March 1999 Volune 12 No3 - Utah State Bar

How this came about is as follows:
In 1990 the Bar was in serious financial trouble. Although Bar
dues had increased in smal increments to offset ination,
expenditures had increased even more and expenses related to
the new building made it impossible to meet our obligations. As
a result, the Bar Commssion petitioned the Supreme Court to
impose a far reacWng set of management reforms and a sub-
stantial dues increase. The Bar Commssion requested an
increase from $225 to $350 over the course of three years. The
Commssion also requested a change in the bilng cycle to put
the Bar on a fiscal year. The practical effect of this was that the
members were biled at the beginng of the calendar year and
again at the beginning of the fiscal year, providing a one-time
injection of money into the coffers. The Court went even beyond
the Commission's request and approved the entire dues
increase in one year, puttig Utah among the highest bar dues
states in the Union. We stil have about the 12th or 13th highest
bar dues in the Country, even though we haven't had a dues
increase since 1990.
Since 1990 we have had a budget surplus every year. The Com-
mission has been frugal in its operating budget and has
attempted to save money whenever possible. This year the Com-
mission wil consider further budget cuts. As a result of our
high dues and tight management, the unreserved cash account
has continued to grow. At the end ofJune 1996, it was over a
millon dollars. This was reduced to its present level, primarily
by special projects and grants, most notably the contribution for
upgrades in the Matheson Courthouse.
Every year, however, our expenditures have grown with infa-
tion. In particular the Offce of Professional Conduct has
unavoidably contiued to cost more. We are almost at the point
that we are spending what we bring in. By about 2001 or 2002,
depending on the infation rate, we wil begin to spend more
than we bring in and wil begin to eat into reserves. We wil
need a dues increase a year or two later. If we spend our
reserves on seed money for the Access to Justice Project, we
wi need a dues increase about a year earlier than if we save
the reserve to finance bar operations.
And that, my friends, is the issue. My own belief is that we have
an historic opportnity to do something realy innovative and
meanigfl in the area of legal services for the poor. This is the
most fundamental of al rights of citizensWp, because it is the
only way that other rights are protected and secured. It doesn't
help poor people to have food programs, literacy programs,
employment training programs or any other programs if they
cannot access them. We have a chance to do something very
good here.
I don't mean to suggest that lawyers alone should bear the
burden that Congress has abdicated. But, as lawyers, we do
have a special responsibilty in the area of legal servces that
others do not have. The fact that 1100 lawyers are wing to
perform these servces on a pro bono basis makes me proud to
be a lawyer. We should find a way to faciltate these lawyers'
wilgness to serve and make it bring results.
I do not believe that the Bar Commission should make this
appropriation without the solid support of the Bar members. I
hope the Bar members wil support this, but if they do not, the
money should not be spent. Period.
If you have opinions on this very important matter, please make
them known. They can be E-Maied to Info(Qutahbar.org, or
maied to the Bar offce at 645 South 200 East, Salt Lake City,
Utah 84111 to the attention ofTobinJ. Brown.
* ?o~ m- 10""
* "~g,'V~
Wl:~ n~ ~~ "
*
April 17, 1999 *
Salt Lake City Marriott
75 South West Temple
(J~~~~
Entertainment provided by
~ Salt Lake City, Utah 84108
tAM SOEl 941 (801) East 48-1500 3300 South
~ta~ ~ar
7