State Bar Comments

Remember last year when the State Bar of California asked for comments about a proposed rule requiring lawyers to get fingerprinted and just about everyone commenting thought it was a bad idea? The rule then got approved.

This is not a terrible injustice or anything, but I bring this up because that same bar association is again asking for comments about more rule changes so, I guess, it will have something else to ignore.

Again, I’m not saying this is horrible. It does, however, offer a fantastic opportunity for creativity and entertainment. After all, the bar people aren’t paying attention to comments anyway so you might as well have some fun with them.

So, for the amusement of all of us, I’m recommending submitting comments to the bar that we can all enjoy. After all, the comments are for entertainment purposes only. No one will take them seriously.

Naturally, I have some examples for you.

On “Proposed Changes to Stat Bar Rules to Revise the Role of the Committee of Bar Examiners for the Purpose of Improving Governance and Service Delivery:”

Great idea – changing the name of the State Bar to Stat Bar will conserve the use of the letter e and provide clients with a sense of urgency when it comes to handling their cases. As in, I need a lawyer, stat! Or get me a casebook, stat!

This proposal is the work of the Deep State. Making the anonymous “staff” do all the work is a “staff” power play. Who is this mysterious staff? Have they had contacts with foreign powers? I say fire all of the staff so the Committee of Bar Examiners can do its work.

I strongly object to the proposal to change the title of “senior executive” to “director of admissions.” This is another example of bias against the elderly.

Why is the term “appeal” being replaced with “review?” Is it to make challenges less appealing?

On “Proposed New State Bar Rules: Conflict of Interest Policy for State Bar Subentities.”

Isn’t it a conflict of interest for the State Bar (or Stat Bar) to propose rules for itself? Only nonlawyers should be allowed to make rules.

What the heck is a subentity? Is it under water in a sub?

There must be representation for the interested and conflicted on The Council on Access and Fairness. It’s only fair.

How the heck can you tell when subentity members have a “personal nonfinancial interest that would prevent them from applying disinterested skill and undivided loyalty to the State Bar in the decision-making process?” What would this interest be? Anarchy? Deep Stateness? Maybe someone with a crush on a competing committee chair?

Don’t we all have a financial interest in everything the State Bar does? Only lawyers who make no money should be allowed to serve on subentities.

On “Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 14-004 (Witness Perjury)”

I agree – lawyers should not present testimony known to be false. Therefore, it is essential that attorneys refrain from verifying witness statements.

On “Proposed Amendment to Standards. 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.13, 2.15 and 2.21 of the Standards for Professional Misconduct.”

The proposal to change the use of the term “member” to “lawyer” or “licensee” is preposterous. We’re not lawyers of the State Bar, we’re members of the State Bar. This is common sense. 

%d bloggers like this: