Page 527 - 2024 Orientation Manual

In the most recent case on this topic, decided by the United States District

Court of Puerto Rico in February of this year, group insurance funded by an

unified bar was found to be a permissible, chargeable expense. 42

B. Impermissible Activities

A list of prohibited uses of mandatory bar dues has emerged from decisions

rendered over the past ten to fifteen years. Even before the Supreme Court’s

decision in Keller, the Eleventh Circuit denounced a unified bar’s promulgation of

political and ideological positions through bar publications and speeches made by

bar officials. 43 Also prior to Keller, the United States Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit concluded that taking a public position regarding a potential United

States Attorney is outside permissible bar activity. 44
Not only did the aforementioned Schneider case offer a list of permissible

activities, it also provided a list of impermissible activities. The First Circuit

echoed the holding in Gibson, maintaining that the bar cannot use mandatory dues

for lobbying on controversial bills to change the law in ways not directly linked to

the legal profession or the judicial system. 45 For instance, although the bar can

lobby regarding lawyer advertising, it cannot lobby for restrictions on advertising

relating to controversial legal services such as aid to family planning agencies or

abortion clinics. 46 Moreover, the Schneider court noted that while a bar

publication devoted to educational articles about the legal profession may be

funded by mandatory dues, a publication that carries "markedly political and

42 See Romero v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, No. CIV.A.94-2403CCC, 1999
WL 543700, at *6 (D. Puerto Rico Feb. 25, 1999).
43 See Gibson v. Florida Bar, 798 F.2d 1564,1565 (11th Cir. 1986).
44 See Hollar v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 857 F.2d 163, 170 (3d Cir. 1988).
45 See Schneider, 917 F.2d at 633.
46 See Id.

Page 12 of 15