Page 528 - 2024 Orientation Manual

ideological material" may not be funded "unless, perhaps, the magazine publishes a

broad spectrum of counterbalancing views." 47
48
In Florida Bar re Frankel, the Supreme Court of Florida held that eight

lobbying positions, expressing support for recommendations of the Florida Bar

Commission for Children, and published in the Florida Bar News, 49 fell outside

the scope of permissible lobbying activities. They were not matters that lawyers

were especially suited by their training and experience to evaluate and explain. 50

C. Remedies for Non-Compliance

It should be noted that while Keller appears to suggest that a state bar may

never use mandatory dues to fund activities of an ideological nature that fall

outside the state’s interest in regulating the legal profession, this is an overly broad

and incorrect reading of the case. Keller does not prohibit a unified bar from

funding ideological activities outside its purpose; it only prohibits funding these

activities with nonconsenting members’ dues and insists on procedural safeguards

to prevent this from occurring. 51 The Court stated that, like a union, an integrated

bar could meet its obligations by adopting procedures described in Chicago

Teachers Union v. Hudson. 52 In Hudson, the court articulated three requirements

for a union that collects fees from a dissenting employee under an agency-shop

agreement: (1) an adequate explanation of the basis for the fee; (2) a reasonably

prompt opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee before an impartial decision

maker; (3) and an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute while the

47 Id. at 634.
48 581 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 1991).
49 See Id. at 1296-98.
50 See Id. at 1298.
51 See Keller, 496 U.S. at 17.
52 475 U.S. 292 (1986).

Page 13 of 15