Page 518 - 2024 Orientation Manual

Over time, some unified bars became active not only in matters directly

relating to the legal profession --- such as admission of attorneys, discipline,

formulation of ethical rules, promoting attorney competence, continuing legal

education, etc. --- but also in political and ideological matters, taking positions on

such issues as abortion, gun control, capital punishment, and the like. During the

1980's several cases were filed challenging whether such activities were

constitutional --- that is, whether use of mandatory bar dues to advance political or

ideological positions, with which some members may disagree, violated their First

Amendment rights.

This line of cases culminated in the Keller decision of 1990. It remains the

most recent word from the U.S. Supreme Court on permissible and impermissible

activities of unified state bars. Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for a

unanimous court.

III. The Keller Decision

2
In Keller v. State Bar of California, twenty-one members of the State Bar

of California sued the state bar claiming its use of membership dues to finance

ideological or political activities to which they were opposed violated their rights

under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court of California rejected this

challenge on grounds that the Bar is a state agency and as such may use dues for

3
any purpose within its broad statutory authority. The U. S. Supreme Court
reaffirmed its prior holding that lawyers admitted to practice in a State may be

required to join and pay dues to the State Bar, but said there were limits on the

2 767 P.2d 1020 (Cal. 1989), rev’d, 496 U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. 2228 (1990).
3 See Keller, 767 P.2d at 1029.

Page 3 of 15