AUSTIN – Lone Star attorneys who object to how the Texas Bar spends the mandatory dues it collects are left “on the hook to fund ideological activities” they do not support, according to an opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit yesterday.
In addition to being required to join the Bar, Texas attorneys are forced to pay mandatory dues. And while those dues might be a drop in the bucket for some attorneys, the argument has been made that the amount collected doesn’t detract from the fact that the attorneys have little to no say on how the Bar spends mandatory dues – a violation of First Amendment rights.
In March 2019, a trio of Texas attorneys sued Bar’s Board of Directors, arguing that they shouldn’t be forced to fund the Bar in order to work in their chosen profession, especially when considering that the Bar goes beyond its regulatory function by engaging in “extensive political and ideological activities,” such as diversity initiatives and legislative programs.
A federal judge granted the Board summary judgment and the case ended up before the Fifth Circuit.
“In sum, the Bar is engaged in non-germane activities, so compelling the plaintiffs to join it violates their First Amendment rights,” the opinion states.
Justices also found the Bar leaves objecting attorneys with “precious few worthwhile options” to express disapproval.
“Though attorneys may register their complaints with committees and sections or lodge an objection at the Bar’s annual hearing on its proposed budget, those processes give cold comfort: Any objector’s opposition can be summarily overruled, leaving that lawyer on the hook to fund ideological activities that he or she does not support,” the opinion states.
The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment ruling and rendered partial summary judgment in favor of the attorneys, remanding the case for the district court to determine the full scope of relief to which the plaintiffs’ are entitled.
Rich Robins, editor of TexasBarSunset.com, says the ruling is a breakthrough.
“The Fifth Circuit opened the door for the creation of a hopefully much less corrupt attorney discipline system than Texas has had for decades, if not its entire 80 plus year history,” Robins said.
The challenge was brought by Texas attorneys Tony McDonald, Joshua Hammer and Mark Pulliam, who sued alleging First Amendment rights violations under Janus v. AFSCME – a 2018 Supreme Court decision that found that millions of public servants no longer have to pay a government union as a condition of employment.
Case No. 20-50448