The terms unified and integrated when applied to a bar organization are essentially synonymous. Unified bars perform regulatory functions as well as a range of other public services and programs designed to enhance the competence and professionalism of legal practitioners, and help the public to understand and access its justice system. In this model, the legal practitioners – rather than the taxpayers – pay for this work through required licensing fees.
The unified bar concept first came to fruition in North Dakota in 1921. It derived from a recognition that the public obligation of the legal profession goes well beyond adherence to ethical/disciplinary rules. Lawyers, in effect, are the keepers of the justice system. While a healthy system of laws and courts is the foundation of any functional democracy, it fails its primary test if the citizens do not understand and trust, or cannot fully access, its protections.
Now 100 years since its establishment, the unified bar model exists in more than 30 U.S. jurisdictions, although how those bars operate varies considerably.
This model is rooted in the idea that the privilege afforded to licensed legal professionals comes with certain obligations to ensure that the courts and the justice system serve the public.
Over the years, the Oregon State Bar has maintained its strong, public-focused mission. The bar’s regulatory functions, including discipline and admission, are performed under the direction of the judicial branch, assuring that the courts can maintain fair and impartial review authority as the final arbiter in regulatory matters and that legal practitioners pay for the costs of lawyer regulation and the bar’s access to justice work.
The bar’s public protection mission also drives the delivery of programs and services that improve the quality of legal services for Oregonians. These include access for all practitioners – as part of their licensing fee – to legal research and educational tools (Fastcase and Barbooks), and programs that work toward a diverse and inclusive bar to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse public.
In addition, the bar advances a fair and accessible justice system through programs that help the public understand, trust and access the justice system. These include maintaining a public website – OregonLawHelp.org - that is a primary source of educational material on Oregon law, the judicial system and how to access legal help; collaborating with programs like Legal Aid during major crises when Oregonians need legal help (wildfires etc); operation of the statewide Lawyer Referral and Information Services program and management of Oregon’s Legal Services Program.
Finally, the bar supports improvements to the administration of justice through advocacy for adequate funding for the courts and for legal services for low-income individuals. The bar’s Law Improvement Program works with the legislature to enhance the clarity and efficiency of Oregon statutes.
The OSB currently has one* lawsuit pending in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the bar. It relates to content published in the OSB’s Bulletin magazine in 2018, and the plaintiffs’ claims of First Amendment violations of free speech and freedom of association.
On February 26, 2021 a panel of the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's opinion dismissing the freedom of speech claims, and remanded the cases for additional review of the freedom of association claims. In 2022, the OSB moved for summary judgment on the remanded claims. On February 15, 2023, the District Court of Oregon granted summary judgment for the OSB and dismissed all claims. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissed claims to the Ninth Circuit.
On August 28, 2024, the Ninth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of mandatory licensure with the Oregon State Bar (OSB) and dismissed certain claims, ruling that the plaintiff is not entitled to retroactive relief. The Court noted that plaintiff may be entitled to prospective (future) injunctive relief, though any remedy “need not be drastic.” It provided guidance about how the bar could clarify when statements are not made on behalf of all bar members. The Court remanded the issue of relief for the freedom of association claim back to District Court for further proceedings.
This spring, the plaintiff filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. On May 27, the Oregon State Bar filed a brief in opposition to that petition. To date, the court has not scheduled a conference to consider plaintiff’s petition. The District Court stayed further proceedings pending the outcome of the petition.
This lawsuit mirrors several filed against mandatory state bars across the country questioning the legitimacy of the unified bar model. Most have been dismissed or were denied writ by the United States Supreme Court and are closed.
The Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA) and the State Bar of Texas each maintain a list of current challenges, found respectively at www.lsba.org/challenge and https://www.texasbar.com/Content/NavigationMenu/McDonald_et_al_v_Longley_et_al1/default.htm