Page 522 - 2024 Orientation Manual

Several federal and state courts had applied the Abood analysis in the

context of First Amendment challenges to integrated bar associations. But

California invoked the "government speech" doctrine, under which the government
21
must take substantive positions and decide disputed issues in order to govern.

Disagreeing with this characterization, the U. S. Supreme Court stated that the

State Bar of California "is a good deal different from most other entities that would

be regarded in common parlance as ‘governmental agencies.’" 22 The Court said

that while the Bar undoubtedly performs important and valuable services for the

State by way of governance of the profession, those services are "essentially

advisory in nature." 23

The State Bar does not admit anyone to the practice of law, it
does not finally disbar or suspend anyone, and it does not
ultimately establish ethical codes of conduct. All of those
functions are reserved by California law to the State Supreme
Court. 24

The Court held that because of the Bar’s contribution to the self-regulation

of the profession, it was "entirely appropriate that all of the lawyers who derive

benefit from the unique status of being among those admitted to practice before the

courts should be called upon to pay a fair share of the cost of professional

involvement in this effort." 25 The Court added, however, that the First

Amendment limits the permissible use of mandatory bar dues.

21 See Keller, 496 U.S. at 11.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id. at 12.

Page 7 of 15