{"id":3790,"date":"2005-04-26T14:56:28","date_gmt":"2005-04-26T18:56:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/bar-guild\/"},"modified":"2010-08-31T13:07:09","modified_gmt":"2010-08-31T17:07:09","slug":"bar-guild","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/bar-guild\/","title":{"rendered":"bar & guild"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

A<\/strong><\/em>s we approach Law Day, bar associations across the nation will be heard <\/span>congratulating themselves on all they do to promote justice and protect the public. <\/span>(see <\/span>our post<\/strong><\/span><\/a>) At this weblog, “we” think such self-aggrandizement should be <\/span>avoided in favor of a bit of soul-searching. Most bar groups spend much <\/span>of their time acting like<\/span> <\/span>guilds<\/strong><\/span><\/a> — promoting the interests of their members, and<\/span>“protecting” <\/span>the public from competition, information, innovation and choice. Maybe<\/span> Law Day 2005 (May 1st) can be an occasion to re-align our priorities and become <\/span>public service organizations, improving the profession for the sake of our clients, <\/span>the justice system and the entire public. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n


\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\"MassMap\" Because I’ve been following the <\/span>unlawful joint boycott<\/span><\/a> activities of assigned <\/span>counsel <\/span>in Massachusetts over the past two years (with “bar advocates” using coercive behavior to achieve higher fees), I’ve observed <\/span>the Bay State bar more closely than I might have done otherwise. As a proponent of <\/span>the rights of clients, I have not been edified. Instead, I’ve come to the conclusion that members of the Massachusetts bar, when acting in groups and given the opportunity, far too often put the interests of lawyers above those of clients and the public. And, they do it with arguments so petulant or specious that even their legitimate concerns seem suspect. [If I had to name the archetypal Bay State law firm, it would be “Wein, Karp & Mone, Unlimited<\/em>“.]<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\"\"<\/a> Thus, I was a little skeptical when I read at Ben <\/span>Cowgill’s Legal Ethics<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/a> [We]blog last week that a Task Force of the Massachusetts Bar Association has released a report on the State’s lawyer discipline system. (<\/span>MBA Press Release<\/span><\/a>, April 20, 2005). That’s despite — or maybe because — the Report is titled<\/span> “Protecting the Public<\/em>: Reforming<\/em> the Disciplinary Process”<\/span><\/a>. I discuss this topic below.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

First, I want to give you a few examples:<\/span><\/p>\n