Talk:Bar association

Topics

Hi, this needs to be quick as I'm late for class.

I removed text from the article page, which appears fictitious. Can anyone confirm this? -- Pakaran 19:02, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, testimony is from the Latin testimonium, which is a combination of testis (which means witness) and the suffix -monium. Lewis and Short's Latin dictionary (see http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/resolveform?lang=la ) says that testis can also mean testicle. No claim is made on whether these words are related or not, so I tend to disbelieve the claim that you removed. It's a nice story though. Jitse Niesen 13:45, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Oxford dictionary of English etymology (1966) says that testis in the meaning of testicle is derived from testis in the meaning of witness, the organ being evidence of virility. Jitse Niesen 15:27, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The comment in paragraph 2 about judges not being members of the bar needs to be qualified in some respect. In Georgia, U.S.A. for example, all judges of courts of record i.e. state court and superior court, are members of the Georgia bar and most of them maintain their membership in "active status" while sitting on the bench. 209.149.235.241 22:17, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a jurisdiction within the United States in which the Bar Association regulates anything? I am familiar with several state jurisdictions as well as the federal system, the only one I know of that any lawyer must belong to is the New Hampshire Bar Association (NHBA). Although the NHBA collects the Supreme Court's fee in addition membership dues, it does NOT regulate lawyers. Lawyers are, in my experience, regulated almost exclusively by the State Supreme Courts, or equivalent highest court of each state (because of the world in which we work, every court a lawyer appears before regulates his or her conduct to some degree during the period of a proceeding and can fine or even jail a lawyer for misconduct before the court). By the same token, I have not seen bar associations "operated" by the state government anywhere. Though the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, does require membership for New Hampshire lawyers.

More than one bar is an entity within the courts, e.g., Florida. Others have been expressly delegated that responsibility by the courts. Bars are each constructed a little differently under different authorizations/authorities. Ausmithesq (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally have found it far more common to refer to the bar without the term "association" when lawyers mean to describe admission to practice and disciplinary actions, whereas, except in New Hampshire, they generally refer to the bar association when describing a voluntary professional association. When that doesn't give enough precision, reference to the exact arm of the State Supreme Court that regulates lawyers, may be necessary, for example the "Board of Bar Examiners", or the "Board of Overseers of the Bar". These have nothing whatsoever to do with any bar association. DH 20050613 1932UTC

In response to several of the questions above: Yes, there is such a jurisdiction where the bar association does regulate lawyers directly. In California, there is actually a state constitutional provision on point. Section 9 of Article VI states: "The State Bar of California is a public corporation. Every person admitted and licensed to practice law in this State is and shall be a member of the State Bar except while holding office as a judge of a court of record." This text comes from a Web page of the State Bar that lists constitutional provisions relevant to the Bar [www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/ calbar_generic.jsp?cid=10156&id=1242].

Section 9 is further reinforced by various provisions of the State Bar Act in the Business and Professions Code. Section 6002 states that "The members of the State Bar are all persons admitted and licensed to practice law in this State except justices and judges of courts of record during their continuance in office." Article 3 (sections 6040-6054) creates local administrative committees to "receive and investigate complaints as to the conduct of members," and gives them extensive powers, including the powers to take evidence, administer oaths, and issue subpoenas. Section 6046 creates the examining committee which handles attorney admissions.

Article 6 lists the various disciplinary powers of the courts (and reaffirms the inherent power of the California Supreme Court to disbar or suspend attorneys), but then Section 6075, the first section of Article 5, states: "the provisions of this article provide a complete alternative and cumulative method of hearing and determining accusations against members of the State Bar." Section 6076 gives the State Bar the power to formulate rules of professional conduct (and as you may be aware, California is the only state that does not use either set of ABA model rules). Within Article 5, Section 6086.5 creates the State Bar Court (the only one in the United States), for the specific purpose of handling disciplinary proceedings against attorneys.

Finally, Section 6125 requires that all persons practicing law in California must be active members of the State Bar, and Section 6126 makes it a misdemeanor for nonmembers to practice law. If you're interested in perusing the State Bar Act directly, it's available on the State Bar Web site. [1]

I hope this helps. --Coolcaesar 22:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I just did a little more research. It turns out that voluntary bar associations are the minority (16 states), and most states have integrated or unified bars. But California has probably been the most aggressive in integrating the State Bar into its government structure by directly mentioning it in both the state Constitution and numerous laws. In contrast, Arizona "sunsetted" its State Bar Act in 1985, so that its State Bar operates only through the powers delegated to it through state supreme court rules. It appears that several other state bar associations operate that way.

Also, I suspect that it is quite reassuring to the public that the duties of California attorneys are enshrined in a statute, Section 6068 of the Business and Professions Code, as opposed to being formulated in some vague collection of rules that can be modified at the pleasure of the state supreme court. Not only do we not use the ABA rules, we have the strongest confidentiality provision in the United States, subsection (e) of Section 6068: "To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client." The only exception, allowing for disclosure to prevent death or great bodily harm, went into effect in July 2004. --Coolcaesar 22:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is hard to ignore what seems apparent bias against the integrated or mandatory bar. It is fine to cite to others' characterizations, e.g., mandatory membership being "a type of government-granted monopoly" is incorrect no matter who said it. If it is a monopoly from other people desiring to regulate the profession, it is no more monopoly than is the government, itself. If the suggestion is that there is not permitted to be other types of state bar associations, I'm not sure that that is correct, either. The desire to deregulate the bar and return "to the days of Lincoln" ignore the significant harms that an unregulated bar wrought, which does not appear as part of history. Ausmithesq (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

History of the term "bar"

There are two different origins of the term listed. Which one is right? Osprey39 22:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The only one listed at today's date is one I have never heard: "The name comes from the historic right of lawyers in London to pass the Temple Bar into Westminster without paying the usual toll." This seems so improbable to me that I have deleted it, pending some citation of authority.

I have always understood the bar in court kept the public away from the bench; silks are called within the bar, and barristers to the bar; and the Inns used the analogous system.Burnettrae 00:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I slid in some basic etymology on the use of bar to mean lawyers or whatever. It could survive citating to a strong authority however. rewinn 01:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Texas?

From the article: "See also State Bar of Texas." Why?

Mike Schiraldi 00:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the editor who added that was trying to show that Texas is another example of an integrated bar association. I agree it is probably a tangent, though; the State Bar of Texas is smaller than the State Bar of California. --Coolcaesar 04:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like the article to detail how BAR's acquired authority to interfere with the right of the People of the Preamble (and their Posterity) to function as Counsellors in law, or alternatively, how any lawful authority arose that allows private clubs (the BAR's) to have the authority to control ANY aspect of the system of law in the united states.

Furthermore, what is the foundation for the BAR's status as a religious 501(c)(3) organization?

It would also be nice to see more history on the BAR in the U.S. (first organized in Mississippi in 1825?)

And what about the "integrated bar" movement ("the condition precedent to the right to practice law") initiated in the US in 1914 by the American Jurisprudence Society?

This page should not be so sparse in information. It details NOTHING essential/informative about the BAR(s).

I think the reason why no one's done that yet is because we're all so busy fixing various other pigpens around Wikipedia. For example, I've been slowly finding and adding citations to Lawyer whenever I have the time. I agree that this article should be expanded to cover the history of the integrated bar movement, among other things, but I don't have the time to do it!--Coolcaesar 16:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow users: I'm the clown who inserted the reference to the State Bar of Texas (for the reason stated by Coolcaesar). Here in Texas, Pardner, we contend that WE have the largest state bar, since Texas [and that's pronounced "TEK-sizz"] is bigger than California geographically. Ooops, I forgot about Alaska, though. Darn it. Seriously, if the reference is deemed too tangential, be my guest and delete it.

I haven't checked on any of the voluntary (non-integrated) state bars, but with respect to Texas I suspect that the State Bar, as a governmental unit, is not a "501(c)(3) organization." (It seems like it wouldn't need to have a 501(c)(3) status or any other section 501 status, since its income as a unit of state government would presumably be non-taxable anyway, under 26 U.S.C. § 115. Also, for any organizations that are qualified under 501(c)(3), keep in mind that this provision covers a lot more than just "religious" organizations.

Regarding the anonymous user's questions, I can't address the rules in other states, but the State Bar of Texas has little if any authority to "control" any aspect of the system of law. The State Bar cannot, for example, disbar any of its members. There is a state bar grievance committee, but disbarment can be done only by a court in a formal legal proceeding. Even the rules governing conduct of members of the bar must be approved by the Texas Supreme Court. The State Bar is under the jurisdiction of the Texas Supreme Court. Even with respect to admission to the practice of law, that function is performed by the Texas Supreme Court itself, with the assistance of a separate agency called the State Board of Law Examiners. The State Bar certainly cannot enact statutes, etc., etc.

Under the English common law system -- whence U.S. law comes -- there is no "right of the People of the Preamble [sic] (and their Posterity) to function as Counsellors in law." The legal authority to regulate the practice of law has been an inherent power of the courts since before the founding of the United States of America. Nothing in the Constitution or the common law gives a power to the people in general to practice law without being subject to regulation by the judiciary. Today, some rules governing practice of law are promulgated by state legislatures by statute, and the courts also retain authority to govern the practice of law. In Texas, the Texas Legislature passed the statute that created the Texas Bar as an agency of the judiciary. So, if for whatever reason you want to blame someone in Texas, blame the elected officials who passed the law.

At any rate, even without an "integrated bar," I believe that the law in every state is that the judiciary has the authority to regulate the practice of law -- including the authority to say who can and cannot be an attorney at law.

I do think you could make a fair argument that the legal profession has always had a very great influence on the legal system in the United States. Alexis de Tocqueville pointed that out very well in Democracy in America. This arguably has both good and bad aspects.

I do argue that the State Bar of Texas is in no substantial sense a "private club." Any thoughts, anyone? Yours, Famspear 18:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As for what is the foundation for the BAR's status as a religious 501(c)(3) organization? ... that would be a question based on facts not in evidence. There are no state bars in the United States that are religious organizations. I suppose a private bar could be organized on a religious basis, e.g. Zoroastrian Bar Association, as a matter of free association. rewinn 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Issues

• Membership in such associations is synonymous with being admitted to the bar or being licensed to practice law in that state or being admitted to practice before the courts of that state. No, this needs to be re-written. See Admission to the bar in the United States. In addition, sometimes you can be a member of a mandatory bar but not allowed to practice: status = disbarred, suspended, retired, judical

I concur with you on this point but many of your other edits have serious issues. I am raising them directly on your talk page. --Coolcaesar 05:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many links?

Hey. Who put in the Toomanylinks template? the Section is named "External links" after all. Thanks, PEACE and PROSPeRITY to all.Riotrocket8676 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't me, and I'm not sure that "toomanylinks" is quite the right template ... but the list of Selected bar associations is not really appropriate: who selected them and on what basis? Much better would be a SINGLE link to List of Bar Associations. What say you? rewinn (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bar association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080819185257/http://barcouncilofindia.nic.in/disk1/196125.pdf to http://barcouncilofindia.nic.in/disk1/196125.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Fence contractor defaulted in civil court

Deposit of money involved 174.173.29.4 (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Bar association

Being prosecuted 2 times for the same indictment after a rule 29 AQQUITTAL....having a GPS illegally on without a active protection order.. Micheal O'Malley prosecutor and 2 police officers of the 5th district...this is retaliation and misconduct with illegal procedure...my name is lavelle Gaddis and need help thank you 2603:6010:FA0D:1140:39EA:AAEA:BBBD:7B0F (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)