if/when available online, I will supply a link]
More to the point, MACAA President Workman vows
“MACAA will not ’sell out’ court appointed attorneys on any panel” by recommending pilot projects.”
Disciplinary System “Reforms”
With this background, I took a look at Protecting the Public: Reforming the Disciplinary Process,
which, as Ben Cowgill notes, “recommends a number of changes that would make the system more
fair in its treatment of lawyers who are charged with ethical violations.” The Report states:
“Concepts such as time standards, statute of limitations, mediation, and fair bilateral
discovery are common in many regulatory and disciplinary systems. What the Task
Force has found of concern is that so many of these commonplace concepts are absent
from the lawyer discipline system. . .”
I’m all in favor of a discipline system that is both fair and effective, and the Report makes some valid
points and proposals. However, I do not believe it lives up to the title “Protecting the Public.” In fact,
the fairness issue seems to be an artful ploy to slip in other major changes that can only weaken the
effectiveness and accessibility of the system for the client. Here is the entire description of the Report
given in a press release announcing its completion (MBA Press Release, April 20, 2005; Boston Globe,
“Mass lags in disciplining lawyers”, by Jenn Abelson, April 20, 2005):
“The report, entitled ‘Protecting the Public: Reforming the Disciplinary Process,’
lists recommended changes to the lawyer discipline system including the introduction
of time standards and a statute of limitations of five years with appropriate exceptions.
Together there are 22 recommended changes including those related to technical rules.”
I believe that only one major proposal is beneficial for both the client and the attorney — that is
the recommendation for clear time standards, so that invesitgations will not drag on for years, nor be
stalled at any of the many stages. In fact, notwithstanding its conclusion in 2002 that the Massachusetts
lawyer discipline system is the best in the nation, the legal reform group HALT specifically noted that
the lack of timeliness in completing its investigations is a major deficiency in the system.
HALT pointed approvingly, however, to several other aspects of the Massachusetts system that would
be undermined by the proposals in the MBA Report and are far from mere “technical” changes.
First, under the current rules, misconduct must be proven through a “preponderance
of the evidence” – the same standard required in other civil proceedings. However,
“Protecting the Public” wants to make it more difficult to find that an attorney has
violated the ethical rules, by imposing the higher standard of proof “clear and convincing
evidence.”
Second, HALT praised Massachusetts as Runner Up: Best Telephone Services and for
developing an Attorney and Consumer Assistance Program (ACAP) to help consumers
resolve problems with their attorneys before a formal grievance must be filed. The MBA
Task Force would virtually dismantle this client-friendly program. Now, ACAP resolves
thousands of disputes without the need for any formal grievance being filed — through
explanations to the telephone caller or by making a quick call to an attorney’s office (e.g.,
to suggest he or she return the client’s call or send a more complete bill).
The Report frets that this program has “been the victim of its own success” (with inquiries up
from 2500 to 6000), even though only half as many formal grievances are now being filed. The
proposed solution is that “all consumer inquiries to Bar counsel be reduced to writing
with exceptions for those who face physical or language barriers.” This is called a
Serendipity led me to discover that the state bird of Massachusetts is