I'm so mad ... I think I'll start a coalition!

And I’m not joking this time! I just learned that a bill recently passed the California Assembly that would raise bar fees for inactive attorneys (people like me) 150%. Perhaps the reason I’m so annoyed is that this news comes at really bad timing in my life. In any event, I’m not happy about it.

Although I didn’t have time to oppose this (evil) legislation in the Assembly, I’m planning on at least writing a letter and, most likely, testifying to oppose it when it comes before the Senate Business and Professions Committee. (The analysis from the Assembly shows that there was NO opposition in that house. And, by George, they’re at least going to have to reckon with me if they want to raise my fees.)

Rather than lobby against this bill as an individual, I know the strategic-wisdom of inventing a group first and then pursuing my lobbying efforts. It’ll make me sound more credible and they (the legislators, the media, and the world) will take me more seriously … I’m hoping.

My newly founded organization is probably going to be named the Coalition to Protect Economically-Challenged Stay-At-Home Moms Who Happen to Be Inactive Attorneys. I know it’s a long title – but it’s hard to think of a good title or acronym that’s shorter and still says everything I need it to say.

Question: Are there any inactive California attorneys out there who want to be members of my coalition? This will allow me the satisfaction of knowing that it’s not just a one-man effort.

I haven’t had much time yet to organize all my thoughts, but here’s what I’m thinking I’d like to say to those committee members if I get the chance:
_____________________

Like a lot of other attorneys, one of the reasons I went into law is because I’m not good at math. But the way I figure it, if AB 1529 passes the California state legislature, inactive members of the state bar, like me, will have to pay an increase of 150% in their annual bar dues.

This year, I paid roughly $50 as an inactive member of the state bar. By January 2007, I – and others like me – will have to pay roughly $125.

Why do I care about a measly $75? Because, frankly, it’s $75. And in a state like California where the cost of living is already astronomical, it’s getting tougher and tougher to make ends meet.

I decided to go on inactive status with the state bar this year for economical reasons alone. (Well, I also didn’t want to have to keep up with all the continuing legal education – but I won’t tell them that.) Rather than paying $400 to remain active, since I wasn’t practicing law and my husband and I are on a budget, I decided that $50 was a lot more affordable and practical. I am expecting my first child in July and I hope to stay home with my child. That means, as far as finances are concerned, that I’ll be unemployed.

When I speak to oppose AB 1529, I’m speaking for all of the other stay-at-home attorney-moms out there who are not making any money – either in the practice of law or otherwise. Adding to our financial burden by raising our bar dues is simply WRONG.

Think about it … Just because we had the drive and the smarts to finish law school and pass the bar exam means we’re stuck forever with paying compulsory bar dues. We can walk away from the practice of law but there’s no way for us to walk away from these professional fees.

And what are the services the state bar association offers to us non-practicing attorneys? Basically, two services.

1) They send me a statement every year telling me I owe them fifty bucks.

2) They send me a Bar Journal newspaper every month that I, frankly, never read.

I find it hard to believe that it takes even fifty dollars to pay a clerk to generate a fee statement and send me a monthly newsletter!

AB 1529 would increase dues for inactive attorneys for things like “new client security funds” (when, please note, we don’t even have clients) and costs of the “attorney discipline system” (when, please note, we aren’t even practicing law)!

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that there are three very crucial reasons why bar dues for inactive members should not be raised:

1) Those of us who are not currently employed – perhaps because we’re staying home to raise our kids – oftentimes cannot afford these fees. (Just because we’re “inactive attorneys” doesn’t mean we’re working in the banking industry making big bucks – and it certainly doesn’t mean our spouses are necessarily white-collared workers making big money either.)

2) It’s unfair to punish an inactive member of the state bar, who just might be a stay-at-home mom struggling to make ends meet, simply because she had the ambition and drive to take and pass the bar exam.

3) Lastly, the services rendered to inactive members of the state bar don’t demand $125 worth of dues to be extracted from struggling stay-at-home moms, in single-income families, every year.

It’s unfair, unjust, and wrong to exact from non-practicing attorneys bar dues that are 150% higher than currently charged.
_________________

Okay, I just re-read what I wrote and realize it will need to be toned down A LOT before I testify. But, like I said, I'm NOT happy.