SBAND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SBAND REMAINED ACTIVE
THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION
TONY J. WEILER
SBAND Executive Director
In the spring edition of The Gavel, I usually
write about the number of lawyers who
comprise the State Bar Association of North
Dakota (SBAND). Currently, there are 2,931
licensed North Dakota lawyers. That number
has been somewhat consistent the last few
years, and there continues to be work for
lawyers in our great state. By comparison, at
the end of 2003, there were 1,840 attorneys
in North Dakota. We continue to have many
members who do not have their primary
address in North Dakota, with approximately
60 percent of our members living in state.
As many of you know, I write this during
the midst of our biennial legislative session
(which will have ended by the time this issue
comes out). That always makes it difficult to
write about legislation, unless it has already
been signed by the Governor. We are guided
by SBAND’s legislative policy, which clearly
states, as an integrated bar, it would be a
practical impossibility to gain the unanimity
of opinion on most issues from our diverse
membership. Further, we are guided
by Keller v. California, which mandates
members’ fees may only be used to regulate
the profession and for the improvement of
the practice of law. With that in mind, the
Board of Governors takes very seriously
a position on any issue and, in line with
Keller and subsequent precedent, does not
take any position on any issues that would
be considered “political” in nature. In my
experience, legislators welcome the expertise
of lawyers who work in the area of law that is
being contemplated by a bill. Often, SBAND
helps find a lawyer to testify on an issue,
while not doing so on our behalf. Legislators
and legislative committees often seek out
the views of knowledgeable representatives
of SBAND in these areas and pay close
attention to their recommendations.
During this session, we supported the
Supreme Court’s budget, which is essentially
the entire court system budget, along with
several bills suggested by the Commission
on Uniform Laws (all of which were non-
controversial). We also supported the budget
of the North Dakota Commission on Legal
Counsel for Indigents, in recognition of the
important work of this organization. We also
supported an increase in funding for Legal
Services of North Dakota by supporting
legislation that increased the cap on the
funds it may receive from filing fees from
$650,000 to $750,000.
Finally, we supported legislation to increase
funding for the University of North Dakota
School of Law. With the leadership of
President Pelham and ABA State Bar
Delegate Dan Traynor, SBAND proposed
legislation that would provide secure and
long-term funding at a time when our law
school desperately needs it. We relied on
the expertise of newly appointed Dean
Michael McGinniss and other members of
the bar who worked closely with us to ensure
the funding happened. We asked you, our
members, to reach out to your legislators and
many of you did. This does have an impact, as
many of our friends at the Capitol indicated
to me; they heard from you and support our
efforts to secure adequate funding for our
one and only law school.
When it comes to broader issues of social
policy, the association's role and influence
is necessarily different. These are issues that
generally have strong political overtones. In
these areas, the association may be viewed
more as a special interest group than as a
body of experts. The association will take
great pains to recognize this important
distinction and will generally avoid taking
positions on issues of this nature.
With that being said, we are still in litigation
in the Fleck v. Wetch, et. al matter. We
continue to argue the merits of an integrated
bar and its continued Constitutionality
under Keller. Late last year, the U.S. Supreme
Court granted attorney Fleck’s petition for
certiorari and vacated the Eight Circuit’s
decision, which found in SBAND’s favor.
The Supreme Court remanded the suit to the
Eighth Circuit to consider it again in light
of the Court’s decision in June 2018 in Janus
v. AFSME. In Janus, the Court held that
public sector employees who are not union
members are not required to pay an “agency
fee” to cover the cost of collective bargaining.
SBAND’s briefing to the Eighth Circuit
was due at the end of March, with oral
argument set for June 13 in St. Paul, Minn.
Amicus briefs were filed by numerous
other integrated state bars from around the
country, and we will keep you posted as we
move forward. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me.
SPRING 2019
5