Conservative lawyers sue to end State Bar dues

Saying they should not be forced to subsidize diversity programs or efforts to help immigrants at the border with Mexico, three conservative lawyers are seeking to overturn Texas laws that require attorneys to join the State Bar of Texas and pay annual dues.

In a federal lawsuit filed in Austin, the lawyers argue that being forced to pay dues that support "inherently political or ideological" priorities violates their free-speech rights.

The First Amendment, they argue, protects not only the right to speak freely, it also protects from being forced to associate with ideas or beliefs they find objectionable.

"If the Bar believes these political and ideological activities are worth pursuing, it can fund them through voluntary contributions or seek direct appropriations from the (Legislature)," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit asks U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel to strike down the state laws and policies that require practicing attorneys to join and financially support the State Bar. If Yeakel isn't willing to go that far, the lawyers also asked for a narrower ruling that lets them stop having to financially support initiatives that they say violate their free-speech rights.

State Bar officials reject the lawsuit's premise, arguing that U.S. Supreme Court precedent allows the agency to collect compulsory fees for programs that regulate the legal profession or improve the quality of legal services.

In addition, they argue, bar members already have the right to object to spending that they believe is unrelated to the agency's duties by requesting a refund of the portion of dues that go toward objectionable programs.

"The State Bar of Texas is confident it is fulfilling all statutory responsibilities as the administrative arm of the Texas Supreme Court consistent with the court’s authority to regulate the legal profession," according to a statement posted on the bar's website. "The pending legal action will be addressed accordingly."

The lawsuit was filed March 6 by Tony McDonald, an Austin lawyer who has served as general counsel for Empower Texans, a conservative political advocacy group; Joshua Hammer of Dallas, editor-at-large for the Daily Wire conservative news and opinion website and former law clerk for Judge Jim Ho, a President Donald Trump appointee to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; and Mark Pulliam, who no longer practices law but pays inactive dues of $50 a year to remain eligible to return to active status if desired.

McDonald, Hammer and Pulliam complained that to practice law in Texas, they have to pay dues that finance programs they oppose, such as:

• Diversity initiatives based on the race, gender and sexual orientation of lawyers.

• Access to justice initiatives that, for example, "seek to prevent the deportation of individuals who entered the United States without authorization through the southern border," the lawsuit said.

• Drafting legislation and advocating for the passage of bills at the Legislature, including one that would remove an amendment to the Texas Constitution that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples the lawsuit said.

Annual bar dues are $68 for attorneys licensed up to 3 years, $148 for those licensed four to five years, and $235 for those licensed more than five years.

The lawsuit also seeks to end a $65 legal services fee, charged to some private lawyers, that funds civil and criminal defense programs for low-income Texans.

"This fee is tantamount to a compelled charitable contribution," the lawsuit said.

In a separate lawsuit filed in 2016, a white Austin lawyer challenged the State Bar's practice of reserving four governing board positions for "minority directors" as a violation of the U.S. Constitution and federal anti-discrimination laws.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton supported the effort, telling the court that "governmental quotas on race and sex are anathema to equal protection under the law."

Spurred by that federal lawsuit, the Legislature passed a bill in 2017 that converted minority director positions into "at large" spots that can be filled by lawyers of any race or sex who have the knowledge and experience needed to represent "the interests of attorneys from the varied backgrounds."