|
|||||
 |
THE CONFERENCE CALL |
||||
|
Bar Leaders
to Assemble in
Atlanta |
|||||
|
Atlanta, home of Coca-Cola,
CNN, and the Atlanta Braves and birthplace of “Gone with the Wind” author
Margaret Mitchell and civil rights icon Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. , will
host the NCBP 2004 Annual Meeting. Leaders of state, local and special
focus bars will meet at the Atlanta Marriott Marquis, August |
|
||||
|
|
NCBP Seeks Nominees for Secretary, Executive Council | ||
|
|
|
||
|
Paul T. Moxley |
2006 C. Joseph Holland, Iowa City, IA Monty A. McIntyre, San Diego, CA James P. Nolan, Annapolis, MD Howard A. Shalowitz, St. Louis, MO
Gloria J. Sturman, Las Vegas, NV
Seth D. Kirschenbaum
2003-2004 NCBP Communications Committee and The Conference Call Editorial Board Paul Michael Hassett, Chair, Buffalo NY
Kimberly Vann, Committee Liason, Chicago, IL
|
|
|
|
||
|
NCBF Update |
||||
|
|
opportunities for school children to develop a basic understanding of our
legal system and the roles and responsibilities we have as citizens; and
lead to countless pilot programs aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of
our justice system. |
|||
|
NABE NABE Update |
||||
|
Every day is
Tuesday. At least in my office at the Indiana State Bar Association it is.
Every Tuesday, we send each NABE member an electronic message highlighting
upcoming events, introducing new NABE members or providing some other bit
of information that makes the professionals of NABE better at what they
do. This communications effort is not always easy, but then communicating
never is. It is one way we have tried to keep our members involved in
their professional association. |
mentioned above are improving the professional
abilities of the already professional bar leaders in NABE.
|
|||
2004 NCBP MIDYEAR MEETING HIGHLIGHTS |
|||||||||||
|
Plenary - Bar and Bench: A Two-Way
Street? |
|||||||||||
|
In the Friday morning
plenary session, Wisconsin Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson compared the
relationship of the bench and bar to a street--it is designed to take the
public somewhere, but sometimes it is closed; sometimes it is smooth
sailing, other times it is full of potholes and bumpy. However, as with
the street, a good relationship between bench and bar is necessary, if we
are to get anywhere. |
county boards to supply the
technological and personnel resources that the courts at all levels need
to do their job, explained Abrahamson.
Recusal is also an issue that creates tension, according to the justice. Automatic rights of substitution creates problems judges do not like. She said that too many strikes by attorneys can send an interesting message. Some judges see it as a badge of honor while others are sent into depression by the practice. Even the justice admitted that when she assumed the Small Claims Bench in Milwaukee for a short time, she was bothered by those attorneys who without explanation used the right of substitution against her. |
As she explained, she resisted the temptation to
write down their names ( but as an
aside, she commented that she does remember who
they were!).
|
|||||||||
|
Three Bar Association
Programs that Specifically Benefit Solo and Small Firms |
|||||||||||
|
Almost two-thirds of U.S. lawyers in
private practice today are in firms of five or fewer attorneys. Meeting
the needs of those attorneys is important if bar associations are to stay
relevant to their members. During an NCBP workshop, at the midyear
meeting, a panel addressed three areas in which the bar can respond to the
needs of those attorneys. Joe Crosthwait, a member of the NCBP Executive
Council, moderated the discussion. The first panelist was Peter R. Jarvis from Portland, Oregon, president-elect of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers. He explained that there are some ethical and disciplinary issues that are somewhat unique to small firms because they do not have the management resources available at larger firms. He also made several suggestions on how to meet the needs of those small firms. According to Jarvis, the bar can identify the five most common disciplinary complaints and target them with Continuing Legal Education and bar newsletter topics addressed to those areas. Bar-endorsed insurance programs are often useful in developing such resources. Another method Jarvis suggested is that the disciplinary authorities should develop a process at a level lower than the disciplinary process to deal with "minor missteps." Prevention is always the best course, however "diversion" of lawyer-client problems before they become disciplinary complaints can be an invaluable service. Finally, Jarvis concluded his presentation by referring audience members to the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers' Web site, www.aprl.net a helpful tool that contains links to various ethics-related resources. The next panelist was Jim Calloway, director of the Management Assistance Program for the Oklahoma Bar Association. He emphasized bar assistance in Back to Top |
practice management and the technological
aspects of practice - something that the law schools typically do
not teach. In larger firms, the use of paralegals has displaced some
positions typically filled by associate attorneys. This has led more
lawyers recently out of law school to open their own practice because of
the tight job market. They do not have the administrators or mentors or IT
staff that insulates many larger firm lawyers from the management and
technology issues. Calloway operates a telephone hotline that allows lawyers to discuss management issues with him, even those who may be on the verge of violating ethical rules. Oklahoma has amended the rules so that Calloway is allowed to have privileged conversations with the attorneys and help them work through ethical issues without being obligated to report them. Approximately 15 state and local bars have similar programs. Most are administered by the bar, and at least one by the endorsed professional liability insurer. Many questions tend to center around the same issues, so responses are comparatively easy and effective. In addition to the phone line, the Management Assistance Program in Oklahoma has books and tapes available for lawyers to review, provides CLE at the county bar level, and even has an in-office consultation - on a fee basis. Calloway has two full-time staff. Obviously, this program costs money, but it is a service that keeps bar members loyal. The third panelist was Linda Oligschlaeger, director of membership services of The Missouri Bar. She emphasized the success that the bar has had in organizing its annual Solo and Small Firm Conference. It started out as a program for which the Missouri Bar hoped there would be 100 attendees, had room for 200, and ended up with 250. In 2003, the conference drew 650 people. Oligschlaeger discussed several key elements for a successful program. One vital component is the sponsors and exhibitors. They help both with the cost of the program as well as provide |
useful and interesting information to the
attendees.
It is important that the program and
conference be planned by solo and small firm lawyers who know what would
be interesting and valuable to their peers. This helps make the conference
an opportunity to network, in addition to providing a variety of quality
programming.
|
|||||||||
|
By Howard A. Shalowitz, NCBP
Communications Committee |
|||||||||||
|
In a joint workshop produced by the National
Conference of Bar Foundations at the NCBP Midyear Meeting, IRS Agent Dawn
L. Goldberg of Austin, TX, gave interesting information and sound advice
relating to tax-exempt organizations. Most of the discussion was geared
toward the 501(c)(3) bar foundations and 501(c)(6) bar associations.
Traditionally, a bar foundation (the charitable wing of the bar) is a
501(c)(3) organization under the IRS Code, and a bar association (the
organization of the bar) is a 501(c)(6) organization under the IRS Code.
Agent Goldberg examined the basic requirements for each, and how to avoid
a conflict of interest when serving on both boards. A 501(c)(3) is for charitable, religious, and/or educational purposes. It also prohibits investment and must distribute assets for the 501(c)(3) purpose when it is dissolved. Among the benefits of becoming a 501(c)(3), are exemptions from income tax and unemployment tax. Many 501(c)(3) organizations thrive on charitable contributions. It should be noted that although it is a good practice to give statements or receipts for the charitable contribution, the organization is not required to do so; unless, the donor requests it. The donor's check does not serve as proof of a donation - the organization's statement is the proof. On the expense side, the U.S. Postal Service gives reduced rates to 501(c)(3) organizations. Along with the benefits come some
prohibitions in order to be and remain a 501(c)(3) organization. |
These prohibited acts include political activities; and lobbying activities must be insubstantial. A 501(c)(6) is an association of persons
for a stated non-profit purpose. It must have a common business interest,
not inure to private individuals, have activities that are directed toward
improving the business, and not be organized to carry on a for-profit
business. The relationship between bar foundations and bar associations is
important in order not to jeopardize either status. Each entity must have
an independent board. Although there may be an overlap of individuals on
each board, those who serve on both must not vote on issues that affect
both organizations. Agent Goldberg advised that the person who sits on
both boards should leave the room when the vote is taken. It is axiomatic
that a member of the board cannot vote for his/her own salary. Agent Goldberg then fielded questions from bar and foundation officers and |
executives. The Department of the Treasury's
Internal Revenue Service publishes Publication 557 which is titled
"Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization." This publication lists exempt
organizations, a compliance guide for 501(c)(3)s, and a host of other
information relating to these tax exempt organizations. Other useful IRS
publications include Publication 3637, "Exempt Organizations," and
Publication 4221, "Compliance Guide for 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt
Organizations." If there is some gray area, you may ask the IRS for a
private letter to resolve the issue.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Workshop- Support of the Judiciary to
Sanction for Improper, Unethical or Unprofessional Conduct |
|||||||||||
|
In a sense, judges are referees. The
advocate's role in litigation is to present the client's case, within the
bounds of professional conduct, in the best possible light. What happens
when an advocate goes outside the rules into conduct which is improper,
unethical, or unprofessional? What is the judge's role in those
circumstances? This issue was discussed in a workshop at the NCBP Midyear Meeting in San Antonio. The panelists were Dee-Dee Samet of Tucson, Arizona, a member of the NCBP Executive Council; Dale Harris, past president of the Colorado Bar Association; the Honorable Lamar McCorkle of Houston, a district court judge in Harris County, Texas; Linda Shely of Phoenix, a member of the ABA Standing Committee on Client Protection; and Rick Lambert, past president of the Dallas Association of Young Lawyers. The Colorado State Bar was one of the first bars to develop a Professional Reform Initiative (PRI) program. The bar started with the premise that judges are obligated to report ethical violations to regulatory counsel. The bar’s study concluded that when dishonesty does occur in the courtroom, it undermines confidence in the judicial system. Even though judges themselves feel that they should report violations, the state bar's study found that most judges do not. There are several reasons why a judge does not report a violation. Judges have no resources to investigate if the violation is not clear. Some judges reported that they get no support from the Appellate Courts if they do try to Back to Top |
impose sanctions. Most efforts by judges are
met with a recusal motion, thus delaying the case, or generating a
premature or early appeal. Finally, a judge who hammers lawyers too hard,
or who becomes known for reporting lawyers to the Disciplinary Committee,
often creates enemies at election time.
The Colorado study determined that the State
Supreme Court should exercise its leadership by encouraging the lower
courts to report violations. In addition, lawyers should be required to
take refresher courses on professionalism as part of the CLE obligation.
Likewise, judges, at judicial conferences, should be schooled in the
methods of determining violations and how to report them to the
appropriate disciplinary committees. |
appropriate circumstances under whichsuch response should be made. A copy of the policy is available on the Resources page at www.ncbp.org.
According to disciplinary counsel, another
problem for judges who report violations is that the judge becomes the
complainant when a violation is filed. One way around that problem is to
permit bar counsel to become the complainant when there is a report from
the bench. Another technique is to treat a report from the bench as a "per
se" violation of the rule, which helps take the judge out of the process.
|
|||||||||
|
-
Reaction to the Criticism of Judges By Paul Michael Hassett, NCBP Communications Committee |
|||||||||||
|
A panel of bar association officers and a
justice of the Texas Supreme Court, all of whom have experience with
criticism of the judiciary, explored some highly publicized examples
during the midyear meeting in San Antonio. The panel was moderated by
James P. Nolan of Annapolis, Maryland, a member of the NCBP Executive
Council. Nolan first introduced William M. Clark, current president of the Alabama State Bar, who described the actions taken by his association in upholding public confidence in the judiciary during the nationally publicized problem involving Chief Justice Roy Moore and his insistence upon installing a monument to the Ten Commandments in the state courthouse. After a federal court order to remove the monument, an order affirmed by the 10th Circuit, Judge Moore refused to comply, in defiance of the rule of law. The Alabama Bar affirmed the responsibility of the judiciary to follow an order of a court having jurisdiction of the matter and criticized Judge Moore for his failure to do so. As was widely reported at the time of hearing, Judge Moore was ultimately removed by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. Jeannine L. McCoy, executive director of the New Hampshire Bar Association, reported on her bar's Back to Top |
response to the legislative impeachment of the
chief judge of New Hampshire as a result of a conflict over recusal
policies and politically unpopular decisions. Ms. McCoy noted that the
position taken by the bar had to be the position of the membership, not
that of individual leaders. The bar could not be seen as pursuing personal animosities and it was necessary to insulate the leadership in a position endorsed by the majority of the membership. Although reforms were instituted after the impeachment process, the bar was seen by the press as friendly to the court. In response, the legislature passed a bill requiring a referendum on the mandatory status of the New Hampshire Bar Association which was ultimately signed by the governor and is now in litigation. Stephen E. Chappelear, immediate past president of the Ohio State Bar Association, reported on his association's committee that was formed to respond to criticism of the judiciary. The election of 2000 featured "attack ads" by a special interest non-candidate group unfairly impugning a candidate in a retention election. In 2002, the OSBA established a committee on judicial campaign advertising that solicited commitments from candidates to condemn unfair ads. The program was not entirely successful and the bar publicized the |
results of its campaign and
gained immediate support for its criticism of unfair ads by special
interest groups.
|
|||||||||
|
Workshop - Bar Polls: Do They Work |
|||||||||||
|
At the NCBP midyear meeting in San Antonio,
NCBP Executive Council member Michael H. Rubin moderated a discussion on
judicial polls. The panelists included Dr. Cynthia Spanhel of the Nester
Group; Leo Hamilton, immediate past president, Baton Rouge Bar
Association; and Susan W. Sowards, executive director, Nashville Bar
Association. Each speaker dealt with a different aspect of judicial polls. Dr. Spanhel discussed what to put on a judicial poll, the questions to be used, and the phrasing of each question. Her first suggestion was to use simple vocabulary with direct closed-ended questions that require no explanation or examples. The reason for this is simple: open-ended questions tend to be difficult to analyze and record; and when an example is used, people tend to use the example as the only way of answering a question. Some other caveats included not reiterating what was already asked, not using vague or ambiguous words, and not using "double-barreled" or compound questions with one answer allowed. An example of the latter is to ask if the judge is "hardworking and/or thoughtful." The same judge may be hardworking but not thoughtful or vice versa. Dr. Spanhel stated that the order of the questions and the layout of the poll should be logical with all of the questions applicable to all judges and all respondents. Next, who should answer the poll? Those who did not appear before the judge within a certain time frame, e.g., 2 years/4 years, should not answer the poll. Total anonymity is suggested as "coding" a poll will decrease the number of responses and dissuade Back to Top |
those who do return the polls from giving
forthright answers. Before sending out the poll, it is a good idea to
"pre-test" the poll with a small group that will give opinions about the
questions and the poll. In order to prevent a party from submitting
multiple answers, make the questionnaires difficult to duplicate. The
response rate to a mailed judicial poll is between 20 and 25 percent. |
Ms. Sowards discussed how to
compile and distribute the results. Her results were based on an on-line
survey used when there was a vacancy in a judicial position. Ms. Sowards
discussed security issues regarding anonymity and preventing respondents
from completing multiple surveys. An on-line survey saves time as well
as the cost of printing, accounting firms, and postage. The first
on-line survey costs were $66.00 for the Nashville Bar Association. It
ran $19.95 per month which included up to 1000 responses, and 5 cents
for every response over the first 1000. Quarterly and annual rates are
also available. Reminders may be sent out at no extra cost and the
survey compilers will eliminate duplicates from the same e-mail address.
Attorneys and judges alike were in favor of this on-line survey. The
response rate also increased dramatically. For more information, go to
www.surveymonkey.com
|
|||||||||
|
Metropolitan Bar Caucus Beer and Bull Plenary Session |
|||||||||||
|
Departing from the usual plenary format, the
Metropolitan Bar Caucus Friday plenary in San Antonio featured an
afternoon of multiple roundtable discussions that gave attendees the
opportunity to share and learn about a variety of topics, while enjoying
refreshments in a casual setting. One table focused on bench-bar conferences. The Kansas City and St. Louis bars shared how they organize well-attended two-to-three day conferences replete with CLE and social opportunities for lawyers and judges to mingle. Other groups discussed how bar officers can develop a rapport with local media; issues facing bars over judicial polls, including whether only voluntary bar members should be permitted to vote; and how the bar Back to Top |
can help with judicial funding and
independence issues |
Another table addressed
membership initiatives. These included various methods of publishing and
distributing the legal directory, new lawyer receptions, and "100 Clubs,"
where firms are recognized when they have 100% membership in the local
bar. |
|||||||||
|
Workshop - Maximizing Bench and Bar Outreach through
Law-Related Education |
|||||||||||
|
During the Friday breakout session on
law-related education projects, moderator and NCBP Executive Council
Member Mary Torres explained, "Students like these programs because they
relate to issues that are of interest to them. The side benefit is that
they learn to appreciate the importance of the legal system and gain a
significant understanding of it." Debra Moore, of the Utah State Bar, described the bar's implementation of "Dialogue on Freedom," an educational program created by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in cooperation with the ABA, as a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Moore said that "Dialogue" serves more than one purpose--it not only educates, but it also builds valuable relationships. In Utah, the program started with law firms submitting articles for publication in local and national newspapers in order to spread the message and later garnered participation by the judiciary and state legislature. Videotapes were produced and presented on local public radio and TV. This year, Utah will expand the “Dialogue” concept in a program that will focus on the Brown vs. the Board of Education decision. Tom Godbold, of the Houston Bar Association, explained how the bar used the “Dialogue” program to supplement its existing law-related education programs and to strengthen its relationship with the federal judiciary. Back to Top |
Michelle Behnke, president-elect of the State
Bar of Wisconsin, announced her yearlong initiative examining the impact
of Brown vs. Board of Education. The activity started as a discussion
topic for an upcoming state bar meeting andeventually became a more
extensive project with the state Supreme Court expanding the discussion
beyond a single program at the annual meeting. The Brown dialogue is now
an ongoing effort under the auspices of the state Supreme Court, developed
and managed by the state bar. The state’s Access to Justice Coalition is
also actively involved. The next Brown dialogue will look at the issue of equal access to education beyond diversity to disability and other education barriers. Behnke said that a teacher training program administered by the State Bar of Wisconsin and the state Supreme Court will include the Dialogue program in its curriculum. Specialty bar association members have also agreed to participate. Behnke believes their involvement will strengthen the relationship between the state bar and the specialty bar associations. In her final remarks, Behnke closed by saying that she successfully recruited the University of Wisconsin and the ABA to take part in the project and she encouraged other leaders to look to this model of involvement. Kelly Frels' interest in school desegregation cases was cultivated through his involvement as an attorney in the Houston desegregation cases of the 1970's. Decades later, as president-elect of the State Bar of Texas (SBOT), his interest in such cases remains unabated. |
The SBOT will commemorate
the famous case with a reenactment of the argument before the Supreme
Court. The event will provide a framework for discussion of the issues to
which today's students may be oblivious. Historical materials will be
available as well as interactive programs.
|
|||||||||
|
Workshop - The
Increasing Federalization of Lawyer Regulation By C. Joseph Holland, NCBP Communications Committee |
|||||||||||
| The Saturday
morning plenary session in San Antonio was devoted to consideration of
increasing federalization of lawyer regulation. George A. Reimer, Deputy
Director/General Counsel of the Oregon State Bar, moderated a panel
composed of Robert D. Welden, Bar Counsel, Washington State Bar
Association and Chair, ABA Standing Committee on Client Protection; the
Honorable Gerald W. VandeWalle, Chief Justice of the North Dakota Supreme
Court; Myles V. Lynk, Professor, Arizona State University College of Law
and Past President of the District of Columbia Bar; and Laurel S. Terry,
Professor, Dickinson School of Law, Pennsylvania State University, and
Vice Chair, Transnational Legal Practice Committee, ABA Section of
International Law. Robert Welden discussed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the potential interaction between the provisions of the act and state ethical rules. Sarbanes-Oxley imposes obligations upon lawyers representing publicly held companies. The first obligation is to report "up the ladder" conduct or activity which the lawyer reasonably believes is contrary to law. This means initially reporting such activity to senior management. That sort of internal communication does not present significant ethical problems, although it is an intrusion by the Securities Exchange Commission into the attorney-client relationship and into lawyer regulation. The second provision of Sarbanes-Oxley, which is still subject to comment, is the "noisy withdraw" provision. If the lawyer has reported misconduct up the ladder and no remedial action is taken, the lawyer is obligated to make a noisy Back to Top |
withdrawal, in
effect, making public the fact that something improper is taking
place in the company. In Washington, an ethics opinion was issued that, in effect, stated that the ethical rules prohibit noisy withdrawal as a violation of the confidences and privilege of the client. The SEC responded with an opinion that the state disciplinary authorities cannot prevent or discipline a lawyer for acting in conformance with what the SEC allows, let alone what the SEC requires. While a direct confrontation over this has not yet occurred, this illustrates the tension between state regulation and federal regulation of lawyer conduct. Chief Justice VandeWalle indicated that the increasing federalization of regulation is very much on the mind of the Conference of Chief Justices. He suggested that perhaps the best path the states had available was to adopt the ABA Model Rules, providing a more or less uniform system of lawyer regulation throughout the country. The states could make modifications as deemed necessary. However, if the states would self-direct a more or less uniform system of regulation, there might be less temptation for federal agencies to try and impose a uniform national regulation. Professor Lynk discussed admission of lawyers to the federal bars throughout the country. Surprisingly, there are no uniform rules for admission to the bars within the various federal districts. Many require admission to the bar of the state within which the federal district sits. Others have more restrictive or more liberal admission rules. An historical justification for the admission to the bar of the state within which the federal court sits, rather than an independent federal process, is that the federal |
courts have no
testing or licensing mechanism and no disciplinary mechanisms, but have
relied upon the state systems. Also, there is a desire for counsel to be
familiar with local law in cases identify the trade representative
designee in their state and to determine how the representative addresses
issues of foreign practice within their state. Moving beyond the
traditional regulation by the courts in each state, Professor Terry's
remarks encompassed both the national and international scope of the
potential for lawyer regulation. The speakers' bottom line was that national regulation of lawyers was likely to be an ongoing issue. The proposed rules on multijurisdictional practice reflect the increasing practice of law across state boundary lines. If the state and federal courts are to retain their historic roles of lawyer licensing, regulation, and discipline, they need to be active in formulating a consistent means of dealing with those issues in the face of increasing inclination on the part of federal agencies to step into certain areas.
|
|||||||||
| Diversity Fellowships Available for Annual and Midyear Meetings | |||||||||||
In support of its commitment to diversity, the NCBP will provide registration fee waivers to the president or president-elect of minority bar associations for attendance at the upcoming annual meeting in Atlanta and the midyear meeting in Salt Lake City. Travel and lodging expenses are not covered by the fellowships. While the fee waivers are available to leaders from minority bars nationwide, bar leaders in the Atlanta and Salt Lake City areas are particularly encouraged to apply since they will not have to incur travel and lodging expenses to attend the meetings. For several meetings, the Minnesota State Bar Association has covered the travel expenses for leaders of Minnesota minority bars in cooperation with NCBP’s fellowship program. Other state and metropolitan bars are encouraged to consider this idea. If you are interested or know of a bar leader who may be interested in a fellowship to attend an upcoming NCBP meeting, please contact Beverley Ware via e-mail: bware@staff.abanet.org |
|||||||||||
|
Saturday Plenary By Steven R. Sorenson, NCBP Communications Committee |
|||||||||||
| NCBP President
Paul Moxley began the Saturday morning program with a presentation on the
ABA Governance Committee activities to date, highlighting the committee's
work that affects the NCBP, NABE and NCBF. Issues included examination of
the ABA leadership nominating process, the composition of the House of
Delegates, rules on running for office, salaries of officers, section
involvement and other related items. Moxley requested input on these
topics from NCBP members and also assured everyone that he would keep them
informed as the committee work continues. Following Moxley's report was a discussion about the then upcoming ABA Day in Washington, cosponsored by NCBP, May 5-6. ABA Day Chair Karen Mathis invited all state and local bar leaders to attend the annual event and encouraged those with contacts with legislators to fill out |
the contact forms
that would assist the ABA staff when issues concerning the legal community
are presented to Congress. The ABA Coalition for Justice program was presented next. Judge Cara Lee Neville, chair of the coalition, explained that the program resulted from a survey indicating a decline in public respect for the administration of justice. Currently, forums are being held around the country to identify the causes of and solutions for this problem. Interested parties from state and local bars may contact the coalition for information and help in setting up a forum. Following the governance portion of the session, ABA President Dennis Archer also addressed the group, thanking NCBP for its effort in furthering the mission of preserving the rule of law. He also thanked all bar associations that had invited him to speak this past year. Archer explained the significance of the ABA House of Delegates as an important policy-setting body, |
referring to the
House's action on asbestos reform which prodded Congress to take action
and then recited other instances of the House's influence. President Archer also re-emphasized the need for bar leaders to participate in ABA Day as well as in the 50th Anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, asserting that "The nation needs the state and local bar associations to pair up with their courts to strengthen the message. This is an important issue; by the time we get to 2056, the majority of Americans will be people of color. " Archer continued, "We need to educate our society. In a global society, there needs to be a better understanding. Unless we understand the essence of diversity and [give it] the respect it deserves, we will be failing in our goal of maintaining the rule of law." Archer ended his address by challenging the group to join in and participate in all facets of the ABA. |
|||||||||
| Photos from the NCBP 2004 Annual Meeting | |||||||||||
 From left to right: MBC President Seth D. Kirschenbaum, MBC President-elect Carl D. Smallwood, and Kelly Frels, then president-elect, State Bar of Texas, at the MBC Welcome Happy Hour. |
From left to right: Robert
Craghead, Paul Hassett, John Williamson, Brenda Castello and Nigel Roberts
at the NCBP/NABE/NCBF Joint Reception. |
NCBP President-elect Doug
Lang and his wife, Martha, sample some Tex-Mex cuisine at the
NCBP/NABE/NCBF Joint Reception. |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Preview of 2004 NCBP Midyear Meeting in Atlanta
|
|||||||||||
|
Thursday,
August 5 9:00 am - 12:30 pm NCBP Committee Meetings 9:00 am - 10:00 am Finance/Sponsorship Committee Task Force on Diversity 10:00 am - 11:00 am Membership Committee 10:00 am - 11:30 am Communications Committee 10:00 am-12:00 pm Program Committee 1:30 - 4:30 pm NCBP Executive Council Meeting
1:45 - 2:45 pm
7:30 - 10:00pm MBC Executive
Committee Dinner 10:10 am - 11:10 am Joint
Workshops with NABE & NABF |
2:00 pm - 3:15 pm Plenary Session for State Bars 2:00 pm - 4:00 pm MBC Programming 2:00 pm - 4:00p pm Professional Reform Initiatives/ Consortium of Professionalism Commissions Joint Meeting 3:30 pm - 5:00 pm NCBP Forum
for Bar Leaders of Color 8:30 pm - 12:00 am A Little Night Music - A Sing-Along for Musical and Non-Musical Bar Leaders
Saturday, August 7 11:15 am - 11:30 am NCBP Business Meeting 11:30 am NCBP Meeting Adjourns
* This is a tentative schedule. |
|
|
|
For Back Issues See
|
Home | History |
Officers & Members | Meetings
| Programs | Resources
| Committees | |
Afternoon
highlights include the NCBP /NABE/ NCBF Joint Luncheon, where recipients
of the NABE Bolton Award for Professional Excellence, the NCBF Award for
Foundation Excellence in Public Service Programming, the ABA Partnership
Awards, the 
When
I was president of the Utah State Bar in the mid 1990s, I met many
wonderful people from throughout the country, especially after joining
NCBP. After completing my term in office, being involved with the
organization gave me another opportunity for leadership. I joined the NCBP
Executive Council in 1996. Four years later, I was nominated secretary and
was elected president in 2003. 
Adding
value is a critical goal of the National Conference of Bar Foundations.
Beyond adding value to our members, NCBF has a unique opportunity to add
value to the organizations with which we interact within the ABA family.
