OUR MISSION IS TO FIX THE PROBLEMS THAT HAVE LONG PLAGUED CALIFORNIA'S ATTORNEY REGULATION SYSTEM
SO THAT IT BETTER PROTECTS CONSUMERS AND PROVIDES HIGH QUALITY JUSTICE
TO LAWYERS IN THE ADMISSIONS AND DISCIPLINE PROCESSES.

THANK YOU, AND
CONGRATULATIONS! 

I want to thank everyone who participated in the documentary Scandal of the State Bar and follow-up reform efforts.  Your willingness to go on camera and assist in other ways made a real difference. 

The documentary was completed in 2012 with a focus on the long-term dysfunction in the Bar's discipline system that was harming not only the public, but many lawyers as well.  DVD copies were mailed to all members of the State Bar's Board of Trustees, the State Bar Court judges, the justices of the California Supreme Court (which oversees the Bar), and others who were involved in Bar matters. 

As reform efforts heated up, the documentary was uploaded to YouTube in 2014 so that it would be more widely accessible.  In addition, I prepared written proposals that were distributed to many of the same officials, as well as to California legislators who were members of the judiciary committees.  I attended several meetings of the Bar's Board and discipline committees where I gave public comments and handed out additional materials.     
               
As a result of these efforts, two leading experts in attorney regulation and ethics graciously went on camera for me in separate video interviews.  One was Prof. Robert Fellmeth who had been instrumental in re-shaping the Bar in the late 1980's and is the executive director of  the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego School of Law.   The other is one of California's leading attorney discipline defense lawyers David Cameron Carr.  (See sidebar to the right for links to their interviews).   

I also received calls from several legislative analysts, as well as a personal written invitation from the then-Executive Director of the State Bar to address the Bar's Task Force on Governance in the Public Interest in the spring of 2016.  By then, sentiment was growing within the legislature and amongst several of the Trustees that the Bar should be broken up, which was a major theme in part 1 of Scandal of the State Bar that featured interviews with former California state senator Quentin Kopp and Prof. Peter Keane of the Golden Gate University School of Law who had spearheaded such a break-up effort decades earlier.

Then in August 2016 the Governance Task Force issued its report, and history was made.  For what may have been the first time in the Bar's history, the Bar admitted to a track record of intractable decades-long problems, stating: 

"It is universally acknowledged that significant changes are needed at the State Bar of California, an institution now approaching its ninth decade.  As both Majority and Minority Task Force Reports emphasize, the problems at the State Bar are not recent in origin: indeed, decades of studies, reports and statutory provisions reflect efforts to reform the State Bar, most with only modest impact."  (p. 1)

I learned that the documentary, which highlighted this history of dysfunction from the Bar's founding in 1927 to our own day, played a role in educating the Task Force members about the Bar's not-always-stellar history.  The Minority Report specifically referred to Quentin Kopp's vision as a model that should be followed, as well as affirming another major theme of the documentary when the report stated:

"The Bar has not seriously addressed allegations that it more vigorously prosecutes attorneys with less money and influence than others. These tend to be solo practitioners, small-town lawyers, and lawyers of color."  (p. 6). 

In my discussion and video interview with Prof. Fellmeth, he also came to agree that it would be better if the discipline prosecutors and State Bar Court judges were no longer part of the same organization.  He made a public proposal to transfer the prosecution of attorney discipline out of the State Bar and over to the state Attorney General's office which handles discipline prosecution for California's other professional licensing boards while a separate governmental entity provides the judges/arbitrators.    

Another problem pointed out in the documentary was that the California Bar Foundation--a worthwhile organization in concept--had a corrupting influence on the discipline system when it was a direct adjunct of the Bar.  In 2015, the Foundation was split off from the Bar and made fully independent (although for differently-stated reasons. It has since been renamed "California ChangeLawyers").   
Finally, in October 2017, after more hearings and debate, Senate Bill 36 was passed and made into law.  It transformed the State Bar from a "unified bar" (a combination of trade guild and governmental licensing board) into a straightforward licensing/consumer protection agency like other professional boards in this state.  The trade guild and other non-regulatory features of the Bar were reorganized into an independent non-profit entity called the California Lawyer's Association (CLA), which is now in operation.  Primary credit for passage of this bill goes to Prof. Fellmeth and colleagues at the Center for Public Interest Law, as well as to former Bar trustees Dennis Mangers and Joanna Mendoza, all of whom were at the forefront of this legislative push while, at the same time, Scandal of the State Bar and its linked efforts were playing a visible supporting role. 

The creation of a truly independent trade guild for lawyers was an important victory because when the guild role was within the State Bar, it vanished whenever it collided with the Bar's discipline function.  There was no organization to effectively stand up on behalf of California lawyers when the discipline system became abusive in misguided efforts to remain funded.  Now with the CLA, California lawyers have such an organization for the first time in the Bar's almost century-long history.  Time will tell if the CLA rises to the occasion in the future when needed. 

There were other less formal but significant changes that our efforts helped bring about.  One very significant problem highlighted in the case histories featured in the documentary was the problem of Bar judges essentially performing as an adjunct of the prosecutor's office.  I learned from a long-time discipline defense attorney that roughly about the time that DVDs of the documentary were initially distributed, the Bar Court stopped being a "rubber stamp" (his words) for the prosecutors.  This appeared to be confirmed at a Board hearing on November 15, 2015 when two State Bar prosecutors, speaking as representatives for their union, complained that the head prosecutor ("Chief Trial Counsel") had received an unprecedented "no confidence" vote from 76% of the prosecutors.  The speaker stated that discipline cases were being routinely "overcharged" (i.e., discipline charges against lawyers were being exaggerated), and many were being forced to go to trial when they should have been settled, resulting in "stinging" losses for the prosecutors at trial "more in the last four years than probably in the ten before that."  So although the conduct of the prosecutors office had not changed, the conduct of the Bar Court did.  But there is still a caution to be heeded:

Periods of substantial injustice to lawyers in the discipline system were a constantly repeating problem.  It had already been noted by the California Supreme Court in a 1987 published decision (Maltaman v. State Bar), as well as by the Speaker of the California Assembly in 1993 when he introduced legislation to stop it, saying, "The Bar is driven to produce ever increasing discipline numbers and statistics at the expense of justice and fair play" and that it "refuses to seriously negotiate settlements."   In a minority opinion from 2000 (In re Rose), a California Supreme Court Justice opined, "When the right to continue practicing a trade or profession is at stake, only attorneys are denied their day in court." 

So, while we should all be pleased and can congratulate one another other for helping to bring about recent reform successes, there are still a few more steps for the current generation of Bar leaders to take  with the blessings of the California Supreme Court.  Hopefully the CLA and legislative judiciary committees will also pick up the banner so that battered and bruised attorneys of the future will no longer be forced to act like lone voices in the wilderness if things go wrong again at the Bar.  The goal is to have a stable and effective Bar that also promotes justice through setting a good example within its own attorney discipline system. 
With best wishes,
Tore Dahlin
Producer and Organizer
November 26, 2019

---

About
Californians for Attorney Regulation Reform (CFARR). 

Scandal of the State Bar producer Tore Dahlin (who is himself a former attorney) launched an initiative with the name Californians for Attorney Regulation Reform (CFARR).  The purpose of CFARR was to provide an informal network for people who saw a need to fix California's attorney regulation system so that it more consistently protects consumers, while at the same time offers true justice to lawyers in the discipline and admissions processes.  CFARR did not seek donations or money, but only support in the form of testimony and activism.  CFARR is presently inactive, but the producer/organizer can still be reached through the Email Contact Form below.   

---

Reform Proposals

The legislative change to the State Bar's structure of 2017 was a major step in reforming the Bar.  A  few more reforms are needed to finish moving the Bar out of the shadow of its "bad old days" and into becoming a true model of public protection and justice.  Please click REFORM PROPOSALS tab above (top right)

YOUTUBE VIDEOS

'T""Those who do not learn history
are doomed to repeat it.'

This well-known adage inspires the continued display and links to our documentary and related videos.  The Bar's bumpy history continued for several more years after completion of Scandal of the State Bar with more resignations, firings, and lawsuits surrounding top Bar leaders.  Hopefully things are better today, and the below videos provide a cautionary tale for what to prevent in the future. 

Scandal of the State Bar
2-minute trailer

Scandal of the State Bar
(Part 1 of 2)

Scandal of the State Bar
(Part 2 of 2)

Scandal of the State Bar
(Bonus Reel)

Interview with Robert C. Fellmeth
Professor Fellmeth (above) is the Executive Director of the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego.  In the late 1980's, he was instrumental in designing the current State Bar discipline system.  How does Professor Fellmeth feel about the State Bar more recently?  This is a vital interview.

Interview with David Cameron Carr
Mr. Carr is a long-time discipline defense attorney in California who had worked for more than a decade as a State Bar discipline prosecutor during some of its most rough-and-tumble years.  Get this valuable insider's view of the system.

Bar Prosecutors Complain of
No Confidence
Board of Trustees Meeting
November 20, 2015.

Highlights of the State Bar Public Hearings of December 2013.
Consumers and  lawyers (above) air their complaints about the State Bar's discipline system and make suggestions for reform.  

Formal Presentation by
C.F.A.R.R. Organizer

Mr. Dahlin describes his personal experience with the California State Bar, and why it motivated him to produce the award-winning documentary Scandal of the State Bart. 

Recommended Resources

Join Dr. Karin Huffer on a journey to humanize our judicial and legal systems.  Dr. Huffer works closely with people who suffer from invisible disabilities to navigate through the legal system.  She has studied the psychological effects of litigation on people in the courtrooms, including the impact on lawyers and judges, and speaks out in favor of changes.  She is an author and public speaker who can be reached through her website:
www.EqualAccessAdvocates.com. 

---

This site copyright 2019 by Tore B. Dahlin.  All rights reserved.