Page 529 - 2024 Orientation Manual

challenges are pending. 53 The Keller court left open whether alternative

procedures could also satisfy this obligation. 54

In Gibson v. The Florida Bar, 55 the Eleventh Circuit approved a procedure

for challenging the use of mandatory dues. The procedure included a refund to

members for specific activities to which they objected, required members to object

on an issue-by-issue basis, and provided that challenges were to be judged by an

arbitration panel of one person chosen by the bar, one by the objecting member(s),

and a third person chosen by the first two. 56

In the 1993 case of Crosetto v. State Bar of Wisconsin, 57 the United States

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the compulsory dues aspect of

the Wisconsin integrated bar did not violate attorneys’ free speech rights when the

bar provided written notice to all members describing activities it determined were

chargeable and nonchargeable. 58 The Court approved the use of Hudson

procedures for those challenging the use of their mandatory fees. 59 It further

stated that members who demanded arbitration of a challenged fee did not have to

pay any dues until the arbitrator’s decision was rendered. 60

It appears that some twenty two bars have set up a refund mechanism in

accordance with the Keller decision. These are funds established to refund bar dues

to dissenters who challenge the allocation of dues for certain activities. Some state

53 Id. at 310.

54 See Keller, 496 U.S. at 17.
55 906 F.2d 624 (11th Cir. 1990).
56 See Id. at 629-32.
57 12 F.3d 1396 (7th Cir. 1993).
58 See Id. at 1405.
59 See Id.
60 See Id.

Page 14 of 15