Subject is the title of the article below.
I’m not sure what to make of this. Big deal? No deal? Something in-between?
Apparently the courts have found that lawyers are not required to be members of their state bar association if their state bar engages in political activity. I’m not sure I got that 100% right so see article below.
I am curious if this a is big deal or a nothingburger.
NOTE: Not sure about the best place to post this mods feel free to move.
Sounds like the same reasoning the courts followed years ago with regard to union dues and political activity.
I am against any law that says, “to practice profession A you must pay money to organization B which advocates political positions you may disagree with.” so this is good in the abstract.
I am also fully aware sometimes such decisions have negative unintended consequences.
Interesting. In Canada, the law societies are for professional regulation, not partisan purposes. Membership is a condition of practising law. They regulate educational standards, professional discipline, insurance requirements, and so on.
If you want to join a lawyers group that lobbies governments on issues that are of interest to the profession, that’s what the Canadian Bar Association is for, as a voluntary org.
Despite watching every episode of Law & Order (du dun) many times, I still don’t know why the call it the bar.
Although I was surprised by the OP’s thread title. By what I’ve heard about Texas, I never thought there would be any need to require people to go to the bar.