Talk:State Bar of California

.

A "new" criticism of the main article (State Bar of California) (April, 2008)

I have been a member of the State Bar of California -- that is, a practicing lawyer -- since 1976. During that time, I have been actively involved as a participant in the State Bar, and I have also been involved in many debates about the State Bar in professional organizations. My criticisms about the main article are based on these experiences. I am not citing documentary sources, but I will do so later. The issues I see are as follows:

1. In my opinion and experience, the State Bar is, on the whole, a very controversial organization among practicing California lawyers. The main article does mention a very important controversy, namely the time that Governor Pete Wilson (who had flunked the California Bar Exam four times before passing it) effectively put the State Bar out of business for a few years. The article does not mention a poll which the State Bar was forced to take of its members, after legislation was passed by then-State Senator (later Superior Court Judge) Quentin Kopp, a vocal State Bar critic. The poll, taken around 1990, showed that about one-third of State Bar members favored abolition of the State Bar; as to the most frequently stated reasons why, see below. By the way, I voted not to abolish the State Bar (see below).

2. Contrary to the main article, most states do NOT have "integrated" bars, like California. In fact California is among a very small minority of states which do. I believe the exact number is no more than five. In most states, there is a divided system, by which the state issues licenses and disciplines lawyers, but all other functions are taken up by voluntary bar associations. As a result, bar dues in most states are much lower than in California (even after state-mandated reductions in dues, as a result of this controversy). Many California lawyers maintain that the State Bar is effectively controlled by small cliques of establishment lawyers, which in turn control lawyer discipline. These are the main reasons that a third of all California lawyers voted to abolish the State Bar.

3. To me the main article clearly seems to express a pro-State Bar bias. Although it has a somewhat objectve tone, it simply ignores the controversies I've mentioned, and many others which I don't have time to mention now. It also doesn't mention the long-term effect which these controversies have had. Among them, the caption on the shiny photo of the State Bar's current offices doesn't mention that the State Bar was forced to sell its traditional office building at Franklin and MacAllister in San Fran. because it ran out of money. That building was then purchased by the San Francisco Unified School District, which now uses it for office space. One would think that any objective "history" of the State Bar would mention this.

Another very important event was the abolition of the Conference of Delegates of the State Bar during the Pete Wilson controversy. This volunteer group, which represented lawyers from the entire state, was constantly passing resolutions for controversial legislation which many lawyers did not like. It was not re-established after Gray Davis restored funding of the State Bar.

4. I could go much further, but I won't now. I will mention that I voted against abolishing the State Bar because I thought the proposal was too drastic. The State Bar needs reform, not abolition.

In sum: I think that major parts of the article are not accurate.Piedmtbill (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piedmtbill (talk • contribs) 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's very interesting, but largely unsubstantiated. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a first publisher of original research (see official policies Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:No original research). Furthermore, in researching and drafting large parts of this article, I didn't come across anything like what you're alleging (e.g. the 1990 poll, the loss of an office building, the claim that the Bar is controlled by small cliques).

Also, you're completely incorrect on the integrated bar issue. Take a look at the ABA's map of unified versus voluntary bars at http://www.abanet.org/barserv/stlobar.html. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he says, I am not citing documentary sources, but I will do so later. Piedmtbill, if you have verifiable sources, please feel free to update the article accordingly. Coolcaesar, please make sure you're not finding yourself getting sucked into WP:OWNERSHIP. TJRC (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, he can cite to the criticisms later. Just because he is discussing it here doesn't mean he can't add to the article later. There is now a section on public criticisms of the State Bar. Looks like we have a consensus. 2.177.99.84 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Drastic changes by anonymous user in single edit on 19 Dec 2005

I am reverting all those changes for the following reasons:

1. Grammar errors. Various omissions of "a," "of," and "the." Hyphens are frequently used where em dashes would be more appropriate.

2. Dialect errors. This is an article about an American public corporation and it was originally drafted in American English. To prevent revert wars, it should stay in American English. Furthermore, the citations are in the wrong style.

3. Stylistic errors. This is an encyclopedia for the general public, not for lawyers. If the public wants incredibly boring detail written in legalese, they can always go to the State Bar's Web site. The article should be concise, to the point, and accessible to the average layperson. Otherwise we end up with horribly unreadable laundry list articles like e-commerce. There is also severe overuse of the passive voice. Lawyers today are trained to write in the active voice so that they are clear, direct, and assertive.

4. Geographic errors. The reference to "this state" is too U.S-centered, especially in light of the fact that Wikipedia is intended for a global audience.

4. Failure to cite sources for bizarre assertions like the quote about "When the ABA speaks, California does not listen."

5. Just dumb errors. New York uses the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility while Washington State uses the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. I found this out with a 2 minute search on Google.

Whomever our anonymous visitor is, I hope he or she is not licensed to practice in the state of California. If so, it sounds like we need to toughen up our bar exam! --Coolcaesar 07:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Why I took out a passage today

Today I deleted the following passage:

California State Bar Law Office Study Program

The California State Bar Law Office Study Program allows California residents to become California Attorneys with no law school, or college, assuming they meet basic educational requirements. If the candidate has no college, he or she may take and pass the CLEP, or College Level Examination Program [[3]]. The Bar candidate must study under a judge or lawyer for four years and must also pass the Baby Bar within three administrations after first becoming eligible to take the examination. California Attorney, Michael P. Ehline, [[4]] http://passthebarandbabybar.blogspot.com/ is one of only a few known attorneys on the Law Office Study Program to take and pass the CLEP. Ehline went on the Law Office Study Program and passed the California First Year Law Students Exam (Baby Bar), while on the California State Bar Law Office Study Program. Ehline passed the General Bar Exam and became a practicing attorney with no JD. Attorney Ehline claims all it takes is desire and hard work if you want to become a lawyer in the traditional way.

Therefore, you can become a lawyer in California the traditional way (Law Office Study), or by going to law school. But you must first pass the Baby Bar.

The above was deleted because it violates the Wikipedia policy of no self-promotion (Section 1.4.2 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) as well as the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Mr. Ehline is not notable, and the Law Office Study Program is so rarely used that it does not merit an entire paragraph within what is already becoming a ridiculously long section of an article that is supposed to be about the State Bar, not the California Bar Exam.--Coolcaesar 07:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why I added the Section Back About Law Office Study

First I note that the section has been removed by a person claiming to be a lawyer who attended traditional law school claiming study of law in a law office is "insignificant." The Law Office Study Program is the only available program that will enable those without money or higher education to become attorneys in California. Saying it is "insignificant" defeats the intent of this article and suppresses valuable information. Attorney Ehline is a public figure and is notorious under the Wikipedia guidelines. [[5]] Ehline has articles about him in the LA Daily Journal as well as an instruction blog on becoming an attorney with no law school or college. [[6]] [[7]] A single paragraph is insignificant when compared to the value of the content to those who don't have the education or resources the censor of the article apparrently had. ]]

See also Wikipedia:Importance, which attempts to be a generic, all inclusive definition of criteria for inclusion.

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following: Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works; Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.

Here, there are two independent sources about Ehline, Paul Pfau, Cal Bar Tutorial Web Page, and the Los Angeles Daily Journal Article, which are not press releases. The sources do not mention Attorney Ehline in passing and instead are about him and how he became an attorney on the Law Office Study Program. Furthermore, Ehline is not selling anything. Ehline is an attorney not engaged in the bar review or law school business. It would be great if the censor would recognize the fact that the single paragraph meets or exceeds the guidelines.

Although the article is about the Bar, the Bar exam is inseparable. Perhaps we should do a wiki on Law Office Study? If not, the single paragraph is a high value paragraph.

If not let's take it to an admin. With Resepect.

With regard to the frivolous "valuable information" argument, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or an indiscriminate collection of information, nor it it a directory. See Sections 1.4, 1.7 and 1.8 of official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If people are interested in learning about the law office study program, that's what the Admissions section of the State Bar Web site is for. Even if Ehline's story is interesting (which I highly doubt), this article is not the place to draw attention to his meager accomplishments; several of my former law school classmates and current co-workers are ex-military who made the sacrifice to go back to school and get their bachelor's degrees and J.D.'s.

Wikipedia cannot be the first publisher of original research under the extremely strict Wikipedia:No original research policy. When the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times does a profile on Ehline, then he might be worth mentioning on Wikipedia, but his story would be covered in a separate article and then his name would be linked from here as an interesting example of a person who has actually qualified through the law office study program. But right now, an article on Mr. Ehline would not survive the rigorous Articles for deletion process.

Furthermore, Ehline is not very notable per the notability guideline; a Google search reveals only 555 hits for his name (most of which appear to be hits in lawyer directories). An example of a notable person would be Roger Traynor, whose article I did almost all the research for. Note how Traynor has been mentioned in the L.A. Times, the N.Y. Times, and the Daily Journal, plus the California Law Review and several other publications.

To be absolutely sure, I just ran searches for Ehline on two major news databases: Infotrac OneFile (operated by Thomson Gale) and ProQuest Library. Neither returned any hits. OneFile, by the way, has 57 million articles from thousands of magazines and newspapers. ProQuest is even bigger.

As for the sources cited, Paul Pfau's Web site is not a reliable source because he himself is selling a product, which in turn raises doubt as to whether the Daily Journal article itself is being reprinted accurately. And blogs are inherently unreliable as well as a poor indicator of what is really notable (since there are a lot of non-notable and bizarre conspiracy theories that are constantly exchanged through blogs).

I urge you to refrain from reinserting original research into Wikipedia, or you may be banned. The no original research policy is a core non-negotiable policy of the Wikimedia Foundation. The Arbitration Committee agreed with my assessment of the last user I encountered who was persistently unable to understand it. --Coolcaesar 07:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Why I added the Section Back About Law Office Study Again

Your insults are not well taken. Threatening to have me banned is a violation of the rules. Ehline has an article published about him a reputable Los Angeles Daily Journal Article and another independent article from Cal Bar Tutorial Review. The Daily Journal Article on his site is an exact duplicate of the original (use your eyes instead of saying it "raises doubt") (multiple sources) I respect that you went to traditional law school, but it does not give you the right to be a thought policeman and claim that the law office study is meager or insignificant.

Rather than continue threatening me and erasing valuable material, I recc we take this to a moderator to settle this once and for all! Respectfully and until then: You must not: Attempt to hold a debate on this page. Discussions take place after acceptance, not before: There is no need for, desire to read, or acceptance of lengthy debates on the merit of mediation. If you wish to debate on whether to mediate, do it on the article's talk page, not here. Move or remove any content under any circumstances. Content removal is restricted to members of the Mediation Committee.

I further note that I did remove the blog so your argument about blogs was improper because it had been removed.

REQUEST FOR MEDIATION

Coolcesar please sign themediation request and stop censoring the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/State_Bar_of_California

One, I was not insulting you, I was denigrating the quality of your edits (an important distinction). Two, the fact that you took my constructive criticism so personally strongly suggests that you are Mr. Ehline himself (or a close friend or family member), which constitutes an obvious conflict of interest (generally, Wikipedia editors are not supposed to insert or edit content about themselves). Three, Cal Bar Tutorial Review is a commercial service that is not a neutral academic publisher but rather a self-interested commercial enterprise; this is an important difference in many areas of the law, such as copyright and criminal law. Anyway, I concur that this should be taken to mediation and I'll raise these issues there.--Coolcaesar 06:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:One, you were insulting the study of law in a law office, claiming it is insignificant and meager. That is not your job and it insults every person who is poor or otherwise cannot afford law school, or simply who does not have the educational background to be accepted into law school. What amazes me is that you, an attorney, waste so much time trying to impose your will upon people's thoughts and opinions. Shouldn't you be working on cases?

Two: Ehline is one of only 64 people to have achieved becoming an attorney on the law office study program. That in and of itself makes him notable. I have not found much information about anyone else who also has a published article in an official Daily Journal Article. [[8]]

Ehline did not charge me for information on this program.

I attempted to reason with you and you ignored my requests and continually denigrated the program and deleted the posts after I asked for arbitration - all in violation of Wiki guidelines.

I still would like to resolve this issue with you without arbitration. Is there a way we can change the paragraph to satisfy your need to censor?

Respectfully

All or nothing?

I noticed your dispute through a comment Coolcaesar made on the Anaheim Hills talk page. As a young lawyer myself, I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

It seems to me that the section on this alternative path to bar admission is worthwhile, if only because it's so unusual (I'm fairly certain that my own state, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, doesn't have any similar options). That being said, I don't see any reason why there's a need to mention a particular individual who used this path to become an attorney. While this particular path to admission may be noteworthy, the individuals who take advantage of it are not. Additionally, the quote at the end has no business being in an encyclopedia.

Although I know this is in mediation, I'm going to try and edit the paragraph. If either you think it doesn't work, feel free to revert it, and I won't say anything further. JCO312 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO ALL OR NOTHING

I agree, so I removed the name. But I left in the Daily Journal Article becuase there is simply not a lot of information avaiable about the program. I further note I will seek to have any person banned who further alters the article, as there is a pending arbitration and the post "shall" not be altered when that happens. Thanks.

There was never a pending arbitration. There was a request for mediation, which was rejected.JCO312 13:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Clearly whomever this issuethewrit fellow is (who doesn't know how to sign his posts), he or she does not understand the difference between mediation and arbitration. The mediation request was rejected and no request has been filed with ArbCom, which would be premature as we have not yet had a complete breakdown in communications. Anyway, I don't mind the phrasing of the now-truncated paragraph as it currently stands. --Coolcaesar 07:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read through this entire section twice now and have not found a single, solitary statement by Coolcaesar indicating that this program is "insignificant" or "meager". This is the claim made by the unnamed individual who seems to have some vested interest in leaving mention of Mr. Ehline in the article. Personally, I find absolutely no value in mentioning this particular attorney in the article. It does absolutely nothing to enhance or add to my understanding of the State Bar of California, or this particular program. Perhaps a mention that a certain, limited number of individuals have ever succeeded in being admitted through this program enhances the article, but mention of this or any other individual does not. I find the tone of the unnamed individual's email to be somewhat odd, considering the intended nature of Wikipedia. Threatening. Argumentative. I read with much interest the information regard this program. As a California attorney, I have personally been in discussions on a number of occasions with both attorneys and non-attorneys where this subject has come up. I knew that there was some historical basis for admitting attorneys to the bar who had not attended a formal law school. I did not know whether the practice still existed or how it worked. Now I do. Again, whoever the unnamed individual is here, he has entirely and suspiciously misquoted Coolcaesar and has attributed to him language ("insignificant"; "meager") which he has never made. I see absolutely nothing in any of the posts from Coolcaesar which even comes close to disparaging admission to the bar through this program, or promotes law school attendance as a better route. I challenge anyone reading this to go back and confirm what I am saying here. - Kahanamoko Kahanamoko 06:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing more weird passages

I removed the following passages today:

Passage 1:

Well known, however, is the story of Maxcy Filer, who took the Bar examination twice a year for almost 25 years before passing on the 48th attempt in February 1991 As of 24 October 2007, Mr Filer is still practicing law.

Passage 2:

While predictions circulate regarding which of the subjects will be tested on the essay portion of the examination, only one subject has consistently made its appearance on the essay portion of the examination during its past 15 administrations: Professional Responsibility. Interestingly, although one of the two Performance Tests on the July 2007 exam dealt with Professional Responsibility, none of the six essays covered this topic.

Passage 3:

(n.b., the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico both have lower pass rates -- however, the applicant test pools in these jurisdictions are atypical, due to local admission rules which makes comparisons with the other bar exams administered in the 50 states meaningless).

All three passages violate Wikipedia:Notability in and of themselves. Passages two and three rely heavily on weasel words (a key sign of unreliability) and also violate core policy Wikipedia:No original research, in that they attempt a new synthesis of information that itself is not first published in a reliable source. In turn, they also violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. All three passages have a sharply different tone from the rest of the article, apparently because they were written by someone who has not received proper academic training in composing formal written English. Such training is required of all University of California graduates through the Reading & Composition credit requirement (which leads me to suspect that the writer is either not a UC graduate or barely passed their R&C courses). Finally, passage one is improperly sourced—the citations are cruder then those seen in most blogs. If anyone countermands these deletions without responding to these issues, I will be happy to countermand their reinsertions. Any questions? --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I really need help on how to file a complaint my present attorney who has not done a damn thing for my case until it was to late for me to hire another attorney. How would I get a complaint form so I can try to correct the mess that this attorney has done to me?

Please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.250.155 (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Purged more original research and improper garbage today

Lawyerdude inserted some bizarre, extremely poor quality text out of compliance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style (excessive use of headings and subheadings) and with all core Wikipedia policies including neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not. His summary of the Birbrower decision is just plain wrong (as well as poorly written) and would get a well-deserved F in any top-tier law school's Lawyering Skills course. The Birbrower opinion by Justice Ming Chin clearly held (at 17 Cal.4th 135) that the out-of-state firm had performed the unauthorized practice of law in California and its fee agreement was unenforceable to the extent that it reflected fees for work improperly performed in this state. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed POV for Cali bar difficulty

Entirely inappropriate is the reference to bar difficulty b/c it makes this article too POV-ey. Removed/simplified to clean the article up and to make it conform to Wiki standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngfrazier (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up your edits a bit. One point I did is restore California administers what is widely considered one of the nation's most difficult bar examinations... Deleting that had changed a well-sourced opinion into a statement of fact. TJRC (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone watching the vandals?

Just caught a subtle deletion on 8 January 2011 of a passage which included a quote I had inserted. I'm fixing this.

Of course, the losers who fail the exam may find Professor Little's derogatory reference to them as hacks offensive, but that's their problem for thinking they could become lawyers without first confirming whether they have the aptitude to become one.--Coolcaesar (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

State Bar Employees

Where do they find the people who work at the State Bar itself? It seems that more attention needs to be focused on the employees there instead of who passes or fails the Bar exam. No matter what amount of evidence a complaining party submits to the Bar in an attorney complaint, the "employees" deny it. Now they have the Second Look appellate review department, but it doesn't change anything. They can stare at complaint evidence for years in Sixth and Seventh Look appeals, but they still won't see what they don't want to. It's really true, complaining to the State Bar about attorney malfeasance is just like complaining to an Internal Affairs department of your local police station. It's not a waste of time, it's a waste of taxpayer's money giving these slackers jobs.

This is not an "off-topic complaint." This is the talk page, not the article itself. This is for discussion, and this remark is not related to any other discussion addressed on this page. It doesn't have to be.

This is a great point. A quote has been included, someone (probably from the Bar itself) keeps deleting it. 2.177.99.84 (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't work for the state bar, I'm a high school student. SantiLak (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Addition of Admitting Undocumented Aliens

I am not a fan of the term "illegal alien" even though it is utilized a fair amount by the media. The correct legal verbiage is "undocumented" per most courts and USCIS, but I digress. I added a section on the news of the historic admission of Sergio Garcia (who attended college, law school, and passed the, notoriously difficult, bar exam). The California Supreme Court still heard the case on his admission, even though the legislature had passed a law, signed by Governor Brown, to admit those who do not hold correct documentation as immigrants. The law should have made the decision moot, however the court still took it up. Garcia still faces challenges as, being undocumented, it is a violation of federal law for him to engage in the practice of law. However, the case and the statute, plus the decision of the State Bar to admit him are historic and may well impact decisions in other states. There is currently a case pending in Florida.  BerkeleyLaw1979  01:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing Dispute

Recently an IP user has been making some edits that are questionable. They have added unreliable sources, out of context sources, and sources that have nothing to do with the bar to a section on criticism. In an attempt to appease them I researched and found some reliable sources and created a credible criticism section lower in the article. Apparently they weren't happy and decided to keep on reverting my edits and now the page is in their version. Since Wikipedia guidelines call for it, I am discussing this on this talk page, my talk page, and their talk page (although they have changed IP addresses). If you have any thoughts please chime in. SantiLak (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel that because this issue has come up again I will post the concerns I have about the edits made by the IP user in more detail in hopes of reaching a consensus if they decide to participate in the discussion. At the beginning when the IP user started to add those things I suggested that they find reliable sources and that they move the criticism section lower in the article. In response they didn't and put the criticism section at the top. Instead of just deleting their material, I decided to research it and found some criticism of the bar with reliable sources and added it along with restructuring the criticism section and moving it lower in the page where it belongs as the criticism section is in almost all wikipedia articles. Now to their sources, the first one is Attorney Busters which is a totally unreliable source, the second one is from a law firm's petition and is their arguments and not encyclopedic material, the third one is a quote from an opinion that is taken way out of context to construed as admonishment when if you read it is just them stating that the State Bar does not regulate practice in federal court which is true and that is not criticism, it is just them stating that in their opinion. Their final source is just as out of context as the third. It is from the state bar president describing how he wants to change the state bar and improve it. He discusses how their job is analogous of that of a criminal prosecutor in order to describe the difficulties they have in prosecuting cases against bad attorneys, they took it out of context. He discusses how the professional discipline of attorneys is not about punishment and how their job is really to deter misconduct and if necessary remove bad attorneys, they took it out of context. He discusses how there is an incredible backlog of misconduct cases and how he is planning to remove the backlog of disciplinary cases, they take it out of context. They took all of his quotes out of context in an attempt to construe them as criticism. I added legitimate and reliably source information in order add to the encyclopedic credibility of the article but instead they removed it. Even the slate article is out of context. On another point that I believe is important, the IP user went around and reverted several of my edits on other pages. For example I reverted a change by an IP user involving a political party in Ukraine because they had changed the party's affiliation and they reverted my change saying "Undid vandalism by a user previously warned by Admin." Changing a political party's ideology requires sourcing in order to prevent vandalism, especially in a place like Ukraine where IP's vandalize page's all the time now that the conflict is in full swing there. Then after User:Nyttend removed their edits, they posted edit warring warnings on my talk page even though I hadn't edited the page in weeks. Whenever I try to discuss it on their talk page, they just ignore many of my points and try to discuss other things about my talk page and won't respond. I hope they can join the discussion here so we can reach a consensus because I do believe there should be a criticism section but just not the way they made it. SantiLak (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Due Weight" Standard - Criticisms of the California Bar

EDITING STANDARD - Wikipedia's standard for Due Weight & Undue Weight requires inclusion of: "viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources."

(1) A California Court of Appeal criticized the California State Bar in a published decision: The Court, in its opinion, stated that the Bar is limited to State licensing matters and censured the Bar for trying to encroach upon Federal licensing. What is included in the article is a direct quote from the court in its published opinion. Wikipedia requires "viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." A judicial opinion is a reliable source. Here the court is telling the Bar that it is a State institution and that it cannot tell the Federal court who it can admit as a practitioner.

(2) Quotations from the State Bar criticizing itself, with a citation to the State Bar's official letter, are included. The quotations are from an official publication by the State Bar criticizing itself and well-within Wikipedia's rules that it be a "viewpoint that has been published by reliable sources." In that letter, the President of the State Bar says, "For years, [the California State Bar] has carried an enormous backlog ...averaging some 1,600–1,900 uncompleted investigations .... Any backlog -- much less one of this magnitude -- undermines our credibility with the public ...."

(3) There is a quotation from an attorneys' association noting that the Bar's judges "are not judges elected by the public," the Bar's "governors are not elected by the public," and that the Bar's court "is not the public court, but their own internal court." Wikipedia's rules give the example that if someone wanted to include the "flat earth" theory on an article about "the earth," it should not be included because "numerous countervailing citations state that the earth is round." The editor challenging the quote about the Bar has not given 1 countervailing citation showing that the Bar's judges and governors are in fact elected by the public. If he did that, the editing dispute would be over. To equate the inclusion of the quote about the Bar with the "flat earth" theory, as used in Wikipedia's own rule, is just stretching the bounds of realism. The reality of the situation is that the State Bar's judges are unelected; and the State Bar's governors are unelected. How hard would it be for someone challenging these quotes as a 'fringe theory' to cite to a single public election of a State Bar judge or governor? It would not be hard at all. The editor challenging the quote can put a citation on the talk page showing the Bar's judges and governors are elected by the general public, and he would prevail easily in striking the quote as an outlandish fringe theory.

SUMMARY: The editor challenging the inclusion of these quotations has not once rewritten the section on this talk page to show how it can be made better. What he has done is he has deleted the section 10 times in less than 24 hours, which means only one thing when an editor removes properly sourced material like quotes about the State Bar from the California courts, such as this one:

"The [State Bar] Act does not regulate practice before United States courts." (Birbrower, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 130.) Rather, "[t]he State Bar Act and other statutes enacted for the purpose of regulating the practice of law in this state are applicable to our state courts only." (In re McCue (1930) 211 Cal. 57, 66.). — Benninghoff v. Superior Court (State Bar of California) (2006) 136 CA4th 61.

When you see the wholesale removal of quotes from sourced materials (a published judicial decision), you can be certain that someone is trying to sanitize sourced criticisms of the Bar from reliable sources; the Bar is a public entity and exempt from Wikipedia's more heightened standard against unsourced criticisms of living individuals.

You will see above, the person that deleted entire section 10 times in less than 24 hours, claims "I think there should be criticism section, just not the way they wrote it." What does that mean? And has he submitted a single rewritten draft of that section here for people to determine that another way of writing the section is better? Nope. He has deleted the entire section 10 times in less than 24 hours. See August 30-31, 2014, SantiLak deleting entire section 10 times: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_Bar_of_California&action=history

2.177.99.84 (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Before I address the citations that this user made, I would like to bring up that they falsely accused me of only deleting the material and not submitting any more material. I did revert their edits but then in hopes of improving the article I rewrote the criticism section with new sources from the NY times, LA times, Huff Post, and Reuters which are very reliable. I also lowered the criticism section from the top of the article where it really does not belong as you can see in many public institution's articles where they post the criticism lower in the article. You can see here my rewritten draft from a while ago that the IP user removed. They accused me of only reverting their edits but all they did after I add the criticism section was revert it over and over. You can look in the history and see that I did add a section but all they did was revert it. Now to the sources and I summarized what I thought about it up here so I think I'll just add it again. The first one is Attorney Busters which is a totally unreliable source, the second one is from a law firm's petition and is their arguments and not encyclopedic material, the third one is a quote from an opinion that is taken way out of context to construed as admonishment when if you read it is just them stating that the State Bar does not regulate practice in federal court which is true and that is not criticism, it is just them stating that in their opinion. They said that it is admonishment but it isn't at all. Their final source is just as out of context as the third. It is from the state bar president describing how he wants to change the state bar and improve it. He discusses how their job is analogous of that of a criminal prosecutor in order to describe the difficulties they have in prosecuting cases against bad attorneys, they took it out of context and used ellipsis to make it seem like he was criticizing the state bar. He discusses how the professional discipline of attorneys is not about punishment and how their job is really to deter misconduct and if necessary remove bad attorneys, they took it out of context. He discusses how there is an incredible backlog of misconduct cases and how he is planning to remove the backlog of disciplinary cases, they take it out of context. They took all of his quotes out of context in an attempt to construe them as criticism which they are not. I added legitimate and reliably source information in order add to the encyclopedic credibility of the article but instead they removed it. Even the slate article they added is out of context. On another point that I believe is important, the IP user then went around and reverted several of my edits on other pages. For example I reverted a change by an IP user involving a political party in Ukraine because they had changed the party's affiliation and they reverted my change saying "Undid vandalism by a user previously warned by Admin." Changing a political party's ideology requires sourcing in order to prevent vandalism, especially in a place like Ukraine where IP's vandalize page's all the time now that the conflict is in full swing there. Then after Nyttend removed their edits, they posted edit warring warnings on my talk page even though I hadn't edited the page in weeks. Whenever I try to discuss it just like now, they just ignore many of my points and try to discuss other things about my talk page or say things like that I was the only one reverting edits even though they did as well also violating 3RR and that I didn't try and add a better version which I did but they just removed. I also just noticed that the IP user has accused me of working for the state bar or being friends with them or something but to be clear I do not. I am a dedicated wikipedia editor who wants to keep the encyclopedia NPOV. I am a high school student by the way. SantiLak (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear SantiLak, Is there something in your response that specifically addresses the specific citations and quotes that were critical of the State Bar that you removed? I don't see it. However, I do see more off-topic rambling about what you write is "a political party in Ukraine." [!!!!!!] This article is about the California State Bar, not about Ukraine. Best of luck to you; I'll take it that you do not want to discuss the large amount of material on a point-by-point basis that you erased from the State Bar article over 10 times. Have a good day.

2.177.99.84 (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I did address the specific citations that you added. At the end of my response I added some notes about the unprofessional way you acted after I reverted your edits. Again I didn't simply erase material I added a more reliably sourced section which I left a link for above in case you wanted to respond to the fact that you claimed that I never submitted a different version of the criticism section. I do want to discuss it but I'm still waiting for you to respond to my points that I brought up in the paragraph but just so you can't claim that I didn't bring up specific quotes here I go again. The first quote that you inserted is from a totally unreliable source, Attorney busters, here it is just in case you want specifics: The State of California by law, requires all attorneys practicing law in the state to be members of the California State Bar. The State Bar of California, then in return for the favor of forced membership and dues, is required to act as the "administrative arm" of the California Supreme Court. And what is supposed to be the chief purpose of administration? To administrate a Self Disciplinary program of its member attorneys. Better defined as, "Foxes Guarding the Chicken Coop". What this has led to in its "Model" form is a smoke screen to frustrate individuals that have a problem with an attorney, and to keep attorneys out of harm's way from the general public; A general public that has many valid reasons to be ticked off at them. The State Bar of California has important sounding titles for their fellow attorney members that discipline each other. They call themselves judges (not judges elected by the public), and governors (not elected by the public), and court committees (not the public court), and appointees to the court (not the public court, but their own internal court). For the purpose of discussion, lets call the State Bar of California, "The Club". . That sources is not reliable and the quote should be deleted. Now to your law firm source in which your first quote is: ...in the last six years alone the State Bar has been sued more than 20 times in superior court ... and you also follow that by adding in In its court filings, the California State Bar seeks to extend the protections of the speech clause of the First Amendment -- which was enacted to protect private citizens from government abuses of power -- to punish lawsuits brought against the State Bar by private individuals alleging the State Bar abused its power.In seeking relief from the California Supreme Court, the California State Bar states it seeks to, "demonstrate the regularity with which the State Bar is sued over its actions in attorney admissions and discipline ....". What you wrote about the state bar's actions is not supported by the source which describes how the state bar was arguing that the anti-SLAPP laws were necessary to protect against frivolous repeated lawsuits from attorney's. It in now way supported what you wrote that the case was brought supporting the state bar's ability to: "to punish lawsuits brought against the State Bar by private individuals alleging the State Bar abused its power". Not only is the way you described the source wrong and pretty much just attacking the state bar, it is totally irrelevant to a criticism section as it is not criticism. Now to your third source which you claim is somehow admonishment when it really is not, here is the quote: In his motion for a partial stay, Benninghoff contends that state law cannot interfere with his representation of federal prisoners seeking prison transfers from the U.S. Department of Justice. We must agree. ""The [State Bar] Act does not regulate practice before United States courts." (Birbrower, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 130.) Rather, "[t]he State Bar Act and other statutes enacted for the purpose of regulating the practice of law in this state are applicable to our state courts only." (In re McCue (1930) 211 Cal. 57, 66.)". This is in no way admonishment of the state bar, all they were saying was that the State bar could not legally prevent a disbarred attorney from representing a federal prisoner who wants to be transferred. They are only stating a fact, not criticizing the bar in any way and really they are just saying that state law can not stop that disbarred attorney from representing the prisoner and they mentioned the state bar there because they are responsible for preventing disbarred attorney's from practicing law. Now to your fourth source which is taken way out of context using ellipsis. Here is how you quoted it: "Our role is roughly analogous to that of a criminal prosecutor.... " Yet he further states, "The professional discipline of attorneys is not about punishment." In regards to the Bar's efficiency of disciplining attorneys, the President of the State Bar states, "For years, [the California State Bar] has carried an enormous backlog ...averaging some 1,600–1,900 uncompleted investigations .... Any backlog -- much less one of this magnitude -- undermines our credibility with the public .... Only offending lawyers deserving of discipline benefit from delay" The use of ellipsis allows you to make it appear as if the President is criticizing the bar itself while he is actually discussing issues that he wants to address as the incoming president. You quoted hims saying: "Our role is roughly analogous to that of a criminal prosecutor" while the full quote shows what he is talking about "Our role is roughly analogous to that of a criminal prosecutor, with the important caveat that while a criminal prosecutor has virtually unfettered prosecutorial discretion, we act as an adjunct of the Supreme Court, which is why OCTC’s case closure decisions are reviewable by writ.". He was discussing how they had a difficulty prosecuting attorney misconduct because of their lack of tools to prosecute, not in any way criticizing the bar. You follow this quote by writing: "Yet he further states, "The professional discipline of attorneys is not about punishment."". The full context reveals that he is discussing how they are about deterrent and is in no way criticism: "The professional discipline of attorneys is not about punishment. We seek to deter misconduct, and, where necessary, to “take bad lawyers off the street” through disbarment or suspension.". Here is the next part you quote: "For years, [the California State Bar] has carried an enormous backlog ...averaging some 1,600–1,900 uncompleted investigations .... Any backlog -- much less one of this magnitude -- undermines our credibility with the public .... Only offending lawyers deserving of discipline benefit from delay." The full context reveals again that he is just discussing how there is very bad backlog due to the large amount of cases and is in no way criticism: "For years, OCTC has carried an enormous backlog – cases in which the six-month deadline has not been met -- averaging some 1,600–1,900 uncompleted investigations and some 600–700 cases in which investigations have been completed but in which charges await filing with the State Bar Court. Because the Bar’s mission centers on public protection, the corrosive effect of carrying a chronic discipline backlog is hard to overstate. Any backlog -- much less one of this magnitude -- undermines our credibility with the public and the confidence reposed in us by the Supreme Court. Because every dedicated professional deserves to have the cloud of a baseless accusation removed as rapidly as possible, it also damages the interests of accused lawyers facing meritless complaints. Only offending lawyers deserving of discipline benefit from delay.". Now to the Slate magazine source. Here it is : "They gravely insist Glass is not sufficiently rehabilitated. Really? Glass committed his journalistic fraud in the mid-1990s—nearly 20 years ago. For the past 10 years—10 years!—Glass has worked as a law clerk for a California firm, in exemplary fashion. As the judgment itself admits, Glass’s boss Paul Zuckerman “became convinced that Glass was one of the best employees in the firm, with a fine intellect, a good work ethic, and reliable commitment to honesty. Glass exhibited great compassion, assisting at a personal level with difficult clients and helping to find resources and social services for some of the firm’s many homeless clients. Other lawyers who had worked for or with the firm confirmed Zuckerman’s view of Glass as an employee who conducted excellent legal research, was assiduous and hyper-scrupulous about honesty, and stopped to think about ethical issues.” For 10 years, Stephen Glass has been performing virtually all the work of a lawyer for a law firm in California. He is noted for his attention to detail, his care for clients, and his honesty. Exactly how much longer would he need to work in this dedicated way for the justices to forgive? One more year? Five? Ten? How’s never? In the Bible, Jacob served 14 years: Would that be enough?" To start with the article is written as an opinion piece by one of that reporter's former colleagues and is obviously an opinion piece so you can't say that that the magazine criticized them but you have to say in an opinion piece the author criticized them. You also really can't say that the article "criticizes the California State Bar for disproportionately punishing first-time applicants to the Bar who have never been lawyers before, while ignoring a pattern of misbehavior by lawyers that have been long-time members of the California Bar and officers of the court in an official capacity." when it doesn't at all discuss misbehavior by lawyers who are long time members. It is totally irrelevant also because the article doesn't criticize the bar, you can see in the second paragraph: "Even so, today’s California Supreme Court decision denying him admission to the California bar is misguided and cruel, a verdict that embodies what is wrong with American law. ". He isn't criticizing the bar in the article, he is criticizing the California supreme court for denying the appeal. He only mentions the committee of bar examiners twice, once in a very angry unsubstantiated accusation: "The Committee of Bar Examiners and the Supreme Court justices—every one a lawyer—don’t want to let Glass be a lawyer because they’re embarrassed that anyone could possibly think that he’s like them. He’s not one of us, dear." and the second time is in another opinionated attack: " But the Supreme Court and the California Committee of Bar Examiners don’t care about that. They care about telling themselves that their profession is saintlier than it is, and they’re superior to the reformed liar who wants to work with them. But law isn’t holy orders. It’s a job.". Not only is the Slate not criticizing the bar, a slate writer is writing an opinion piece, but even so the article should not be included because it is just the author attacking the State supreme court with insults not constructively criticizing them with any sources, just his own opinions. Now to your final source that you just added, here is the quote so I can be specific: "I wish I knew an enterprising class-action lawyer who’s looking for work. If I did, I’d suggest he or she file a lawsuit against the California State Bar over billing practices that I believe are of very dubious legality. They’ve been doing it for as long as I’ve been practicing law, and they get away with it because they’re the State Bar and everyone’s either in on the trick, or afraid to sue them. ... You could not possibly write a more misleading bill. This bill is fools the reader into overlooking (at least) lines 24 and 25. These two dollar amounts are included at the outset, and you’re required to subtract them, whereas the other voluntary fees are clearly labeled as voluntary and you are asked to add them. It is hard to imagine how many attorneys hastily write out a check either for $615 or for $400, not realizing—because this bill misleads them—that they are paying more than they are legally required to pay". He really is not a reliable source because as his disclaimer reads: "This is my personal blog. The opinions expressed here are my own". All he really is doing is getting a picture of his bar dues bill and talking about how the bar made the payment sheet very complex as a way to get members to possibly pay more if they didn't read the bill carefully. If he had cited some news articles discussing how the state bar's forms were very complex then those would have been good to add but all he did was talk about the complexity of the form. In closing, I hope you can now understand my concerns as I have carefully cited all of them. I do believe there should be a criticism section but it needs reliable sources. I added a section that had those sources but you just reverted my edits. On another small note, I would appreciate it if you didn't go around adding comments on the talk page claiming that I am a state bar employee, I'm just a high school student in California who loves wikipedia and wants to prevent bad things from happening to articles. SantiLak (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If court decisions, magazine articles, and legal scholars criticisms of the California State Bar were not worthy of Wikipedia, there wouldn't already be several separate lengthy articles by dozens of Wikipedia editors noting criticisms of the California State Bar. These types of criticisms and sources have already been judged by many editors to be fair play: (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keller_v._State_Bar_of_California ) In Keller the US Supreme Court ordered an injunction against the California Bar for abusing its authority and defrauding people of membership fees. 2.177.99.84 (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that court decisions, magazine articles, and legal scholars weren't worthy of wikipedia, I pointed out that they didn't belong in the article for multiple reasons including being unrelated to the state bar and not being criticism at all. You can see detailed explanations of those reasons in my very lengthy and detailed response to the quotes that you added. Apparently you don't feel like responding to that or to the version of the criticism section that I had added. Keller is a good example of when the state bar committed misconduct but doesn't really belong in the criticism section but more likely in another part of the article like the Member fee authorization process. Also the references cited by the Keller article are purely factual and relevant to the article unlike the ones cited by you. SantiLak (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm with SantiLak. 2.177.170.75 made this edit, which I reverted, on the grounds of WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, and WP:PRIMARY. 2.177.170.75 then reinstated its edit.

The WP:UNDUE ground is well-plowed above. It's apparent that 2.177.170.75 has an axe to grind, and is using this Wikipedia article as the vehicle for that.

WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY are best discussed together, because they are related. The Konigsberg case is a WP:PRIMARY source. If there were a Wikipedia article on it, its use would be appropriate, to the extent that it was simply making factual statements showing what the case held. However, in the context of criticism of the California bar, this is the type of synthesis where 2.177.170.75 itself is making an argument and using a primary source as the basis for that argument. It is not using third-party secondary sources on the subject of criticism of the state bar, and that's what makes this Original Research: it is not mere factual reporting on the case, it is citing the case for a discussion of criticism.

If 2.177.170.75 were to cite third-party reliable sources that discuss the Kongsberg case in the context of criticism of the bar, the OR/Primary issue would be addressed; of course, the UNDUE issue would remain, and the material should still be excluded on that ground. TJRC (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TJRC and I think that not only is the "Kongsberg" case important but so is the use of other sources in the article that are being used by 2.177.170.75 to make an argument and using those source as the basis for their arguments. For more just scroll up to the giant paragraph that I wrote with citations. These issues need to be resolved through discussion but only if 2.177.170.75 responds to the issues brought up instead of making short statements ignoring the criticism like they did above. SantiLak (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Concur with TJRC and SantiLak's incisive analysis of the situation. Graduated blocking and/or semi-protection of this article for a while may be necessary. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the anon IP editor has still failed to correct the criticism section to deal with the issues noted above, particularly WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT. In particular, the parts of WP:NOT about how "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a directory" (particularly a collection of quotes). The correct way to do it would have been to paraphrase the key points made in the underlying sources, rather than trying to turn this article into a Wikiquote mess. Any objections before I excise that? --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait not objecting really, but what are you going to do exactly. I am just wondering. - SantiLak (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Rip it all out. Let's see if the anon IP comes back within the next week to make a good faith effort at fixing the aforementioned edits to comply with the above-noted policies. If nothing happens, then I propose we take the position that the anon IP is refusing to act in good faith to conform edits to WP policy and take out the garbage.

No one has the three hours or the energy it would take (I sure as hell don't) to locate the nuggets of truth in there and boil them down to three or four lucid, balanced sentences, let alone teach basic remedial English composition. Throwing giant blockquotes at the wall interspersed with gross mischaracterizations of the quotes' content is not writing. Most people figure that out around age 16.--Coolcaesar (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems good to me but I do have one idea to go along with it. When I first encountered the anon IP I decided to try and write a reasonable criticism section, you can see it here. I also went through all of those additions and listed piece by piece why they shouldn't be included. That is the humongous paragraph above that I wrote after the ip user kept on complaining that I was not giving any real quotes or explanations. - SantiLak (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Also I invited the user to come and rejoin the discussion several days ago but no response. - SantiLak (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Just remembered to follow up on this. No response from the anon IP. Took out the garbage. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Konnigsberg US Supreme Court decision.

1. Does not violate the original research rule - Quotes are from a published judicial decision:

“Wikipedia Rule: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to ideas—for which no published sources exist.”

They're quotes from a court case, clearly identified as such.

2. Does not violate the Undue Weight rule:

“Wikipedia Rule: An article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it because there are numerous countervailing citations showing that the Flat Earth concept is a fringe theory. To show that a citation is a fringe theory, countervailing citations showing it as such must be produced.” Requires "countervailing citations" and subsequent discussion and consensus specifically debunking the quote.

3. Criticisms of a public government entity do not raise to the level of criticisms against a private individual.

4. A judicial opinion is a primary source:

“Wikipedia Rule: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.177.170.75 (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Return of 2.17... IP Editor

Since this IP editor has returned again in the spirit of wikipedia I am going to try once again to engage in rational discussion with them. For now I will not be editing because they have some sort of vendetta against me and I don't want to deal with what they will throw at me. A little over a month ago Coolcaesar and I discussed it and then they removed it. I invited that editor multiple times to come and continue the discussion but there was no response. Now they have returned and they have reverted edits by other users, specifically Srich32977 and Ravensfire without explanation which as we know, is reserved for vandalism. I am starting this thread in the talk page to try and discuss with them their edits. Please comment below. - SantiLak (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the edits made are problematic. My previous revert edit summary mentioned some of the problems. Also I've posted on IP's talk page a welcome message about problem editing. As we have 4 registered editors who find problems with the changes, I think IP editor would do well to consider what is sought with these proposed changes. I hope IP will consider and honor the Bold – Revert – Discuss process. – S. Rich (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia articles have sections on criticisms of public entities. The State Bar's Executive Director sued the State Bar yesterday, pointing to corrupt practices by the State Bar. It was reported by dozens of major media outlets. You will note that the constant deleting of the criticisms section in Wikipedia in the State Bar article was also mentioned. Here are a some citations - discuss please: 2.177.207.221 (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

California State Bar in Turmoil After Shake-up Triggers Whistleblower Claim Wall Street Journal (blog) - ‎Nov 14, 2014‎ The California State Bar was thrown into turmoil this week after its ousted executive director struck back with retaliation claims alleging that he was fired for complaining about ethical breaches inside the organization. Joseph Dunn, a Democratic former ... California State Bar Fires Back At Joe Dunn's Version Of His Sensational ... OC Weekly (blog) - ‎Nov 15, 2014‎ The California State Bar issued a statement this afternoon defending its Nov. 7 firing of former Orange County state Senator Joe Dunn as executive director and claiming Dunn's lawsuit response depicting himself as an abused whistleblower is "bewildering.". Joe Dunn, Ex-Orange County State Senator, Fired From California State Bar OC Weekly (blog) - ‎Nov 13, 2014‎ Fired in recent days as executive director of the California State Bar, former Orange County state Senator Joe Dunn has filed a lawsuit claiming his ouster was retaliation for his whistle-blower revelations concerning "egregious improprieties" within the ...

Former Sen. Joe Dunn sues California Bar for firing him Sacramento Bee - ‎Nov 13, 2014‎ Former Democratic state Sen. Joe Dunn is suing his former employer, the State Bar of California, alleging that the bar's board wrongfully fired him as executive director after he reported illegal activities and ethical breaches by high-ranking officials in the ... Fired California Bar official files whistle-blower suit against group Reuters - ‎Nov 14, 2014‎ (Reuters) - The fired executive director of the State Bar of California filed a whistle-blower lawsuit against the organization on Thursday the same day that his termination was announced, according to a court document. Joseph Dunn, a former State Senator ...

Fired State Bar Director Fights Back in Whistleblower Suit The Recorder - ‎Nov 13, 2014‎ SACRAMENTO — Hours after his termination was announced, fired California State Bar executive director Joe Dunn filed suit Thursday afternoon, alleging that he was canned after alerting the bar to “serious ethical breaches” among top leaders. Fired California bar official said he tried to expose wrongdoing Los Angeles Times - ‎Nov 13, 2014‎ Joseph Dunn, a former state senator from Orange County, ran the bar from 2010 until last week, when he said he was fired without explanation. The bar announced his departure Thursday, shortly before Dunn filed his suit in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Former executive sues State Bar over alleged whistleblower retaliation MyNewsLA.com - ‎Nov 13, 2014‎ The former executive of the State Bar sued his former employer Thursday, alleging in a whistleblower complaint he was fired for exposing ethical breaches within the agency responsible for the oversight of the state's attorneys. Joseph Dunn, a former state ... Sen. Dunn Files Whistleblower Action Against California State Bar Courthouse News Service - ‎Nov 13, 2014‎ Rather than hold Ms. Kim and the OCTC accountable for its actions as Senator Dunn encouraged, the State Bar has terminated Senator Dunn and taken adverse actions against other whistleblowers for bringing this issue to their attention," said the complaint. Joe Dunn Abruptly Fired By CA Bar, Files Whistleblower Lawsuit VoiceofOC - ‎Nov 14, 2014‎ Former Democratic State Senator Joe Dunn has been fired by the California State Bar as executive director, just as he files a whistleblower lawsuit against the bar alleging that top officials ousted him because he tried to expose "egregious improprieties," ... Former director sues California bar association U-T San Diego - ‎Nov 16, 2014‎ SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The former executive director of the State Bar of California has sued the group that certifies state lawyers, claiming he was fired after complaining of ethical breaches by bar officials. Joe Dunn, a former Democratic state senator ... Dunn Out as Executive Director of State Bar, Files Suit Metropolitan News-Enterprise - ‎Nov 14, 2014‎ “The State Bar of California announced today that the employment of State Bar Executive Director Joseph Dunn will end upon the expiration of a 30-day notice pursuant to his employment contract. Dunn is no longer acting as executive director, and the State ... Shakeup at state bar association leads to lawsuit KTVN - ‎Nov 14, 2014‎ SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - The former executive director of The State Bar of California says he was fired after he complained of ethical breaches by association officials. Joe Dunn, a former Democratic state senator from Orange County, led the association ... Fired Calif. Bar Director Blows Whistle On Ethics Breaches Law360 (subscription) - ‎Nov 13, 2014‎ Law360, Los Angeles (November 13, 2014, 10:03 PM ET) -- Fired California State Bar executive director Joseph Dunn sued his former employers in state court on Thursday, alleging he was terminated for exposing the bar's “massive cover-up” of ethics ...

Please don't try and communicate through walls of text, and also you need to gather consensus before making your additions, and also you can't revert without explanation unless it is vandalism which it isn't. - SantiLak (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello IP: Several of the items you mention are described as blogs, which are often not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. Please look at WP:SPS. Next, WP is WP:NOTNEWS – this stuff about the firing and lawsuit may be interesting, but is it encyclopedic? Next, when considering article text we should remember that filing lawsuits is easy, but the allegations in lawsuits are by definition without proof. (The fact that he is making the allegations is not encyclopedic.) So, please, get off of the soapbox and consider how to gain consensus. When your block expires, please propose specific edits you think are needed, supply properly formatted references for the edits, and gain consensus from other editors here, on this talk page, before adding them. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The other problem is that what the anonymous editor is doing is what's called a proof surrogate---throwing irrelevant facts at the wall as evidence without bothering to explain how it is actually relevant. In this case, there is no attempt at any step-by-step explanation of how Dunn's specific allegations (which have already been discussed in the media) have any relevance whatsoever to the anonymous editor's allegations.

As I already noted above, the anonymous editor may have a good critique to make about the State Bar (i.e., to quote Ronald Reagan's favorite joke, there must be a pony in here somewhere), but it appears that he or she would need to first learn how to write in a coherent fashion. Being able to generate (mostly) grammatically correct text under a Chomskyan tree diagram is not English composition. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sandefur blog – rationale for not using

I've moved the Timothy Sandefur blog material. While Sandefur is an attorney and author, his self-published criticism of State Bar billing practices goes beyond his area of expertise. He is contending that his State Bar dues statement constitutes unfair billing, and he basically admits that he cannot contest the billing practice when he asks that some other lawyer file a class action suit. But as an intelligent and perceptive lawyer he has figured out what the issues are when looking at his bill. That is, he (like most other lawyers) reads the bill and decides what funds he wants to donate to. Perhaps he can't find a class action lawyer to file suit because he's done some extra research and discovered how much money these "extra" fees generate for the various worthy and non-worthy causes. And perhaps he's discovered that other attorneys generally support these additional billing items. Another reason Sandefu's comments are not WP:RS is the fact that he is discussing his bar fee bill in particular (as an exemplar of all bar fee bills). This, ironically, puts him in a conflict of interest situation because he is saying "I'm looking at my bar fee statement and I think/realize I'm being subjected to 'unfair or fraudulent business practices, or unfair, deceptive or misleading advertising' practices." To compare, if he had studied the billing practices of the other states and had published the results of his studies, then it might be proper to say he was a reliable source as to this subject. As it stands, Sandefur is but one California attorney who has used his blog to complain. His complaint is not an encyclopedic one. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Slate magazine piece about Stephen Glass – rationale for removal

There are two reasons for removing this piece. 1. It is not a discussion about admission practices for first-time lawyers. 2. It is focused on a decision by the California Supreme Court, as the ultimate authority over California lawyers (and not the State Bar in general) about one particular person. The Slate piece may be appropriate for Stephen_Glass#Unsuccessful_California_bar_application. It is not appropriate in this article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Joe Dunn controversy

As can be seen, the material about Dunn has been revised and placed into a new section. In keeping with WP policies about WP:BALANCE, both sides of the story are presented. Also, the references supporting the material have been provided in proper citation format. I hope (and expect) that IP editors (mentioned above) will be satisfied with these edits and pick up a few pointers about how WP is properly edited. – S. Rich (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Revision to Paragraph One

The first paragraph of this article would be much more accurately voiced if it read as follows:

"The State Bar of California, established 1927, was one of the nation’s first unified legal bars. As a unified bar, it is a state government agency that also operates as a mandatory bar association. Only active members of the State Bar may practice law in California. The State Bar manages the admission and discipline of attorneys, including the administration of the California Bar Exam and the investigation of complaints from the public of professional misconduct. Funding is provided by examination fees and by member dues authorized by the California Legislature in the annual State Bar Member Dues Bill, which must be signed into law by the Governor. The State Bar of California operates as an agency of the Supreme Court of California but its immediate oversight is exercised by a board of 19 trustees – 6 elected by district, by and from the membership of the State Bar; 5 members of the State Bar appointed by the California Supreme Court; 2 members of the State Bar and 2 members of the general public appointed by officers of the California Legislature; and 4 members of the general public appointed by the Governor of California."

The source of the above information is the State Bar’s website at this URL: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/StateBarOverview.aspx

The term “official bar association” is not an accurate description because unified bars are state government agencies whose operations include many functions exercised by bar associations – but as state government agencies, they cannot perform all of the functions that a private bar association can perform, because they operate solely on the public purse (or California's unified bar can only operate with funds authorized by the state legislature). When a member of any unified bar pays member dues to that state bar, s/he is actually paying fees to a government agency.

I notice the article has section on the controversial firing of Joe Dunn. You might also want to include a section about the State Bar’s funding crisis back in 1998. Governor Pete Wilson vetoed the State Bar Member Dues Bill and the Legislature was not able to override the veto, with the result the State Bar could not collect any member dues that year and had to cease many operations for a time. Bar admissions continued because the fees for examinations and admission costs are authorized by separate legislation.

Here is a link to a letter Robert Fellmeth wrote to Governor Wilson in 1998 at the height of the crisis, which provides information on that controversy – which was much more important than Joe Dunn getting the boot: http://www.cpil.org/download/State_Bar_Funding_Crisis.pdf.

73.162.218.153 (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This article needs to be rewritten from scratch

It needs to be rewritten to reflect the fact that the bar has been essentially deunified and reduced to an attorney licensing agency--the ABA Journal just ran an article on this. Unfortunately, I have way too many other priorities in line ahead of this right now. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

COI edits

I work in Communications for the State Bar of California. I am also a long-time experienced Wikipedia editor on a range of subjects. I am updating only where this article is badly out of date. If anyone has issue with my updates or changes, I welcome discussion. Sfmammamia (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Reorganization edits

This page was flagged for re-organization to comply with Wikipedia organizational updates. I started to update it, but I noted that it had not been updated for over a year, with many sections not updated for many years. I also noted a lot of sections and sentences that needed citations. Please let me know if anyone disagrees with the re-organization. A lot has happened in 2019-2020, so hopefully this update will be fine with the wiki community. Saltwolf (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed this. Unfortunately, it looks like you did not read any of the existing sources already cited in the article at that point in time in 2020. As a result, the article is now chock full of factual errors.

For example, there was this sentence in the article which I had drafted:

"California is among the majority of American states that operate an integrated (mandatory) bar, in which the statewide bar association is integrated with the judiciary and active membership therein is required in order to practice law."

You changed that to: "In 2018–2019, California joined the majority of American states that operate an integrated (mandatory) bar, in which the statewide bar association is integrated with the judiciary and active membership therein is required in order to practice law."

This is simply incorrect. As the article before you changed it had already made clear, California has had an integrated or mandatory bar since 1927. You changed the article to state that it joined the states with a mandatory or integrated bar in 2018. What actually happened is that California nominally retained a mandatory bar on paper, but drastically stripped it down to a bare-bones attorney admission and attorney disciplinary system and spun off the trade association functions to the California Lawyers Association. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)