Tired of attending State Bar annual meetings in the same old cities? Ya know, Anaheim, Long Beach, Monterey and San Diego?
Well, some members of the State Bar were so venue-weary that they recently suggested taking the big event out of state — say to Seattle or Las Vegas — or even out of the country to Vancouver, British Columbia.
But that trial balloon got popped almost as soon as it was floated.
Reacting to overwhelming opposition, the State Bar Board of Governors' Committee on Stakeholder Relations killed the idea late last week.
It seems that most attorneys felt the State Bar of California ought to be loyal to the state of California.
"Most Californians would be disturbed to see their attorneys taking their convention business out of state, especially in the midst of an economic downturn," James Donato, president of the Bar Association of San Francisco, said in a letter to the State Bar. "BASF believes that the State Bar should support — and should be seen to support — our state's economy, rather than taking our business outside of California."
Those sentiments were echoed by the bar associations of Beverly Hills, Sacramento, San Diego and Los Angeles, among others.
The State Bar employees who schedule annual meetings discovered long ago that only Anaheim, Long Beach, Monterey and San Diego offer workable facilities (in terms of size) and cost to host the State Bar's annual meeting. Convention centers in Los Angeles and San Francisco — Moscone Center, for example — are too large, while hotels in those two cities don’t have enough on-site space, or cost too much.
“We don’t sell enough hotel rooms to get a good deal,” said State Bar Governor Carmen Ramirez, chairwoman of the stakeholder relations committee.
Lawyers around the state suggested that for variety’s sake the State Bar look into holding the annual meeting in places such as Sacramento, Oakland and Palm Springs. They also noted that moving the event to another state or country could make it too expensive for many lawyers, especially solo practitioners.
“An out-of-state location will inevitably increase travel, lodging and food costs,” Roberta Burnette, chairwoman of the State Bar’s Solo and Small Firm Section, wrote in a letter.
Even so, there were some who liked the idea, and suggested out-of-state sites such as Tucson, Ariz., and Portland, Ore. One lawyer even proposed “some resort sites on the Mexican coast.”
For the foreseeable future, though, it looks like it will be the same-old same-old.
But that didn’t keep San Francisco attorney Patrick Fabian — who has been attending annual meetings for 30 years and favored staying in state — from expressing his thoughts about one of those venues.
“Anaheim is a depressing hell hole,” he said in a letter, “and a rip-off at half the price.”
— Mike McKee
Comments