|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A legislative committee is proposing sweeping reforms to the State Bar that critics say will politicize the disciplinary process and reduce transparency.
Last fall, the committee requested information about the political associations and contributions of all Bar employees. That followed legislative action to freeze millions of dollars in non-taxpayer funds that go to legal aid organizations across the state.
The Republican-led committee has created a stir more than once over the past two years, and its most recent meeting was no different.
There were pointed exchanges between lawyers on the State Bar Grievance Review Committee, and security had to be called to usher a former lawmaker out of the meeting room after he continued venting after being asked to stop.
The committee is scheduled to meet again on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
Most of the March 24 meeting focused on a proposal from Troy D. Shelton, an appellate attorney who represented Jefferson Griffin in his failed attempt to overturn his 2024 state Supreme Court election loss.
Shelton’s proposal would give elected officials—the heads of the state House and Senate, the governor, and Supreme Court chief justice—the power to appoint all members of the Bar’s Disciplinary Hearing Commission, which evaluates complaints against attorneys and decides sanctions. It would also eliminate the eight commission seats for members of the public who are not lawyers. It also calls for shielding some misconduct grievances and sanctions from public view.
Committee member Kevin Williams, president-elect of the State Bar, and David Branch, the governor’s representative on the committee, peppered Shelton with questions about whether he had any data or studies to support his argument for overhauling the grievance process. They also asked about his experience representing people in the process—which is about eight cases, Shelton said.
Woody White, co-chair of the legislative committee, objected to that line of questioning. “I’ve not heard really any questions other than the first two about the substance of his recommendations,” said White. “I’m going to rule that further questions that challenge and try to impeach him, embarrass him, are out of order and not germane.”
“There’s no question in my mind that Mr. Shelton is a fine attorney,” Williams responded. “I just am curious whether these sorts of statements are based on anything empirical or whether they’re just based on his own personal experience.”
Committee leaders have raised concerns about the public using the grievance review process “to weaponize things improperly” in an age of “cancel culture.” White and co-chair Larry Shaheen have contended that in this divided political climate, some lawyers have seen grievances used “to curb and influence rights that we’ve been given under the First Amendment.”
Shaheen said last week that he knew lawyers who thought the grievance process should be overhauled but they were afraid of speaking out for fear of retaliation.
Former state Rep. Edwin Hardy, a Republican from Beaufort County, said he had no such fear of speaking out about his own experience with the Bar more than a decade ago.
“I got very vocal online because Obama won,” Hardy said. “The day after the election, he got a phone call that upset him. “Guess what? … The Bar told me I had been randomly picked for an audit.”
Hardy continued speaking after his two minutes were up, despite being asked to relinquish the podium. Security then ushered him out of the room.
The committee adopted Shelton’s proposal with a few tweaks. Williams and Branch cast the only votes against the overhaul. Lawmakers will now consider the proposal.
State Bar Executive Director Peter Bolac told The Assembly in a statement that the agency’s role is “to protect the public and ensure that lawyers uphold the highest professional standards.”
“Any changes to its structure or authority should be made with careful consideration of that responsibility,” he continued. “We are concerned that the proposals adopted today do not advance this mission and were developed without broader input or a comprehensive understanding of the State Bar’s work.”