A Guide To Professionalism Commissions
January 2001
This publication was supported by a grant from the Program on Law & Society of the Open Society Institute.
Nothing contained in this publication is to be considered as the rendering of legal advice for specific cases, and readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own counsel. This publication is intended for educational and informational purposes only.
@2001 by the American Bar Association. All
rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
American Bar Association
Standing Committee on Professionalism
(2000-2001)
Angela M. Bennett, Chair
Kansas City, Missouri
John T. Berry
Lansing, Michigan
Robert P. Cummins
Chicago, Illinois
Alan G. Greer
Miami, Florida
Allan J. Joseph
San Francisco, California
Henry A. Kelly
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Susan M. Wolfson
New Haven, Connecticut
Board of Governors Liaison
John J. Bouma
Phoenix, Arizona
Reporter
Bruce A. Green
New York, New York
ABA Center for Professional Responsibility
Jeanne P. Gray
Director
Arthur H. Garwin
Professionalism Counsel
Carole L. Mostow
Assistant Professionalism Counsel
Section I: Background: The Derivation of the Professionalism Commissions
Section II: Programs and Activities
Section III: Structure and Organization of the Professionalism Entities
Section V: Advice to New Commissions
Appendix: Contact List and Documents Regarding Creation of Commissions
In 1997 the American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility, working closely with the Conference of Chief Justices, designed a successful two-day conference for state supreme court chief justices and their invited guests. This conference, entitled "Regulatory Authority Over the Legal Profession and the Judiciary: The Responsibility of State Supreme Courts", was held in Rancho Bernardo, California. Programming provided the chief justices and their representatives with a unique opportunity to discuss recommendations and initiatives relating to the exercise of the courts' regulatory authority over members of the bar and the justices' supervisory authority over the judiciary.
That unique forum and the conference materials distributed to the chief justices and other participants provided a substantive basis for the formulation of the Conference of Chief Justices' January 1999 report entitled A National Action Plan on Lawyer Conduct and Professionalism. The Action Plan and the report of the proceedings of the Rancho Bernardo conference were published and disseminated as a single volume in March 1999 to the chief justices, lawyer disciplinary agencies and state bar associations throughout the United States.
Since Rancho Bernardo, discussions have been ongoing about the importance of continuing the valuable dialogue started at that program, evaluating efforts to implement the Action Plan, and assisting the chief justices in maintaining their leadership role in the regulation of the legal profession. One of the recommendations of the Action Plan was for the courts to take a leadership role in establishing professionalism commissions. Now, as more and more states look to create these commissions, the experience of those states that have led the way is invaluable. The Open Society Institute, a part of the Soros Foundations Network, agreed to provide necessary financial support for the preparation of this guide to aid the efforts to create new commissions and for a follow-up conference to be held in March 2001. The ABA Standing Committee on Professionalism provided the lead in developing this guide, with assistance from representatives of the existing professionalism commissions.
The Center owes a debt of gratitude to Angela Bennett, Chair of the Standing Committee on Professionalism and Allan Joseph, chair of the committee's working group on this project. In addition, thanks are due to the commissions that responded to the committee's survey, and in particular to Beryl P. Crowley (The Texas Center for Legal Ethics and Professionalism), Louis Craco (New York State Judicial Institute on Professionalism in the Law), Charles Hollenbeck (New Jersey Commission on Professionalism in the Law), Roy Sobelson (State Bar of Georgia Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism), and Melvin F. Wright, Jr. (North Carolina Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism) for their participation at the working group meeting on behalf of their state's professionalism commissions. Roy Stuckey (University of South Carolina School of Law Center on Professionalism) also participated in that meeting. Carole Mostow, Assistant Professionalism Counsel, served as the staff coordinator and, following her departure, Arthur Garwin, Professionalism Counsel, helped complete the project. Jeanne P. Gray, Director of the Center, Charlotte (Becky) Stretch, Special Counsel, and Ellyn Rosen, Associate Regulation Counsel, all were involved in conceptualizing the project and working with the Open Society Institute, as was Dean Burnele V. Powell, Chair of the Center's Coordinating Council. Professor Bruce Green, Fordham Law School, with the aid of student assistant Cathy Horta, served as reporter for the project.
In 1996, the Conference of Chief Justices decided to study and take action directed at promoting lawyer professionalism. The study that followed culminated in the development of "A National Action Plan on Lawyer Conduct and Professionalism," and its adoption by the Conference of Chief Justices on January 21, 1999. The National Action Plan included a series of recommendations, one of which was the establishment of a "Commission on Professionalism or other agency under the direct authority of the appellate court of highest jurisdiction."
This publication describes the professionalism commissions now in operation in Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Texas1 and is designed principally to assist judges and lawyers in states that do not yet have a professionalism commission as they contemplate the possibility of establishing one. This guide is directed specifically at the state chief justices, who are in the best position to promote, help establish and make a positive contribution to the success of such a commission through their endorsement and active involvement.
Part I of this guide offers a short discussion of how the various professionalism commissions originated and describes their objectives. Part II concentrates on the varied activities and programs that these commissions have undertaken to promote lawyer professionalism. Part III describes the commissions' structure and organization. Part IV discusses how the commissions have been funded. Part V summarizes suggestions that representatives of the existing commissions have offered to those interested in following in their footsteps. Finally, the Appendix to this guide includes the contact information for the existing commissions and, to the extent relevant, the court orders establishing or the bylaws regulating those commissions.
I. Background: The Derivation of the Professionalism Commissions
Among the considerations that have shaped the organization and mission of professionalism commissions are: the nature of law practice in the state and the extent to which law practice varies between rural and urban areas or between other geographical sections of the state; whether the state has an integrated bar or a voluntary bar; the nature of the activities and resources already in place to promote lawyer professionalism; and the nature of the relationship, and extent of cooperation, among the bar, the judiciary, and the legal academic community.
Some of the professionalism commissions were initiated directly from the state supreme court, while others were initiated on the recommendation of court or bar appointed committees or task forces. Their missions generally include promoting lawyer professionalism and some have specific additional goals such as promoting scholarship regarding professionalism and ethics and promoting public understanding of the legal profession.
II. Programs and Activities
The professionalism commissions sponsor and host a variety of programs and activities that are the cornerstone of their efforts. These activities have included: continuing legal education programs; convocations; town hall meetings; law school programs; professionalism awards; mentoring programs; conciliation programs; publications and websites; studies; activities to promote community service; and proposals for law reform.
A. Continuing Legal Education
Several of the commissions take responsibility for designing and sponsoring continuing legal education ("CLE") courses that focus on various aspects of lawyer professionalism, such as discrimination, one's role as a lawyer and communicating with clients. A number of the states have professionalism CLE requirements, either for all lawyers or for newly admitted lawyers. Some professionalism commissions have designed educational programs specifically for particular segments of the legal community, for example large law firms or judges.
B. Convocations
Periodic convocations bring together representatives from the practicing bar, the judiciary, and the law schools to discuss issues of ethics and professionalism, such as the social responsibilities of lawyers in the practice of law and the roles that law schools and legal employers play in shaping the professional values of new lawyers.
C. Town Hall Meetings
Town hall meetings bring together lawyers, judges, law professors and deans, and members of the public to discuss matters of professionalism. Examples include Georgia's "Attorney Concerns about Ethics and Professionalism" and "Professionalism in Client Relations." Those meetings have led to the development of three new programs: the Law School Orientations on Professionalism, the Law Practice Management Program and the Consumer Assistance Program.
D. Law School Programs
Several professionalism centers assist in developing programs designed to contribute to the law schools' efforts to integrate elements of professionalism into orientation programs, the curriculum or extra-curricular programs such as law student essay contests or a professionalism retreat for graduating law students where the students would spend as much as a day and a half with professors and experienced lawyers to discuss professionalism and ethics.
E. Professionalism Awards
Several commissions sponsor annual professionalism awards that are given to lawyers who best exemplify the standards of professionalism articulated by the commissions.
F. Mentoring Programs
Mentoring programs help to smooth the transition from law school to legal practice, and allow new lawyers and law students to learn about different practice areas as well as to have a reference for questions they may face in their work.
G. Conciliation Programs
Commissions have developed programs to enable lawyers, both individually and collectively, to overcome the differences between and among them, such as the Multnomah Committee's conciliation program and the New Jersey Commission's Professionalism Counseling Program.
H. Publications and Websites
Professionalism commissions have developed a variety of publications and other writings that have addressed areas such as the independence of lawyers in their relationships with clients; conflicts of duty that lawyers face in various situations; the lawyer's responsibility to communicate effectively with clients; the lawyer's responsibilities as an officer of the court; the lawyer's responsibility to protect the image of the profession; and the responsibilities of lawyers to the public. Most of the commissions have websites, which may include electronic publications, professionalism CLE information and links to other legal sites.
I. Studies
Another possible function of professionalism commissions is to engage in continued study of the professionalism issues facing lawyers, and how those issues and concerns change over time. A number of the commissions have undertaken historical projects that document the varying views of professionalism among members of their respective state bars. The New York Institute has appointed a working group on "core values," which seeks to formulate an authentic premise for American professionalism in the twenty-first century. The Institute also has undertaken a project to examine barriers faced by lawyers seeking to enter the profession, lawyers seeking mobility within the profession, and clients seeking affordable legal assistance and a project that will assess the current disciplinary system, suggest possible alternatives to it, and recommend how the image of lawyers can be improved through education or publicity.
J. Promoting Community Service
An important function that professionalism commissions might serve is to promote public service and pro bono work among lawyers. In Georgia, a Community Service Task Force was created under the auspices of the Professionalism Commission, and it has sponsored convocations, service awards, the publication of a newsletter, and Habitat for Humanity projects, to name a few of its activities.
K. Proposals for Reform
A professionalism commission may be the source of ideas for reforming the law, legal practice, or judicial processes, in ways that will enhance lawyer professionalism. The North Carolina Commission developed a proposal that led to the enactment of an innovative state statute that allows all trial lawyers to take up to three weeks of vacation each year.
III. Structure and Organization of the Professionalism Entities
The professionalism commissions have chosen different structures and organizations to meet their needs. A common link among all, however, is that they strive to include members of the bar, the judiciary, the law schools and the public among their leadership and membership.
IV. Funding
The commissions have found that the most effective route is to obtain funding from several sources at once. For the commissions that are considered part of bar associations, the funding generally comes from state bar funds, and these commissions are subject to the same budgetary procedures as other components of the bar. For the professionalism commissions that are part of the court system, the judicial budget generally provides funding. However, judicial funding is not always adequate to run all of the programs of these entities. Commissions have also derived income from CLE programs; sales of books or videotapes; contracts with law firms, corporations, and bar-related groups to which they provide assistance with ethics programs; and grants from public foundations.
V. Advice to New Commissions
First, a new entity must have the cooperation and support of both the bench and the bar. Also, the bench, bar, and the law schools must all be involved with and participate in its work.
Second, it is extremely important to secure adequate funding. Sources include bar funds, revenues from CLE courses, and private donations and grants.
Third, it is important for a professionalism commission to define its goals, which may include developing quality professionalism CLE programs or initiating studies.
Fourth, staff and directors of the commissions play essential roles. The most successful entities have full-time employees. It is helpful to involve influential and well-known members of the legal community in the commission's work, in particular the Chief Justice of the state.
Fifth, publicity is important. Several commissions have newsletters or submit articles to legal journals and newspapers. A website is another route to reaching the target audience.
Sixth, the quality and originality of programming is of utmost importance.
___________________
Endnotes (Executive Summary)
1. New commissions were created in New Mexico and South Carolina in 2000.
A GUIDE TO PROFESSIONALISM COMMISSIONS
Since their founding, the American Bar Association and other bar associations across the country have regarded it as central to their mission to promote the highest ideals of professionalism. Other institutions of the legal profession, especially the courts and the law schools, have joined in this endeavor.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, renewed attention was given to the state of professional practice among American lawyers.1 The Conference of Chief Justices responded in 1996 by resolving to embark on study and action directed at promoting lawyer professionalism.2 Its resolution recognized that "there is the perception and frequently the reality that some members of the bar do not consistently adhere to principles of professionalism and thereby sometimes impede the effective administration of justice." The study that followed culminated in the development of "A National Action Plan on Lawyer Conduct and Professionalism," and its adoption on January 21, 1999.
The Conference's action plan included a series of recommendations directed at state courts, bar associations, law schools, individual lawyers and others. It called upon the highest state appellate courts, in particular, to "take a leadership role in evaluating the contemporary needs of the legal community with respect to lawyer professionalism and coordinating the activities of the bench, the bar, and the law schools in meeting those needs." Further, it identified four specific efforts that the state judiciaries should undertake. The first was the establishment of "a Commission on Professionalism or other agency under the direct authority of the appellate court of highest jurisdiction."
At the time the Conference endorsed state professionalism commissions, only a handful existed. Thus, there were only a limited number of models to which courts and bar associations of other states might look for guidance. Even at that time, however, there was no singular conception of a state professionalism commission. As described in a briefing paper prepared for the Conference, the existing entities generally shared the objective of "ensur[ing] the promotion of professionalism among legal professionals" but differed in emphasis. For example,
Florida offers efforts that spread to law schools, local bar associations and the judiciary. The Georgia Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism recognizes that lawyers exist to solve problems on behalf of their clients while acting within public interests, that lawyers can use their talents and leadership to help better society, and that social conscience and devotion to the public interest are integral units to lawyer professionalism. The New Jersey Commission emphasizes the spirit of professionalism; and the Ohio Commission serves in a supervisory role in working with judicial organizations, bar associations, law schools and other entities in emphasizing and enhancing professionalism.
In the past few years, the number of state professionalism entities has grown. Professionalism commissions, which go by a variety of names, now operate in ten states - Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, and Texas - as follows:3
- Florida Bar's Center for Professionalism and the Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism (established 1996)
- Georgia's Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism (established 1989)
- New Jersey Commission on Professionalism in the Law (established 1995)
- Commission on Professionalism of the State Bar of New Mexico (established 2000)
- New York Judicial Institute on Professionalism in the Law (established 1999)
- North Carolina's Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism (established 1998)
- State Bar of Ohio: Ohio Commission on Professionalism (established 1992)
- Oregon Supreme Court/Oregon State Bar Joint Commission on Professionalism (established 1994) and Multnomah Bar Association Professionalism Committee (established 1987)4
- South Carolina's Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism (established 2000)
- The Texas Center for Legal Ethics and Professionalism (established 1989)
These entities differ in a variety of ways, including not only in how they define their mission and the nature of the activities that they undertake, but also in how they are organized, operated, and funded. Thus, judges and lawyers seeking to establish a new professionalism entity in the future have an array of experiences on which to draw.
This publication describes the professionalism commissions now in operation. Developed under the auspices of the ABA Standing Committee on Professionalism and prepared in anticipation of the March 2001 conference of the Conference of Chief Justices on implementation of A National Action Plan on Lawyer Conduct and Professionalism, this guide is designed principally to assist judges and lawyers in states that do not yet have a professionalism commission as they contemplate the possibility of establishing one. It draws on the generous contributions of all eight existing professionalism entities, each of which responded to surveys and provided useful materials, and most of which were represented at a meeting organized by the Standing Committee in October, 2000 at which information was exchanged and experiences shared.
As this guide describes, a state commission may select from a rich array of activities to promote professionalism among its state's lawyers. Those activities may, and probably should, differ from state to state depending on a variety of considerations, including the extent of the entity's resources, the nature of activities undertaken by other institutions within the state to promote professionalism, and the particularities of law practice and legal institutions within the state. Likewise, there is no single, best approach to how a professionalism entity should be operated and organized. The models described here should stimulate thinking about what will work best in one's own state. They might inspire further innovation. At the same time, the work of the eight existing entities should serve to confirm the Conference's conclusion four years ago that, however constituted, a state professionalism commission can make an important contribution to the combined efforts of the bench, the bar, and the law schools to promote professionalism among the jurisdiction's lawyers.
Although designed for judges and lawyers generally, this guide is also directed specifically at the state chief justices, not only because of the importance of their collective support for the establishment of state professionalism centers nationwide, but also because of their individual ability to promote the future development and success of professionalism centers in their own states. A state professionalism center may be established in many ways, as this guide describes. But, there is no question that a state chief justice is generally in a better position than anyone to ensure that a professionalism center is initiated in his or her state. Further, once established, a state professionalism center is most likely to thrive and to make the most positive possible contribution if it has the endorsement and active involvement of the state chief justice.
By way of background, Part I of this guide offers a short discussion of how the various professionalism commissions originated and describes their objectives. Part II concentrates on the varied activities and programs that these commissions have undertaken to promote lawyer professionalism. Part III describes the commissions' structure and organization. Part IV discusses how the commissions have been funded. Part V summarizes suggestions that representatives of the existing commissions have offered to those interested in following in their footsteps. Finally, the Appendix to this guide includes the contact information for the existing commissions and, to the extent relevant, the court orders establishing or the bylaws regulating those commissions.
I. Background: The Derivation of the Professionalism Commissions
Although the existing professionalism commissions came about in various ways and their missions are defined somewhat differently, generally speaking they were established in response to two insights. The first is that, as the bar has become larger, more spread out geographically, more diverse, and more highly specialized, traditional informal mechanisms have become inadequate in and of themselves to educate lawyers about professional expectations and to encourage lawyers to strive to achieve the highest professional ideals. It has therefore become increasingly important for the legal profession, collectively and more formally than in the past, to promote professional values widely among practitioners and future practitioners. The second insight is that, although existing entities in each state - in particular, state and local bar associations, law schools and the courts - currently make important contributions to promoting lawyer professionalism, this important objective can be further and materially advanced by a new entity - namely, a professionalism commission - which undertakes the task of promoting lawyer professionalism as its principal mission.
The founders of the existing commissions typically undertook serious study before reaching these conclusions, organizing and establishing a commission, and defining its mission. Considerable groundwork was necessary for a variety of reasons. Thought needed to be given to the questions of how to successfully establish and finance a professionalism commission and how to bring together existing institutions and individual practitioners to support it. Thought also needed to be given to the structure of the commission and to the question of what activities it would undertake. Among the considerations that have shaped the organization and mission of professionalism commissions are: the nature of law practice in the state and the extent to which law practice varies between rural and urban areas or between other geographical sections of the state; whether the state has an integrated bar (as in Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Oregon, and Texas) or a voluntary bar (as in New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina); the nature of the activities and resources already in place to promote lawyer professionalism; and the nature of the relationship, and extent of cooperation, among the bar, the judiciary, and the legal academic community.
Florida. In Florida, the state bar association established a task force in 1989 to study the apparent decline in professionalism among lawyers in the state. The task force's work led to the creation of The Florida Bar's Standing Committee on Professionalism. The success of the Committee's work was, in turn, the impetus for the creation of a permanent organization to oversee daily operations of the committee. Thereafter, The Florida Bar's Center on Professionalism and the Supreme Court of Florida's Commission on Professionalism were established to work together to promote professionalism throughout the state. The collaborators began with a "vision," a "mission," and a prescribed "path." The vision was "[t]o realize a just legal system and a legal profession warranting the trust of society;" the mission was "[t]o promote the fundamental ideals and values of the justice system and the legal profession, and to instill those ideals in all those persons serving and seeking to serve in the system;" and the path toward that objective was "[t]o identify the problems that have frustrated the achievement of the ideals of the system of justice and the legal profession; to suggest solutions; and to develop methods to improve our professional behavior through leadership, education and allocation of resources."
Georgia. In Georgia, the Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism was established by the Supreme Court, whose judges had previously written extensively on the subject of professionalism. The court order, dated February 1, 1989, described the impetus for its creation as the "recognition of the need for emphasis upon and encouragement of professionalism in the law practice." In part because of concerns about frequent changes in state bar leadership, the Commission was created separately from the bar and is, essentially, an agency of the Supreme Court. Its mission is "to support and encourage lawyers to exercise the highest levels of professional integrity in their relationships with their clients, other lawyers, the courts, and the public and to fulfill their obligations to improve the law and the legal system and to ensure access to that system." Toward this end, the Commission calls lawyers to three tasks: to recognize that lawyers exist "to act as problem solvers performing their service on behalf of the client while adhering at all times to the public interest," [t]o utilize their special training and natural talents in positions of leadership for societal betterment," and "[t]o adhere to the proposition that a social conscience and devotion to the public interest stand as essential elements of lawyer professionalism."
New Jersey. In New Jersey, the State Bar Association was the driving force behind the Commission. It initially appointed a Professionalism Committee that studied lawyer professionalism during 1992 and 1993. The Committee recommended that a commission be established as a joint undertaking of the New Jersey State Bar Association, the judiciary, and the state's three law schools. The State Bar and the deans of the law schools issued a joint letter to the Supreme Court asking for its support, and in 1995, the Supreme Court agreed to the creation of the New Jersey Commission on Professionalism in the Law. Its goal is to promote and encourage professionalism within New Jersey's legal community through education and other efforts. The objectives of the New Jersey Commission are reflected in the Principles of Professionalism for Lawyers and Judges that it developed. The Principles, which focus on the goals of professionalism and civility, address lawyers' relations with clients, other counsel, and the courts. The preamble recognizes that:
Adherence to standards of professional responsibility, along with a broad respect for the law, is a hallmark of an enlightened and effective system of justice. The conduct of lawyers and judges should be characterized at all times by professional integrity and personal courtesy in the fullest sense of those terms. Both are indispensable ingredients in the practice of law, and in the orderly administration of justice by our courts.
While acknowledging that the Principles "are aspirational in nature and are designed to assist and encourage judges and lawyers to meet their professional obligations," the preamble "encourage[s] all judges and lawyers to make a commitment to these Principles, and to conduct themselves in a manner that preserves the dignity and honor of the judiciary and the legal profession."
New York. The New York State Judicial Institute on Professionalism in the Law was established by an administrative court order of the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) in March, 1999. This was the product of four years of study and planning, beginning in 1995, when the Chief Judge appointed the Committee on the Profession to examine the issue of professionalism in New York. The Committee issued a host of recommendations among which was the establishment of a professionalism institute in New York State. To propose how to implement various recommendations, including this one, the Chief Justice then appointed a Task Force on Attorney Professionalism and Conduct. Its subcommittee intensively studied the question of what role a professionalism institute could best serve and how it could best be organized and funded. Among other things, the subcommittee polled state and local bar association presidents and law school deans and gathered material from the then-existing professionalism commissions of other states. Its ultimate recommendations were adopted by the Chief Judge, who appointed the new Institute's members.
The administrative order creating the New York Institute lists the following five purposes: "to promote the awareness of and adherence to professional values and ethical behavior by lawyers in the State of New York; to encourage and support the organized bar, law schools, and other institutions of the legal profession in efforts to undertake effective programs, individually and in concert, for the promotion of such awareness; to promote scholarship regarding, and practical attention to, emerging issues in the practice of law that may present issues of professionalism or legal ethics; to promote public understanding of matters relating to the role of law, and to professionalism, ethics and discipline in the legal profession; [and] to facilitate cooperation among practitioners, bar associations, law schools, courts, civic and lay organizations and others in addressing matters of professionalism, ethics and public understanding in the legal profession." To date, the institute has concentrated on studying how the changes in the legal profession - e.g., the increase in the number of lawyers, lawyer diversity, and international practice - have affected the level of attorney professionalism. As the Institute Chair, Louis Craco, has explained, "If you wait for crisis and then put together some blue ribbon commission, you are both too late and insufficient . . . The notion was that since these changes are not going away and these pressures are not going away and the need for legitimate understanding of what professionalism means and implies is not going away, there ought to be an institute . . . that is not going away."5
North Carolina. In North Carolina, the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court and the officers of the North Carolina State Bar were the driving forces behind the Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism, which was founded in 1998. The Commission was created after study of the organization and programs of already-established professionalism entities around the country. Its mission is embodied in its lawyer's professionalism creed:
To my clients, I offer competence, faithfulness, diligence, and good judgment. I will strive to represent you, as I would want to be represented and to be worthy of your trust.
To the opposing parties and their counsel, I offer fairness, integrity, and civility. I will seek reconciliation and, if we fail, I will strive to make our dispute a dignified one.
To the courts, and other tribunals, and to those who assist them, I offer respect, truthfulness, and courtesy. I will strive to do honor to the search for justice.
To the profession, I offer assistance. I will strive to keep our profession a high calling in the spirit of pro bono and public service.
To the public and our systems of justice, I offer service. I will strive to improve the law and our legal system, to make the law and our legal system available to all, and to seek the common good through the representation of my clients.6
Ohio. In 1989, the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court created a Committee to Study Creeds of Professionalism, which met throughout 1989 and 1990. Among other things, the Committee recommended the formation of a permanent Commission that would serve an oversight function and that would make recommendations to the Supreme Court about lawyer professionalism. In 1992, the Supreme Court adopted Rule XV for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, which created the Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism. The Commission was directed to address the Court's concern that lawyers were increasingly overemphasizing commercialism in the practice of law and giving insufficient importance to the tradition of law as a learned profession to be conducted with dignity, integrity and honor and as a high calling dedicated to the service of clients and the public good. This trend, the Court believed, was reflected in lawyers' emphasis on financial rewards, a diminishing of courtesy and civility among lawyers in their dealings with each other, a reduction in respect for the judiciary and the system of justice and a lessening of regard for others and commitment to the public good.
Oregon. The Oregon Supreme Court/Oregon State Bar Joint Commission on Professionalism was established in 1994 by order of the Oregon Supreme Court. The purpose of the Commission is "to promote among lawyers and judges principles of professionalism, including civility and commitment to the elimination of discrimination within the judicial system to ensure that it equitably, effectively, and efficiently serves the people of Oregon." The Commission's efforts focus on education through CLE panel discussions, articles in the Oregon State Bar Bulletin, and outreach to law schools. The Commission is currently exploring development of a video series designed to help lawyers and clients work together in litigation.
The Oregon Commission has had limited activity. The Professionalism Committee of the Multnomah Bar Association, which serves the metropolitan region of Portland, has been the leader in promoting professionalism initiatives throughout the state of Oregon. Although not a statewide Commission as such, it provides an excellent example of what a large bar within a state can accomplish. The original driving force behind the creation of the Committee in 1987 was the then-president of the Multnomah Bar Association. The Committee's objectives are reflected in the bar's Professionalism statement: "Professionalism goes beyond observance of the legal profession's ethical rules and serves the best interests of clients and the public in general; it fosters respect and trust among lawyers and between lawyers and the public, promotes the efficient resolution of disputes, and makes the practice of law more enjoyable and satisfying."
Texas. In Texas, the Texas Bar Foundation conducted a survey in 1988/1989 that indicated that its fellows desired the leadership of the Bar Foundation to be more proactive in creating programs, especially programs about professionalism. The Texas Center for Legal Ethics and Professionalism was established in response. Three former Chief Justices of the Texas Supreme Court were the incorporators and the founding group became the original Board of Trustees, who wrote bylaws and created an advisory council. The Texas Center is nonpartisan and independent of the bar. Its mission is to enhance professionalism, ethics and civility among lawyers by using all available resources to focus the attention of lawyers, law students, the judiciary, and the public on excellence in the profession and the adherence by the profession to high ethical standards.
The existing professionalism commissions sponsor and host a variety of programs and activities that are the cornerstone of their efforts to promote lawyer professionalism. As discussed below, these activities have included: continuing legal education programs; convocations; town hall meetings; law school programs; professionalism awards; mentoring programs; conciliation programs; publications and websites; studies; activities to promote community service; and proposals for law reform. No commission undertakes all these activities. In general, the nature and extent of a commission's activities has depended on the resources available to it and the needs of the legal community, including the nature and extent of existing activities undertaken by other state and local institutions. Further, the activities of a professionalism center may depend on its philosophy. A center may elect to take a "micro" or "nuts-and-bolts" approach, emphasizing discrete projects to enhance professionalism within particular segments of the bar; it may take a "macro" or "big-picture" approach, examining the forces that influence professional conduct in light of changes in the profession and within society in general and exploring how to promote professionalism against the background of professional and societal developments; or, it may eschew any particular philosophy but elect to promote professionalism from a variety of angles.
Several of the commissions take responsibility for designing and sponsoring continuing legal education ("CLE") courses that focus on aspects of lawyer professionalism. Particularly notable in this regard are the professionalism commissions of Texas, Georgia and Florida. They have demonstrated that, by developing high quality CLE programs, a professionalism commission can play an important role in expanding and elevating formal discussions of professionalism, ethics and civility.
In Texas, the cornerstone of its Center's CLE efforts is a four-hour professionalism course and an accompanying publication, A Guide to the Basics of Law Practice, aimed at teaching new lawyers aspects of practice that they did not learn in law school. The state Supreme Court requires new lawyers to take this course within one year of being licensed. The course is offered up to 14 times a year. The practicing lawyers who teach the course provide practical tips for law practice and warn against some of the common mistakes that new lawyers make. Topics include:
- You Are a Lawyer: Now What?
- Your Role as an Attorney
- Your Role as an Advocate
- Law Office Management
- Attorney-Client Relationships
- Career Builders
- You Too Can Be Sued
- How to Lose Your License
- Career Killers
- You Do Have Friends Out There
The book that accompanies the course was written by professional responsibility professors from different law schools throughout the state. It includes appendices with sample forms that lawyers use in their practice, as well as the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. In addition, attendees receive a book titled, Opening and Managing a Law Practice.
The Georgia Commission has also enjoyed great success with its remarkable range of CLE programs. Georgia has a one-hour CLE requirement in professionalism for all active members of the state bar, which is separate from an ethics requirement. Georgia was the first state to require mandatory professionalism CLE courses for all lawyers, not just newly admitted lawyers, on the theory that professionalism is a lifetime learning experience. Materials produced by the Georgia Commission are used throughout the country.
By way of example, a two-hour program developed by the Georgia Commission is built around a 31-minute videotape titled, The Case of the Silent Alarm: A Study in Professionalism, which has been distributed nationwide. The videotape concerns the burglary of a small construction office and the resulting civil suit for damages, in which the small company and its small law firm are arrayed against a large corporation and its large law firm. The videotape incorporates different scenarios that test the boundary between zealous representation and unprofessional behavior.
Other widely-distributed CLE materials produced by the Georgia Commission include:
- Perspectives on Lawyer Professionalism
- The Challenges of In-House Counsel at Homewares Corporations, USA
- Rita's Case: The Lawyer as Problem-Solver
- Ethics and Professionalism in the Pretrial Stages of Criminal Prosecution and Defense: The Case of the Blue Lagoon Nightclub
- Clarence Darrow: Crimes, Causes and the Courtroom
In addition, the Georgia Commission reviews CLE programs on the subject of professionalism and gives advice to their sponsors throughout the state. It encourages sponsors to use interactive and simulation-based methods and to tailor their programs to answer the question, "How will you handle this situation when it occurs in your practice?" Among the CLE programs it has approved are:
- Angst and the Billable Hour
- Professional Considerations in Jury Trials
- Ethics & Professionalism in Trial & Transactional Practice
- Managing Your Law Practice
- Professionalism and Ethics in the '90s
- Communicating with Your Client: A Professionalism Discussion
- Resolving Litigation's Civil Wars
- Handling of Gender, Racial, Ethnic and Status Fairness Issues
- A New Era of Professionalism
- Professionalism Issues for Prosecutors
In Florida, the state Supreme Court requires five CLE hours in the area of legal ethics, professionalism, or approved substance abuse programs. The state bar's Center on Professionalism offers guidelines about the CLE requirement, including a distinction between ethics and professionalism: "The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar are the floor that supports our status as a lawyer in good standing. Whereas professionalism is the ceiling or higher standard that all lawyers should aspire to."
One important professionalism issue being explored by the Florida Bar Center for Professionalism is the impact of the diversification of the legal community, including in particular, the need to prevent discrimination. Along with the Supreme Court Commission's Diversity Subcommittee, the Center has recently developed a course entitled "Successful Lawyering in a Diverse Society," for which participants will earn five CLE credits. The course is designed to help participants develop a greater awareness of "diversity" as it relates to the legal profession and better understand their own perception of "inclusion" and "privilege", and to examine the financial impact of diversity on the legal profession. Fifteen facilitators, including judges, government lawyers, law school faculty, bar staff, and lawyers in private practice, have been trained to teach this course around the state when requested by a local bar association, law firm, or governmental law office.
Additionally, as part of their effort to develop programs to eliminate ethnic, gender, and sexual orientation bias among lawyers, the Center and the diversity subcommittee have developed CLE videos that deal with diversity issues. Some of these videos are:
- Gender, Ethnic, and Racial Equality (consisting of a series of vignettes about bias situations)
- All Things Being Equal (exploring how attitudes about certain groups of people affect job expectations and how those expectations are reflected in interviews and evaluations)
- Breaking Down Barriers (dealing with lawyers who suffer from disabilities such as blindness, deafness, mobility impairment, learning disabilities, chronic illnesses or psychiatric illnesses)
- A Firm Commitment (exploring the obstacles that minorities face in law firms)
- Inside Out (dealing with the discrimination and obstacles faced by gay men and lesbians in the legal profession)
- All in a Day's Work (exploring the challenges for women trying to advance in the legal field)
Recognizing that professional practice has become increasingly specialized, some professionalism commissions have designed educational programs specifically for particular segments of the legal community. For example, the Professionalism Committee of the Multnomah Bar Association recently initiated a training module directed at large law firms. Educational programs might be tailored for judges as well as practicing lawyers. Notably, the New Jersey Commission participates in the state Judicial College, an annual two and one half day event comprised of a series of seminars. Attendance is mandatory for all New Jersey justices and judges of the Supreme Court, Superior Court and Tax Court.
Another possible function of a state professionalism commission is to hold periodic convocations that bring together representatives from the practicing bar, the judiciary, and the law schools to discuss issues of ethics and professionalism. In Georgia, statewide convocations on professionalism have been conducted since 1988. They are considered highly successful in drawing interest to the subject of professionalism and in defining the ideals and practice of professionalism. The Georgia convocations have addressed the following topics:
- "The Practice of Law - Is There Anything More to It than Making Money?"
- "A New Era of Professionalism"
- "The Social Responsibilities of Lawyers in the Practice of Law - The Lawyer as Citizen"
- "Professionalism - Passing it Along"
- "Town Hall Meetings - Attorney Concerns about Ethics and Professionalism"
- "Ethics-Beyond the Code"
- "Town Hall Meetings - Professionalism in Client Relations"
- "Professionalism and Community Service"
- "Professionalism and Public Service"
Similar convocations have been held in New Jersey and elsewhere.
More recently, over the course of two days in November, 2000, the New York State Judicial Institute on Professionalism in the Law conducted, as its inaugural public event, a convocation titled, The Face of the Profession. It was designed to explore the transition from law school to legal practice and the roles that law schools and legal employers play in shaping the professional values of new lawyers. The convocation brought together leaders of the practicing bar and select representatives of the state's law schools to examine the profile of students accepted into law school, the socialization of law students into the profession, and law students graduating and starting employment. Among the questions that participants explored were: How successful is the LSAT in choosing students for admission? What is the role of law schools as gatekeepers of the profession? Why do people choose law school? What is the impact of clinics on students' sense of professionalism? What is the extent and impact of economic stress upon law students? How do law professors perceive their role in the formation process? What are the expectations of new law graduates? What types of employment do new graduates seek? What principles and values do employers look for in graduates?
The New York convocation included breakout sessions in which groups of lawyers, judges, and academics discussed how to improve the relationship between the practicing bar and the academy. The groups reported their findings to the general assembly. According to the organizers, the groups suggested excellent ideas for "a major bridge-building effort to wed the idealism of law school with the practicalities of modern practice."7 Some of these suggestions included a recommendation for a mentoring program for law students, a recommendation that more clients be brought into the classroom, a recommendation for a pro bono requirement for law students, a suggestion that law professors write more often for practice-oriented publications rather than focusing predominantly on law reviews, and the suggestion that law professors strive to bring more real-life examples and stories into the classroom discussions.
Professionalism commissions might also use the format of town hall meetings to bring together lawyers, judges, law professors and deans, and members of the public to discuss matters of professionalism. Most notably, Georgia has conducted two successful series of town hall meetings, which have drawn about 1000 participants each. The first, conducted during the period from 1992 to 1994, was titled, Attorney Concerns about Ethics and Professionalism. Conducted in twelve communities, the meetings brought together members of the legal profession to try to develop a shared vision of the profession of law. The discussions contributed to the later work of the Commission in a variety of ways. In particular, two new programs - the Law School Orientations on Professionalism and the Law Practice Management Program - were developed in response to the concerns of lawyers at the meetings. In 1993, the Town Hall Meetings received the ABA's E. Smythe Gambrell Professionalism Award.
The second set of Georgia town hall meetings, conducted from 1994 to 1996, was titled, Professionalism in Client Relations. Members of the community and clients were invited to participate in order to better explore client concerns about representation, client relationships with lawyers, public access to the justice system, public perceptions of the justice system, and effective communication between clients and lawyers. In response to the concerns articulated at these meetings, in 1995 the State Bar of Georgia established the Consumer Assistance Program, whose purpose is to resolve non-disciplinary complaints through conciliation, negotiation, and education. Also in response to these town hall meetings, in 1996 the State Bar established a Committee on the Standards of the Profession to investigate the bar's responsibility to train new lawyers in competent and professional client representation. The Georgia Commission is currently organizing a set of town hall meetings to raise awareness among Georgia lawyers of the need for meaningful access to the justice system for all, including especially those who cannot afford access.
Several professionalism centers assist in developing programs designed to contribute to the law schools' efforts to integrate elements of professionalism into the curriculum or into extra-curricular programs. For example, the Multnomah Committee has reported success with a law school program it developed. During first year students' orientation, lawyers meet with the law students to discuss the book, A Civil Action, by Jonathan Harr. Thereafter, throughout the academic year, faculty refer to the book in their classes and members of the Committee participate in panel presentations on the subject of professionalism as well as in regular classroom instruction. With an eye toward promoting discussions of professionalism in the upperclass years, the Committee's law school subcommittee has proposed organizing a professionalism retreat for graduating law students where the students would spend as much as a day and a half with professors and experienced lawyers to discuss professionalism and ethics.
Along similar lines, the Georgia Commission joined the State Bar's Committee on Professionalism to develop "Orientations on Professionalism," which received the ABA/Information America Client Relations Project Award in 1994. The programs are presented with the cooperation of the law schools, the organized bar, the practicing bar, and the judiciary. An expanded version of the orientation program, conducted at Emory Law School, received the ABA Gambrell Professionalism Award in 1999. It includes three sessions held during the first year of law school. One aspect of the program is a series of hypothetical questions that focus solely on the law school experience to re-enforce the notion that lawyers' professionalism begins with their experiences as law students.
The Georgia Commission has also created pilot professionalism programs for second and third year law students in response to requests by students and group leaders to expand the professionalism programs. One program uses the video The Case of the Silent Alarm to stimulate discussion. Another program uses the text Lives of Lawyers by Georgetown Law Professor Michael Kelly to explore the link between legal academia and the profession. The Commission has found it useful to continue discussions of professionalism beyond the first year of law school because students express increasing concern as they near their graduation and the beginning of practice.
The Florida Center also seeks to raise awareness of professionalism among law students. It conducts law school orientation programs that consist of opening remarks by a judge, then breakout groups of students and lawyers, a reconvening, and finally a reception where the students can mingle with faculty, judges, and lawyers to discuss some of the issues of the program. In addition, the Florida Center sponsors a law student essay contest, with monetary prizes and with the winning essay being published in the Florida Bar Journal. In 2000, the essay topic was "Professionalism and Zealous Advocacy: How the Two Co-Exist."
Several commissions sponsor annual professionalism awards that are given to lawyers who best exemplify the standards of professionalism articulated by the commissions. The awards, and the ceremonies at which they are presented, have been found to be successful in highlighting the importance of professionalism within the legal community. For example, in Texas, the Center, in conjunction with various local bar associations, bestows an annual series of awards called The Texas Center Professionalism Award, which is presented jointly by the Center and local bars at local bar events. The recipients are lawyers admired by the local bar and believed to be exemplars of professionalism. The award symbolizes the purpose of the Texas Center, which is to enhance civility, professionalism and ethics among the state's lawyers.
A cornerstone of several of the commissions' efforts are mentoring programs for new lawyers and, in some states, for law students. These programs help to smooth the transition from law school to legal practice, and allow new lawyers and law students to learn about different practice areas as well as to have a reference for questions they may face in their work.
The Multnomah Committee's six-month lawyer-to-lawyer mentoring program strives to match mentors and mentees as closely as possible. Some questions included on the mentee questionnaire include: What kind of practice do you work in? What type of law or practice do you have an interest in? What are you looking for in a mentor? Ideally, what would you expect from a mentor? What other personal or professional information can you give us that might help us to find a compatible mentor? Are you willing to fully and actively participate in this program? These questions help the committee to pair lawyers who have the same visions and ideals about what they want to get out of the mentor program, as well as to help match lawyers in similar practice fields. Participants in the Multnomah mentoring program reportedly find it to be both helpful and enjoyable.
In addition to assisting various bar associations with implementing their own mentoring programs, the Georgia Commission oversees a law student mentoring program that provides continued contact between students and lawyers throughout the students' time in law school. The Commission hosts an orientation program for mentors, provides materials for the program, plans events to bring together mentors and students, and also serves as a resource for questions and suggestions from both mentors and law students. Further, the Georgia Commission recently undertook a joint pilot project with the state bar that combines continuing legal education and mentoring for new lawyers during their first two years after admission to practice. Now in year three of the program, the Committee has presented three seminars that addressed the topics of: Dealing with Your Client: The Lawyer as Counselor; Acting for Your Client: The Lawyer as Advocate and Architect of Future Conduct; and Negotiating for Your Client: The Lawyer as Negotiator. The pilot project is expected to conclude in January 2002.
Commissions have developed programs to enable lawyers, both individually and collectively, to overcome the differences between and among them. For example, the Multnomah Committee is among those that oversee a "conciliation program," which serves as a forum for addressing lawyers' complaints about the conduct of other lawyers without forcing the parties to go through formal disciplinary procedures. The program is free and entirely confidential. Complaints are screened and then callers are assigned to a lawyer who will serve as a "conciliator." The conciliator makes an effort to assist in resolving the complaint. Conciliators provide advice and assistance but do not serve a disciplinary function or adjudicate the merits of the dispute. Along similar lines, the New Jersey Commission's Professionalism Counseling Program, which has been endorsed by the state Supreme Court, allows local bar associations to receive complaints about unprofessional lawyer behavior and "counsel" the errant lawyer, if necessary.
Other commissions seek to bring together groups that are usually adversarial in their practice, thereby encouraging cooperation and civil discourse among lawyers who typically represent opposing parties. For example, the North Carolina Commission has brought together the Academy of Trial Lawyers and the Association of Defense Lawyers to enact a joint resolution on professionalism. The Georgia Commission has provided guidance for the creation of the Atlanta Bar Association's Take Your Adversary to Lunch program, the Macon Bar's In-House Ethics Seminars: Invite Your Opponent and the seminar Resolving Litigation's Civil Wars, which was sponsored jointly by the trial and defense lawyers' associations.
Professionalism commissions have developed a variety of publications and other writings that are used statewide and in some cases, nationwide. These publications range from materials that are distributed throughout the legal community to articles that are published in bar journals.
For example, the Florida Center distributes The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar/Ideals and Goals of Professionalism to all first year law students in Florida, as well as to lawyers throughout the state. The handbook addresses: the independence of lawyers in their relationships with clients; conflicts of duty that lawyers face in various situations; lawyers' responsibility to communicate effectively with clients; the lawyer's responsibilities as an officer of the court; the lawyer's responsibility to protect the image of the profession; and the responsibilities of lawyers to the public. This handbook is intended to spark discussion in small group formats, and it is suggested that the handbook be used with practical and hypothetical examples.
The New Jersey Commission has published Principles of Professionalism and distributed it to lawyers and judges. Adopted in 1997, these principles are organized around the headings "Lawyers' Relations With Clients," "Lawyers' Relations With Other Counsel", "Lawyers' Relations With the Court," and "Judges' Relations With Lawyers and Others." These principles range from the general, such as the duties of honesty, respect, and courtesy owed by all members of the legal community to each other and to clients, to the specific, such as the principle that lawyers should respect their colleagues' schedules by accommodating requests for date changes or extensions. In addition, the New Jersey Commission writes articles about professionalism that have been published in state and county bar publications and in the weekly legal newspaper.
A website may serve not only as an additional means of disseminating material concerning professionalism, but also as a way to provide information about the commissions and to attract new members.8 The Texas Center has an exemplary website that provides electronic publications of all resources of the Center, links to other legal and ethics sites, and links to law schools and bar associations across the country. The information available on the website includes:
- Professional Ethics Committee Opinions
- The Texas Lawyers' Creed
- Texas Bar Journal articles
- The Texas Disciplinary System Seminar Schedule
- Rules Concerning Lawyer Advertising
- Texas Disciplinary Rules
- Gender-Neutral Courtroom Procedures
- Comparison Tables of Ethics Codes
- Legal Assistants' Code of Ethics
- Bibliography of Professional Ethics Topics
- Links to Related Websites
I. Studies
Another possible function of professionalism commissions is to engage in continued study of the professionalism issues facing lawyers, and how those issues and concerns change over time. For example, the North Carolina Commission, the Florida Center, and the Texas Center have undertaken historical projects that document the varying views of professionalism among members of their respective state bars. The resources include videotaped interviews with pre-eminent lawyers and judges regarding their views on professionalism and the practice of law. In addition, the Florida Center has compiled a collection of famous quotations about the law and the legal profession. These projects give a sense of continuity to the profession, showing both how attitudes have changed and how some values have remained constant throughout the years.
The New York Institute has made studying the profession a central focus of its efforts by initiating several different projects. First, it has appointed a working group on "core values," which seeks to formulate an authentic premise for American professionalism in the twenty-first century. So far, the group has considered existing definitions of professionalism, as well as current notions of professional values described by lawyers, professors, and judges throughout the state. The group plans to identify the essential beliefs and values that will always endure in the profession regardless of the changes occurring in society.
A second project to be undertaken in New York is the "economics and access project," which examines barriers faced by lawyers seeking to enter the profession, lawyers seeking mobility within the profession, and clients seeking affordable legal assistance. One area of concern is lawyer advertising and its implications for professionalism, lawyer competition, and clients. This will include exploration of the role of the Internet in lawyer advertising and the effects that web-based advertising have had on the image and professional values of lawyers.
In addition, the New York Institute will undertake an "accountability project" that is considering topics such as the confidentiality of grievance committees and substance abuse among lawyers. The study will explore the ways in which clients and the public measure the abilities and values of lawyers as individuals and the legal profession in general. The Institute hopes to assess the current disciplinary system, suggest possible alternatives to it, and recommend how the image of lawyers can be improved through education or publicity.
An important function that professionalism commissions might serve is to promote public service and pro bono work among lawyers. In Georgia, a Community Service Task Force was created under the auspices of the Professionalism Commission, and it has sponsored convocations, service awards, the publication of a newsletter, and Habitat for Humanity projects, to name a few of its activities. In addition, the Task Force adopted its own mission statement, which reflects its goals: "To encourage, support, and recognize within the profession the tradition that all lawyers perform community service and measure their success in ways other than just financial gain." As part of the Community Service Task Force's commitment, it co-sponsors an annual award for community service with the State Bar of Georgia.
Finally, a professionalism commission may be the source of ideas for reforming the law, legal practice, or judicial processes, in ways that will enhance lawyer professionalism. The North Carolina Commission has been most strikingly successful in this respect. It developed and promoted a proposal that led to the enactment of an innovative state statute that allows all trial lawyers to take up to three weeks of vacation each year.
III. Structure and Organization of the Professionalism Entities
The professionalism commissions have chosen different structures and organizations to meet their needs. A common link among all, however, is that they strive to include members of the bar, the judiciary, and the law schools among their leadership and membership. All agree that it is essential that the three different portions of the legal community be represented.
Florida. The Florida Bar Center for Professionalism is housed and funded by The Florida Bar, and it is guided by the Supreme Court's Commission on Professionalism. The Florida Center's structure is organized into three parts. The first is the Supreme Court Commission, which is a voluntary body consisting of members of the judiciary, the law schools, practicing lawyers, and the leadership of the board of governors of the state bar. The Supreme Court Commission meets a few times per year to work on projects that are then carried out by the Center. Second, the bar's Standing Commission on Professionalism acts as a resource to assist the Center, and it also screens new programs and sponsors a professionalism award. The third part is the Center itself, which handles the day to day operations and is responsible for the research, the design, and the implementation of professionalism programs and activities. The members of the Florida Supreme Court's Commission on Professionalism include: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a District Court of Appeals judge, a judicial circuit court judge, a county court judge, the dean of each of the accredited law schools in the state, the president and president-elect of The Florida Bar, the president and president-elect of The Florida Bar's Young Lawyers Division, a former public member of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, and seven practicing members of The Florida Bar.
The staff of the Center for Professionalism is employed by The Florida Bar. They are hired for their specific areas of expertise, from internet research to public relations to creative writing skills. The Center staff is comprised of a director, an assistant director, a resource specialist, a course developer, and a secretary. Each is a full-time employee and spends most of their time on Commission/Committee projects. They each are responsible for and have specific projects that fall under either the Supreme Court's Commission on Professionalism or the Standing Committee on Professionalism.
Georgia. The Georgia Commission, which was created by the Supreme Court, is chaired by the Chief Judge. The day-to-day operations of the commission are the responsibility of the Executive Director. The Commission is structured to include representatives of the organized bar, the practicing bar, the judiciary, the law schools, and the public. All of these parties have responsibilities and have a voice in making decisions. The members of the Commission include: the Chief Judge, one superior court judge, one federal district court judge, one law school faculty member serving on the Georgia State Bar Law School Subcommittee on Professionalism, one faculty member from each of the other accredited state law schools, one non-lawyer former member of the State Disciplinary Board and one non-lawyer citizen from the public, who is recognized for being civic-minded.
The Commission has three full-time paid employees, the Executive Director, the Assistant to the Director and an Administrative Assistant, all paid by the Commission out of CLE fees. A fourth person works part-time for the Commission, ten hours per week, as Coordinator for Community Affairs.
New Jersey. The New Jersey Commission has a unique organizational structure, which consists of a changing Chair and joint appointment system. The Chair rotates between the judiciary, the bar, and the law schools every two years. The New Jersey State Bar Association funds the Commission, houses the Commission, and the Executive Director is a State Bar employee. The Chief Justice is a member and appoints four other members. The Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court also designates a judge-member. The judges serving on the Commission have been helpful as mentors and they give the Commission advice about what programs and policies would work with the judiciary. The New Jersey State Bar Association designates six members, the deans of the state's law schools are members, there is a member of the public, and there is an academic member (a university professor).
The Commission is staffed by the New Jersey State Bar Association. The Commission's Executive Director spends about 60% of his time on Commission work. A secretary spends about 40% of her time on Commission work. The Executive Director relies on other State Bar staff to a small degree. Once a year the Commission puts on a Symposium on Professionalism, and at that time staff from the State Bar Meetings Department and Communications Department assist the Commission.
New York. The New York Institute was created by a judicial administrative order of the Chief Judge of the State of New York and is an agency of the Office of Court Administration. The Institute was loosely modeled on existing state judicial commissions that deal with issues about minorities, women, and children. Members of the Institute are appointed by the Chief Judge of the state's highest court and the Presiding Justices of the intermediate appellate courts. Membership includes lawyers from different practice areas and different geographical areas, judges from both trial and appellate courts, legal educators, and a member of the public. The Institute may meet anywhere within the state, and may meet through any form of telecommunication that is effective in facilitating discussion and decision-making. The Institute's first meeting was held in April 1999, and additional meetings have been held quarterly. Small working groups of the Institute meet as often as necessary to meet their goals.
The Institute has no permanently assigned paid staff of its own. Counsel to the Institute is employed full-time as the Chief Clerk of the Appellate Division First Department, where she has a number of other special assignments from the court system. Nevertheless, she spends an extraordinary amount of time as, in effect, the Executive Director of the Institute for which she receives no additional compensation. In addition, Counsel to the Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York has as one of his responsibilities assisting the Institute. He acts as liaison to the Chief Administrative Judge and works on special assignments including, most prominently, the creation of the Institute's website. The amount of time he spends on Institute work varies depending on the activity and his role in it. A rough estimate is that Institute work takes approximately 20% of his time. In addition to administrative responsibilities, he is a significant substantive advisor to the Institute and its Chair. He is paid by the Office of Court Administration, without any increased compensation for his work on the Institute. A junior staff member at the Office of Court Administration assists with administrative functions as required. Her work for the Institute is on an as-needed basis and, in the aggregate, probably takes 10% of her time. She is paid by the Office of Court Administration and receives no additional compensation for her work with the Institute. The Chief Judge and the Chair of the Institute have agreed to expand the assignment of a senior staff member at the New York Court of Appeals to include special tasks for the Institute on an as-needed basis. Currently, for example, she is the editor and publisher of the Journal of Proceedings of the Convocation on the Face of the Profession that the Institute sponsored at the Court of Appeals in November, 2000.
The Institute freely uses and generously receives pro bono assistance from the law firms to which various of its Board members belong. For example, substantive legal analyses of various aspects of an important program the Institute is planning were undertaken at five New York law firms with the use of teams of summer associates during the summer of 2000.
North Carolina. In North Carolina, where the Commission on Professionalism was only established recently (1998), the Commission enjoys the support of the Supreme Court and the North Carolina Bar Association. As in several other states, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as the Chair, and he, along with the Commission's Executive Committee and Executive Director, have oversight over the Commission. Day to day operations are the responsibility of the Executive Director. The North Carolina Commission's format is patterned after the Georgia Commission. The Chair appoints the Commission's members, who consist of judges, practicing lawyers, law school faculty, and representatives of the public. Currently, there are three public members, three judges (in addition to the Chief Justice), two law school deans, and seven practicing lawyers.
The Commission has two paid staff. The Executive Director is a full-time employee and is considered an employee of the State of North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts for pay and benefits purposes. The Commission also employs one part time (25 hours/week) administrative assistant.
Ohio. In Ohio, the Supreme Court created the Commission on Professionalism, and the Supreme Court appoints the fourteen members of the Commission. The members include: five judges, five lawyers admitted to practice law in Ohio for at least six years, two law school faculty from different schools, and two non-lawyers. The Supreme Court appoints one member as chair and one as vice-chair.
The only staff person currently assigned to the Supreme Court of Ohio Commission on Professionalism is a staff attorney for the Director of Legal and Legislative Services, who is employed by the Supreme Court. Approximately 15% of her time is dedicated to staffing the Commission. She has a secretary assigned to her who helps with some clerical tasks.
Oregon. In Oregon, the Supreme Court created the Commission on Professionalism upon application of the Oregon State Bar. The Commission's standing members include the Chief Justice (or designated Associate Justice), the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals (or designated Associate Judge), the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for Oregon (or designated District Judge or Federal Magistrate) and the President of the Oregon State Bar or designated member of the Board of Governors). The Commission's appointed members include four judges, four lawyers, two public members, and a law school faculty member. Appointments are made by the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court and the President of the Oregon State Bar.
The Commission has no full-time employees. At this point, State Bar staff spend about five hours per month helping with meetings.
The Multnomah Bar Association Professionalism Committee is made up of members of the bench and the bar. The Chair of the Committee has oversight and the day to day operations are handled by the Bar Association's Executive Director, the staff manager and the committee.
Texas. The Texas Center is organized and run a little differently from the other commissions, since it is independent of the bar and is a non-profit corporation with its own Articles of Incorporation. It is governed by the Board of Trustees, which consists of twenty-one members, one-third of whom are members of the public and the rest of whom are lawyers. The Board is governed by an Executive Committee composed of a Chair, a Treasurer, a Secretary, and a Vice-Chair. The Texas Center has found this structure to be quite successful since it remains independent and apolitical.
The Center employees two full-time staff persons, the Executive Director and an executive assistant. The State Bar furnishes accounting services. The Center has an independent contract with a lawyer who furnishes education/consulting services on a part time basis, and a contract with a website coordinator.
IV. Funding
Representatives of all of the existing professionalism commissions stress the importance of securing adequate funding, preferably before embarking on programming. Depending on how the commissions are organized, funding may come from a variety of sources, including the state bar association, the court, or outside sources. The commissions have found that the most effective route is to obtain funding from several sources at once.
For the commissions that are considered part of bar associations, the funding generally comes from state bar funds, and the these commissions are subject to the same budgetary procedures as other wings of the bar. For example, The Florida Bar Center for Professionalism is funded by the general fund of The Florida Bar. The Center follows the same budget process as other divisions of the bar, and so must justify and defend its budget yearly. The New Jersey Commission is funded by the State Bar Association, and funding for specific programs is sought from other sources, such as the U.S. District Court. Since New Jersey is not a mandatory CLE state, the Commission cannot count on revenue from required programs and is often searching for other sources of funding beyond that provided by the State Bar. The Multnomah Committee in Oregon is funded through the operating budget of the Multnomah Bar Association. In Multnomah, the Bar Association has committed to making professionalism a priority. However, the State Bar has not, so the Oregon state professionalism commission, which depends primarily upon private donations, fees from its CLE programs, and special assessments approved by the Bar, has been relatively inactive.
For the professionalism commissions that are part of the court system, the judicial budget generally provides funding. However, judicial funding is not always adequate to run all of the programs of these entities. The Ohio Commission is funded through the Supreme Court's general revenue funds. The Commission has found it to be beneficial to receive funds directly from the court, particularly when making requests for budget increases. Since the Court created the Commission, budget increases are usually approved if they are justified. The New York Institute is funded from the Office of Court Administration's appropriation. Through these funds, the Institute is authorized to collect relevant information about professionalism matters, conduct studies using their own members or staff or conduct studies in cooperation with other entities, and use the money to staff the Institute and assign duties to the staff. Although this is a steady and consistent source of funding, the New York Institute is also looking into other avenues of funding.
In states where there is a mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirement, the professionalism commissions that present CLE programs may have the opportunity to generate funds from the fees charged for their programs. For example, the North Carolina Commission is funded by a portion of the funds for its CLE programs. Annually, its share is over $200,000. The Commission has found these funds to be adequate and has had no difficulty in obtaining them. In Georgia, CLE fees have generated over $300,000 annually.
The professionalism commissions in Georgia and Texas have been the most successful in obtaining funding, and as a result, they have been able to engage in the most substantial number of activities. Because the Georgia Commission and the Texas Center have achieved success through different means of funding and structure, their unique situations are discussed separately below.
Georgia. Initially, the Georgia Commission's funding was provided by a grant from the Commission on Continuing Lawyer Competency (CCLC) of Georgia. The CCLC was created by the Supreme Court to administer CLE rules. In 1989, in order to ensure that Georgia's professionalism efforts would continue, the Supreme Court, after issuing the order establishing the Commission, issued an order that required all active members of the bar to attend one CLE hour per year on professionalism, which is separate from the one hour ethics CLE requirement. This requirement is not just for new lawyers, but for every lawyer. There is a surcharge for each active bar member who attends the professionalism course, which as of 1998, was $15 per lawyer per professionalism hour. Through this means, the Commission produces over $300,000 annually. This is enough to provide the Commission with a staff of three, office space, office equipment, operating expenses, a professionalism library, database collection, management, and programming. In addition, the Commission has received additional grants from the Commission on Continuing Lawyer Competency to develop instructional videotapes with guided discussion materials for professionalism CLE programs. The Georgia Commission reports that their sources of funding are adequate. The Commission chose not to seek funding from Bar dues or from the legislature, because of the political implications involved in doing so. In essence, the founders of the Commission used the approach that the Commission should be an effort by lawyers, for lawyers, and therefore, paid for by lawyers.
Texas. In Texas, the initial and sole funding for the Center came from the Texas Bar Foundation. The State Bar of Texas offered office space and accounting support. In 1994, the Center began to obtain grants from foundations and began a membership drive. The drive has continued, and the Center has also added a voluntary contribution option on the State Bar Dues Statement. In addition, the Center charges a fee for the mandatory professionalism course A Guide to the Basics of Law Practice. The course is offered to about 3000 new lawyers each year, so funding from that source is substantial. The Center has also developed other revenue-producing CLE programs. The Center's website offers a list and description of various books and videos, as well as a compilation of Texas Ethics Opinions for sale, and the Center has an 800 number for anyone wishing to receive more information about these products before purchasing them. Additionally, the Center receives funds from contracts with law firms, corporations, and bar-related groups to which it provides assistance with their ethics programs. The Center also obtains grants from public foundations for specific programs, projects, and equipment. Finally, the Texas Center has a small endowment, but recommends that future professionalism entities secure a much larger endowment. At about $500,000 per year, the Center's funding is adequate but it needs more to increase its staff and output.
Through both their successes and their mistakes, the eight existing professionalism commissions have accumulated wisdom that should be of value to those seeking to establish a professionalism commission in a state that does not have one. On some issues, representatives of the commissions agree and offer uniform advice; however, on other issues, the advice differs.
First, and foremost, the experience of the existing commissions is that a new entity must have the cooperation and support of both the bench and the bar. Also, the bench, bar, and the law schools must all be involved with and participate in its work. The most successful commissions have appealed to all three and have worked to address the professionalism concerns of each. In some states, the professionalism commission represents the only forum for joining together representatives of the bar, the bench, and the law schools.
Second, it is extremely important to secure adequate funding, although there is no single way to do so. The Georgia Commission has sought to remain separate from the variations in focus that might come with being funded by the state bar association, and so has concentrated on providing CLE courses as a source of income. The Texas Center has had great success in getting money through contracts with private organizations. Regardless of how funding is obtained, it was thought best to secure funding from several sources.
Third, it is important for a professionalism commission to define its goals. Of course, the goals will vary depending on such considerations as the needs of the jurisdiction's lawyers, the nature of professionalism initiatives already underway, and the available resources. For some commissions, such as those in Georgia, Texas and Florida, developing quality CLE programs on the subject of professionalism is a primary objective. In contrast, in New York, where lawyers are offered an array of CLE programs on issues of ethics and professionalism by bar associations, law schools, other not-for-profit institutions, and in-house providers, the Institute does not offer such programs, and thus far has focused its efforts on organizing a convocation and initiating various studies. In general, however, there is agreement that the commission, while promoting professionalism through education, study or other means, should not serve a disciplinary function.
Fourth, it was recognized that the staff and directors of the commissions play an essential role. Passionate and committed staff and directors are key to making these commissions a success. This is particularly important in the beginning stages of the effort. The most successful entities have full-time employees. It is also helpful to involve influential and well-known members of the legal community in the commission's work, as their participation will draw attention to and help to legitimize the commission. For example, having the Chief Justice of the state actively involved in the work of a commission has proven extremely beneficial in underscoring the importance of professionalism.
Fifth, publicity is important. Several commissions have newsletters or submit articles to legal journals and newspapers. A website is another route to reaching the target audience. Bestowing professionalism awards helps to generate publicity about the commission and its objectives. By whatever means, it is important to get the word out.
Sixth, the quality and originality of programming is of utmost importance. Most entities have found that lawyers are eager to talk about professionalism, but it is the quality of the programming that will determine how successful and productive discussions are. Lawyers have responded well to videotapes and to interactive programs like the Texas Center's EthicsJeopardy. Not only do interesting programs and activities help to better deliver the message, but they also attract organizations like law firms that may want to purchase them for in-house programs.
Finally, new entities are encouraged to look to the existing entities as models (both positive and negative). For example, the Executive Director of the North Carolina Commission has visited several commissions and studied their programs' successes and failures. Many of the existing commissions have taken successful ideas from one another and adapted these ideas to the needs and concerns of their own states. In adapting other ideas it is essential to remember that no one model is perfect, and founders of new commissions may want to pick and choose from various aspects of the existing ones. It is important to take into account the unique circumstances that affect one's own legal culture, such as the differences between urban and rural areas, the diverse make-up of the bar, the nature of the bar (i.e., whether there is an integrated bar, whether CLE is mandatory, how many bar associations there are, etc.) and the relationship between the bar, the judiciary, and the law schools.
_____________________
Endnotes (A Guide to Professionalism Commissions Introduction)
1. See, e.g, Teaching and Learning Professionalism, Report of the Professionalism Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar 2-3 and nn.5-7 (citing books, articles and bar association reports).
2. "National Study and Action Plan Regarding Lawyer Conduct and Professionalism," adopted by the Conference of Chief Justices in Nashville, Tennessee, at the Forty-eighth Annual Meeting on August 1, 1996.
3. Both the New Mexico and South Carolina Commissions were too new at the time of the writing of this guide to have any details about them included in the text. However, the court orders creating them and their contact information are included in the Appendix.
4. Although the Multnomah Bar is not a state professionalism entity, it has been the most active professionalism entity in Oregon and serves a large segment of the Oregon lawyer population. Therefore, references to it have been included throughout this guide to benefit those states that, for whatever reasons, find it difficult to implement one of the state entity models and have a regional association that can fill in the gap.
5. John Caher, Call for Bridge From Academia to Practice, N.Y.L.J., Nov. 15, 2000.
6. The Lawyer's Professionalism Creed of the North Carolina Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism is modeled after The Lawyer's Creed of the state of Georgia.
7. John Caher, Call for Bridge From Academia to Practice, N.Y.L.J., Nov. 15, 2000.
8. The website addresses for all the commissions are included in the contact information in the Appendix.
Florida
Supreme Court of Florida Administrative Order (July 19, 1996)
Letter from President of Florida Bar to Chief Justice (July 9, 1996)
Professionalism Center’s RoleGeorgia
Supreme Court Rule 9-101 (Mar. 15, 1989, last amended Nov. 8, 1996)
Organizational Chart
Mandate, Mission Statement and Calling to TasksNew Mexico
Supreme Court Order 00-8300 (May 2, 2000)
Mission Statement and GoalsNew York
Administrative Order of the Chief Judge (Mar. 3, 1999)North Carolina
Supreme Court Order (Sept. 22, 1998)Ohio
Supreme Court Rule XV (Sept. 1, 1992)Oregon
Supreme Court Order 94-049 (Sept. 15, 1994)South Carolina
Supreme Court Order and Rule 420 (Nov. 22, 2000)
Regulations for Implementation of Rule 420Texas
Center Bylaws (adopted Jan. 17, 1990, last amended Sept. 19, 1997)
Articles of Incorporation (Nov. 30, 1989)Supreme Court of Florida's Commission on Professionalism
Paula Stephenson
The Florida Bar
650 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
(850) 561-5743
Fax: (850) 561-5750
E-mail: psteph@flabar.org
Website: http://www.flabar.org/newflabar/professionalism/State Bar of Georgia Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism
Sally Evans Winkler, Executive Director
800 The Hurt Building
50 Hurt Plaza
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 527-8793
Website: http://www.gabar.org/cjcp.htmNew Jersey Commission on Professionalism in the Law
Charles Hollenbeck, Executive Director
New Jersey Law Center
One Constitution Square
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1500
(732) 937-7504
Fax: (732) 249-2815
E-mail: chollenbeck@njsba.com
Website: http://www.njsba.com/commission_on_prof/Commission on Professionalism of the State Bar of New Mexico
Cheryl M. Bruce, Executive Director
State Bar of New Mexico
P.O. Box 25883
Albuquerque, NM 87125
505-797-6000
E-mail: cbruce@nmbar.orgNew York State Judicial Institute on Professionalism in the Law
Louis A. Craco, Chair
Willkie Farr & Gallagher
The Equitable Center
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019-6099
(212) 728-8000
Fax: (212) 728-8111
E-mail: lcraco@willkie.com or professionalism@courts.state.ny.us
Website: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/jipl/index.htmlNorth Carolina Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism
Melvin F. Wright Jr., Executive Director
Suite 100
505 Oberlin Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27605
(919) 715-6055
Fax: (919) 733-2991
E-mail: melw@mail-hub.aoc.state.NC.US
Website: http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/copyright/commissions/chief.htmOhio Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism
Melissa Knopp, Secretary
Supreme Court of Ohio
Rhodes State Office Tower
30 East Broad Street, 3rd Floor
Columbus, OH 43266-0419
(614) 466-4199
Fax: (614) 752-8736
E-mail: knoppm@sconet.state.oh.us
Website: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/CP/Oregon Supreme Court/Oregon State Bar Joint Commission on Professionalism
M. Kay Pulju, Communications Manager
Oregon State Bar
5200 SW Meadows Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97035
(503) 620-0222 ext. 402
E-mail: kpulju@osbar.orgMultnomah Bar Association Professionalism Committee
Mona Buckley, Executive Director