But union reps for the State Bar’s two bargaining units — one for attorneys and the other for regular employees — did just that. And it still wasn’t good enough for the State Bar Board of Governors, even though both sides have been in a standoff, and without a labor agreement, since Dec. 31.
Earlier today, the board, meeting in San Francisco, unanimously rejected the union’s “bottom line” demand and sent State Bar management back to fight for more concessions. How many and what kind wasn’t made clear.
State Bar governor Laura Chick, who’s the controller of Los Angeles, expressed “great concern” about the economy and increases in “salary overhead.”
Governor James Aguirre, a lawyer with Los Angeles’ Richardson & Fair, added that the board is “very aware of the shifting landscape.”
Yeah, the economy’s in the dumper and the State Bar’s strapped financially. But even the agency’s negotiators, including Deputy Executive Director Robert Hawley, felt the union had offered a good deal.
“Management is satisfied,” Hawley wrote in a memo recommending accepting the compromise, "that the proposed amendments are consistent with the board’s direction to effect cost savings from the existing 2009 budget and going forward, while at the same time assuring that the board’s institutional goals for the State Bar can be achieved through the prudent management of State Bar resources and personnel.”
Union reps had agreed to lose Lincoln’s Birthday as a holiday, give up comp time for certain employees and take a 2.5 percent step increase rather than the 5 percent negotiated last summer when the economy wasn’t so grim. The reduced step increase would save the Bar $1.7 million.
“This is a significant concession,” Hawley told board members today, adding that negotiators brought them “the best deal we could get.”
Hawley called the vote disappointing. “Both the union and management teams worked hard in challenging times to satisfy our constituencies,” he said outside the meeting room.
Hawley admitted that the budget is “an obsession” with the State Bar right now, but said “it’s never good to be operating without a union contract.”
It’s also a bad time for a strike, as both sides wouldn’t look good. And so far no one’s talking about one.
There’s also no talk yet about laying off employees. But with belt tightening cutting off circulation and no increase in Bar dues in sight, the State Bar’s between a rock and a hard place.
Union reps couldn’t be reached late Friday. But Hawley said he’ll go back and try to work something out.
“We accept that this is not an outrageous proposal [by the union],” Hawley said. “It’s the times and the budget: They demand that something else be done.”
As does an obstinate State Bar Board of Governors.
— Mike McKee
One way the State Bar might operate more efficiently might be for the Office of Chief Trial Counsel to make it policy to attempt to settle discipline cases earlier. This would mean OCTC abandoning the current rigid approach to applying the disciplinary standards, and returning the historical practice of regarding them as guidelines. The current policy has led to trials being double and triple calendared in State Bar Court. State Bar Court Rules of Procedure allow for an early neutral evaluation conference before charges are filed. This process was put into place the last time the State Bar faced a major crisis, after the State Bar discipline system had been shut down by Gov. Wilson's veto of the dues bill. It was the idea of the special master appointed by the California Supreme Court to insure that the fee assessment they ordered was wisely spent. Then, as now, the State Bar faced a gigantic resource issue, albeit a different one: the huge backlog of unprocessed complaints that had built up during the shutdown. The Office of Chief Trial Counsel prioritized its cases and and ADR process, the early neutral evaluation process was instituted the resolve cases under court guidance quickly without sacrificing public protection. OCTC has departed from these practices in recent years in a misguided effort to "get tough" on discipline. The latest departure is the proposal currently out for public comment that would allow OCTC a unilateral veto in even scheduling an early neutral evaluation. A return to a reasonable interpretation of the Standards, a prioritization of cases early in the intake process, and a policy of encouraging settlement early in most disciplinary matters would conserve its resources and actually serve public protection by speeding up the discipline process.
David Cameron Carr
President, Association of Discipline Defense Counsel
www.disciplinedefensecounsel.org
Posted by: David Cameron Carr | March 07, 2009 at 09:12 AM
HERE IS AN IDEA. HOW ABOUT DOING AWAY WITH THE STATE BAR AS A MANDATORY DEFACTO UNION THAT POLICES ITSELF AND ITS MEMBERS. LETS LEAVE IT UP TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL COURTS TO DO THAT. SOME STATE AGENCY CAN ADMINISTER THE BAR EXAM TWICE A YEAR FOR LESS MONEY. BUT I GUESS THAT IS TO COMPLICATED. ITS GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE THE ECON IS NOT GETTING BETTER AND THE MEMBERSHIP WONT STAND FOR $1,000.00 BI YEARLY DUES EVEN IF OLD GEORGE ORDERS IT UNDER THE "INHERENT POWER OF THE SUPT CT TO REGULATE ATTORNEYS" DOGMA LIKE THE LAST TIME.
Posted by: THE CAT | March 09, 2009 at 03:26 PM