August 2003

Time to Go Public? (Should We Invite Nonlawyers to Sit on the Board of Governors?)

by Dick Manning, WSBA President

Change is all around us. Usually it augurs improvement—something that fulfills an unsatisfied need. But rarely does change—almost always a departure from "the way we've always done it"—come about without stress and anxiety, and, for some, a lot of pessimism.

It's time to consider whether we should add to the WSBA Board of Governors a couple of wisely chosen nonlawyer members of the public, with full voting rights. "You must be kidding!" No, I'm not! And to those to whom I just responded, I can only say that you're letting fear grip you before you've heard the statement for public members.

When I approach this subject—something I've sought and discussed for several years—I'm reminded of how far we've come, and yet how far we have to go. To some, having nonlawyer members on the BOG would be as loathsome as helping the fox get into the henhouse. The reaction might be likened to that presented in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1873. Speaking for the Court in Myra Bradwell's petition to be admitted to the practice of law, one of the justices said (perhaps with a large dose of chauvinism as well as trepidation), "there is not the slightest expectation that a license to practice law would ever be extended to women."

So why should the BOG go public? In a phrase? Our own self-interest! Our primary calling, as in every other profession, is to serve the public. A nonlawyer can come to the policy-making body of the BOG without the trappings and baggage that we lawyers accumulate over the years. A nonlawyer can provide insight into our board work that would otherwise be absent. "Hogwash!" you say. "We lawyers are in a much better position to know what's best for the profession—we know more about it than anyone else!"

It reminds me of the self-satisfaction (it's forgivable—it's ingrained in lawyer lore) some of us have when we talk about trying a lawsuit—we can hardly wait to get into the courtroom and show the other side how wrong they are. Yet, according to a survey of litigants in civil trials that was conducted in the 1980s by the American Judicature Society, 70 percent of the "winners" were dissatisfied with the process. Presumably, 100 percent of the "losers" were dissatisfied. So much for this vision of ourselves.

This is a new idea, you say. Wrong! Eleven states have nonlawyer members (with full voting rights in eight states) on their policy-making boards of governors or trustees. This includes two of our Northwest neighbors, Oregon and Utah. Oregon has four nonlawyer members on its 16-member board. In numerous discussions with Oregon's bar leadership, we have heard nothing but praise for the contributions of the citizen members. Ditto for Utah. In fact, in a poll of these 11 states by a study group chaired by WSBA Governor Howard Graham, not a single expression of criticism or dissatisfaction has been voiced about this public representation. However, everyone agrees the quality and wisdom of the process of selection of such a member are vital.

Still skeptical? We are a state agency (defined by statute), a quasi-public body. We have a written open-meetings policy. Over the last four years, WSBA leadership has emphasized and promoted diversity in who sits as governor. Our efforts are beginning to be fruitful. Why should we be any different from public corporations such as many of the Fortune 500s? The wise, forward-thinking leaders of these companies seek out board directors for their diversity of professions, occupations, education, ethnicity, and life experiences.

Still not convinced? Then why is it that the leadership of our bench and bar has elected:

to constitute the present membership of the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct with a majority of nonlawyers;
to require in our lawyer discipline system that every review committee (the gatekeeper before a complaint is filed by the state bar against a lawyer after a grievance has first been investigated) consist of at least one nonlawyer; and
to require that four members of the 14-member Disciplinary Board be nonlawyers?

And it goes on and on: Nonlawyer members on the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection Committee (two), Character and Fitness Committee (three), Mandatory CLE Board (one), Limited Practice Officer Board (four), Practice of Law Board (at least four), etc. All of these people have served the profession with grace and wisdom.

So you say, well then, if we have that many nonlawyer members on these bench and bar boards and committees, we don't need any more. Wrong! We need them for the same reasons they already serve: They keep us from being belly-button watchers; they force us to look beyond our own horizons.

And since our State Bar Act allows up to 15 members on our board, the Supreme Court can approve this kind of change.

Now it's time for me to step down from the pulpit. I hope I've said something that stirs you—that gets you excited enough to support—or oppose—my proposal. It's your turn now. E-mail, fax, telephone. But voice your opinion today!

(Dick Manning invites your comments/criticism; e-mail jmb@seanet.com; fax 206-624-3865; telephone 206-623-6302.)

Back to table of contents >>