The State Bar Association of North Dakota Summer 2015 Gavel Magazine | Page 5

SBAND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
political views, or toward the advancement
of other ideological causes not germane to its
duties as collective bargaining representatives,
the Constitution did require that such
expenditures be financed from charges, dues,
or assessments paid by employees who did not
object to advancing those ideas and who were
not coerced into doing so against their will.

TONY J. WEILER
SBAND Executive Director
SBAND was sued in early 2015 over the
use of member dues. Since that time, we
have worked hard to resolve the lawsuit, and
provide policies that both comply with the
law and give our members notice of what
we do with your license fees (a portion of
which come to SBAND). To understand the
situation, some relevant caselaw in this area is
important.
In Keller v. State Bar of California, et al., 496
U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. 2228, 110 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990),
attorneys brought a civil action challenging
the use of mandatory member dues by
State Bar of California to finance certain
ideological and political activities. The State
Bar of California is a mandatory bar, like
North Dakota, and was created under state
law to regulate the State’s legal profession.
Its statutory mission was to “promote the
improvement of the administration of justice.”
The Bar used its membership dues for selfregulatory functions, such as formulating
rules of professional conduct and disciplining
members for misconduct. It also used dues to
lobby the legislature and other governmental
agencies, as well as engage in educational
programs.
The Supreme Court concluded the State
Bar of California was subject to the same
restrictions on the use of compulsory dues
as applied to labor unions, as discussed in
Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Education. In Abood,
the Supreme Court concluded that although
the Constitution did not prohibit a union
from spending funds for the expression of

SBAND is working toward a similar “optout” procedure for any activity that would
not fall under the guidelines of Keller.
SBAND believes that it can still carry out
its core mission while providing adequate
Constitutional safeguards.

With all the above in mind, however, it
is probably helpful to understand fully
In Keller, the Supreme Court noted the
where your license fee money goes. Under
compelled association and integrated bar are
N.D.C.C. section 27-11-22, our license fee
justified by the State’s interest in regulating
is “established by the state bar association at
the legal profession and improving the quality its annual meeting, by a majority vote of its
of legal services. The Bar could therefore
members in attendance at the meeting, not
constitutionally fund activities germane to
to exceed four hundred dollars.” Section
those goals out of the mandatory dues of all
27-12-04 provides that $75 of each license
members. It may not, however, fund activities fee must be received by SBAND “for
of an ideological nature which fall outside of
operation of the lawyer discipline system.”
those areas of activity. The Court noted there 80 percent of the remaining amount of the
was no bright line test for determining which annual license fee comes to SBAND “for
activities may be funded with compulsory
the purpose of administering and operating
dues, but gave examples of what was and was
the association,” and 20 percent goes to
not allowed. “Compulsory dues may not be
the Board of Law Examiners. Currently
expended to endorse or advance a gun control the annual license fee for a lawyer who has
or nuclear weapons freeze initiative; at the
practiced five years or more is $380. After
other end of the spectrum . . . compulsory dues deducting $75 for discipline, 80 percent of
[may be] spent for activities connected with
the balance is $244. Under state law and
disciplining members of the Bar or proposing by agreement with the Supreme Court,
ethical codes for the profession.”
SBAND is responsible for a bit less than half
the cost of running ѡ