Letters

Bar should implement a dues structure based on income

As a Wisconsin attorney, I strongly object to the State Bar Board of Governors' recent approval of a $35 dues increase, which will take effect on July 1, 1999, as reported in the March Wisconsin Lawyer. I object because this dues increase will be disproportionately carried on the backs of those attorneys who have the least ability to bear it.

The current State Bar dues structure is very regressive and unfairly penalizes active Wisconsin attorneys who have little or no income. First, active attorneys with lower incomes currently pay the same flat rate dues amount as attorneys with higher incomes. I firmly believe that those attorneys who receive a greater benefit from the use of their law licenses ought to pay more for that privilege than those attorneys who have been less fortunate and, as a result, have lower incomes.

Second, the current State Bar dues structure favors fully employed attorneys over attorneys who are active but underemployed or unemployed. Most fully employed Wisconsin attorneys have their Bar dues completely paid for by their employers, while underemployed and unemployed attorneys generally must pay these dues out of their own pockets. Under the current Bar dues structure, active status fully employed attorneys who have the wherewithal to pay (through their higher incomes) do not have to pay their own Bar dues (because the employer pays them), while underemployed and unemployed attorneys with lower incomes are required to pay these dues themselves (because no one else does). Thus, the current Bar dues structure places a disproportionate financial burden on those attorneys who have the least ability to pay.

Many other Wisconsin professional associations (for example, the Wisconsin Institute of CPAs, the State Medical Society of Wisconsin, and the Wisconsin Education Association Council) already provide full dues waivers or reduced dues allowances for their underemployed and unemployed members. Also, several other state bar associations (for example, California, Minnesota, Indiana, and Illinois) currently have progressive dues structures based upon the income levels of their attorney members.

I would like to see the State Bar of Wisconsin implement a progressive dues structure for its active attorneys that is based upon their income levels. The current dues structure is highly regressive and unfair to active attorneys with lower incomes. Like other state bar associations and professional organizations have already done, our State Bar should implement a dues structure that allows its active members with lower incomes to pay at reduced annual rates (regardless of how many years they have been in practice). Such an approach is the most equitable way to solve the problems that plague our current State Bar dues structure.

Jeffrey M. Gonyo
Slinger