Guidelines for Attorneys Providing Legal Assistance to Veterans and Military Service Members

Just received this email from the State Bar's president concering guidelines for the provision of legal assistance to veterans and members of the military. Thought I'd pass it along in case you want to share any concerns that you may have. Also, this is a field of law with which I am not particuarly familiar, so if you are, and there's something special you think I need to know to understand the issue fully, please tell me.

From the President: Matter of interest to your constituents
To: Board of Governors Members in Circuits Near Military InstallationsFrom: Lester TateDate: July 9, 2010
Because some of the lawyers in your circuit may routinely represent service members and veterans, the attached Provisional Guidelines for Attorneys Providing Legal Assistance to Veterans and Military Service Members may be of special interest to you and those lawyers (click here to view the document).
The Executive Committee will be considering these guidelines next Friday, July 16, 2010. Please e-mail president@gabar.org with any comments or advice you may wish to offer no later than Wednesday, July 14, 2010. It is probable that some form of these Guidelines will be presented to the Board at its Summer or Fall meetings.
Thank you for your service.

Sticker Shock

Let me say straight away that I am not complaining about my low income, which is the product my own choices. (My most regular income comes from splitting a law clerk’s salary of $60,000 in a job-share in DeKalb State Court, teaching Mass Communication Law part-time as an adjunct professor for $1,800 a course at Clark-Atlanta University and selling patio furniture and other garden materials for about $13.50 per hour during markets at the Merchandise Mart. Oh, and since I became a certified floral designer, I’ve made close to $100 on floral arrangements.) I can afford to live this way because I am single, I have no children, and my house, in which I have lived since 1983, is paid-for. And, I incurred no debt going to law school part-time and working full-time when I was late in life.

Nonetheless, given that I likely would be the lowest paid lawyer on the Board of Governors, I asked myself before I offered for a position on the board whether I could afford to serve.

In so doing, I looked at the schedule of upcoming meetings, reasoned that all were within driving range of my relatively fuel-efficient and paid-for 2000 Miata, and that low-cost accommodations likely were available at the out-of-town meetings sites. I concluded, particularly given that a couple of the meetings are in Atlanta, where I live, that I could afford to hit the road the few times a year the BOG meetings are away from home.

But what I didn’t figure into my calculations, and what has left me with sticker shock, is the cost of the various activities the bar offers in association with these Board of Governors meetings.

(At the moment, I’m not conjuring up a milder and/or better comparable term for “adding insult to injury.” If there is one, I would use it here.) Adding insult to injury, at least insofar as the State Bar’s annual meeting is concerned, there is a price break for being a judge—as opposed to a much lower-paid governmental lawyer. This really struck me as odd. Reason being, other organizations of which I am a member, such as the American Bar Association and the Georgia Association of Women Lawyers, give price breaks to certain segments of the legal community, but do so along the lines of public service/public interest employment, not simply by the robe.

I cannot fathom what the rationale is for giving judges a break on the price of events, but not doing the same for much lower-paid government employees and public interest lawyers.

Here are examples of the price differentials for the State Bar’s annual meeting. A “full package” of activities for a full-time judge registering before May 14, 2010, was $125 and $140 after that date. This included the opening night festivities, a reception with the Supreme Court, an inaugural dinner, plus a Bloody Mary reception. The price for a lawyer, such as myself, was $250 or $265, depending on the time of purchase. Either way, too rich for my salary. (The “special” resort view hotel rate at the Amelia Island Plantation where the meeting was held was $154 a night. I found a condo, right on the beach a few miles away, that I shared with friends for $50 per night.)

I thought about writing about this at the time, but feared it would be perceived as a whine.

Then, I received the registration form for the August Board of Governors meeting. The BOG meeting is held at State Bar headquarters in Atlanta, which makes it free to me. But there is an optional trip to Chicago afterwards.

I love Chicago, so before I received the price sheet, this seemed very tempting. I lived there until I was twelve. I’ve visited twice as an adult. There are bargain airfares to Chicago. I thought perhaps the State Bar might have negotiated reduced rate hotel fares for this visit and that maybe this would be worth a splurge.

Then I looked at the cost (not including airfare) of this package. For one person (and no break for judges): $1,204!!!!! This is for (at a la carte rates): lodging at the Hyatt Regency for three nights; a Thursday night reception at $168; a Friday breakfast at $46; a CLE (a bargain) at $10; a Friday night White Sox game for $218; a Saturday night dinner for $200; and, a Sunday morning breakfast of $46.

Good Grief!

I can’t even imagine why breakfast would be $46, given that I typically eat yogurt and Cheerios.

And even if I made what seems to me like a humongous judicial salary exceeding $120,000 per year at the Superior Court level or $166,000 at the state appellate court level, I’m not sure that I would pay $218 for a White Sox game. (OK, I am a Cubs fan from way back and back in the day saw Ernie Banks play at Wrigley Field.)

Or $200 for dinner? What in the world is on the menu?

So, it is, that I am going to the BOG meeting at State Bar headquarters in August. And if I decide I want to go back to my old home-town of Chicago for a baseball game, it won’t be on this package.

GSU Alumni Among New BOG Members

My fellow Georgia State University College of Law alumna Dawn M. Jones was elected to represent Atlanta Circuit, Post 16 on the BOG. Here she and I are with Dean Steve Kaminshine at the GSU Alumni Reception on Friday June 18.

Board of Governors Adopts Budget; Includes BASICS Funding For One Year

The Board of Governors of the State Bar of Georgia adopted a budget for 2010-2011 after a contentious debate over whether to include a $140,000 appropriation for the BASICS program. Other highlights of the Saturday June 19 meeting included a decision to retire the debt on the State Bar's headquarters building in downtown Atlanta, the election of executive committee members, and the setting of a schedule for consideration of amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

BASICS Triggers Budget Debate

BASICS--which stands for Bar Association Support to Improve Correctional Services--is a30-hour course of instruction for soon-to-be released prison inmates that provides instruction, guidance and employability counseling to help them transition back into society and thus reduce recidivism.

According to the State Bar's website: "BASICS Mission is to aid and steer inmates in the direction of self-rehabilitation. During the classes, we assist with developing career, educational and/or work plans, preparing resumes, setting goals, and teaching interviewing techniques. Upon release, we assist with job research, applying for colleges or vocational schools, completing or changing personal action plans, as well as developing financial plans. This decreases the likelihood that these individuals will return to jail."

Seth Kirschenbaum, the chair of the State Bar's BASICS Committee, explained that the 35-year-old program has been funded in the past by the Georgia Bar Foundation. However, he said those funds are not available this year due to the economic crisis. If the State Bar did not provide funding this year, Kirschenbaum said it would be the death knell of the BASICS program.

Kirschenbaum's remarks came in response to concerns raised by R. Chris Phelps, the chair of the State Bar's Finance Committee. Phelps said that while he is not opposed to the BASICS program, he was concerned that it was not within the scope of Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990). The fact that there is sufficient money in the bar's coffers to fund the program is not a sufficient reason to do so, Phelps added.

Paula Frederick, the State Bar's general counsel, explained that in Keller, the Supreme Court held that members of a mandatory bar cannot be forced to pay through their membership dues for any bar activities they deem to be political or ideological. Under Keller, the use of a bar's compulsory dues to fund political and ideological activities violates the First Amendment if the activities are not related to regulating the profession or improving the quality of legal services.

Charles "Buck" Ruffin, the treasurer of the State Bar, said the Bar's executive committee discussed giving BASICS funding for one-year to give it time to become more entrepreneurial in its fund raising so that it can be self sufficient.

J. Alvin Leaphart opined that the state Department of Corrections should pay for the program and also expressed Keller concerns.

Ultimately, after a bit of parliamentary quibbling, the Board voted to adopt a budget that includes funding for BASICS for one year, but no more. This action occurred first by voice vote, but after a request for a show of hands, the final tally was 92 in favor of funding and 22 opposed.

Probably of greater interest to most State Bar members is this piece of news about the budget: It does NOT contain a dues increase.

Other Action

In other action, the Board voted to retire the debt on the State Bar headquarters building. The original amount of the loan was for $7.2 million at an interest rate of 5.2 percent. The payoff amount was $4,495,000, which included a penalty of about $300,000 for early termination. Given that the weighted average return on current investments is only about 1.2 percent, early retirement of a 5 percent loan was determined to be financially prudent.

Two members of the Executive Committee, Phyllis Holmen and Harvey Weitz, were re-elected to their positions. Patrise Perkins-Hooker was elected to the Executive Committee post previously held by Charles Ruffin.

The Board set the following schedule for consideration of proposed amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct:

1) Suggested wording changes must be made in writing and received by the State Bar on or before Tuesday July 20, 2010, for inclusion in the Board's agenda book.

2) Brief discussion of the proposed amendments and any wording changes will occur during the Board's Summer Meeting on Thursday August 12, 2010.

3) Final suggested wording changes must be in writing and must be received by the State Bar on or before Tuesday September 21, 2010, for inclusion in the Board's agenda book.

4) Action will be taken on Saturday, October 16, 2010, at which time no other wording changes will be in order.

The text of the proposed amendments and an executive summary can be found on the State Bar's website.

http://www.gabar.org/news/proposed_amendments_to_the_georgia_rules_of_professional_conduct/

Through the Looking Glass: Reflections on Hardy Gregory Jr. Receiving Professionalism Award

During the State Bar's plenary session today, it occurred to me why it was not such a weird small world coincidence that last night in a Publix supermarket in Fernandina Beach, Florida I ran into the first person who really encouraged me to go to law school. Former Georgia Supreme Court Justice Hardy Gregory Jr. is here in Florida, in large part, because he was being honored with the Chief Justice Thomas O. Marshall Professionalism Award. In a Palsgraf kind of way, I wouldn't be on the Board of Governors at all if it was not for Hardy's embodiment of the best ideals of the legal profession.

Please bear with me because the wind up to draw these points together is a little long. But it exemplifies why Hardy is so deserving of this award and why it is a reminder to us all that we should always be on the look out as we make our way up the ladder to see if there is someone below who could use a hand up.

I am by nature self deprecating, so sometimes (oftentimes) it doesn't occur to me where my talents lie, unless someone else points them out to me. Perhaps that's why it took me 19 years as a journalist to finally make the decision to shift careers by going to law school, even though my first thought of being a lawyer came to me in high school. Yet, it would not have even occurred to me at all to apply to law school had it not been for two wonderful people, whom I never would have met had I not been lucky enough to cover them through my job as a reporter writing about Georgia's appellate courts.

The first, as I mentioned, was Hardy Gregory Jr., whom I met when he was a Supreme Court justice, but got to know better after he left the court to go into practice with his friend, Gary Christy, and his mentor, T. Hoyt Davis, Jr. (I am writing this from memory and not double checking so I assume spelling and factual statements are accurate.) At the time, with Hardy coming off the Supreme Court, I wondered why a jurist of his stature would not be the lead name in the law firm of Davis, Gregory and Christy. Hardy replied something to the effect that T. Hoyt Davis Jr. was his senior and therefore he was getting top billing.

So it was with this knowledge of respect for mentors, not one's own past achievements, that I started covering the development of Hardy Gregory's practice, particularly an appellate specialty. This was before he wrote his civil practice book. But in his careful explanations to me of the issues in the cases of his that I was covering on my beat as an appellate reporter, I received real lessons in the law that were eerily reminiscent in his descriptions in the forward to his book of the study he and his mentor pursued as they mastered the Civil Practice Act after its passage. (As an aside, I may need to change this line for accuracy when I get back home and can double check Hardy's introduction to his book. I'm again relying on memory.)

For what ever reason, Hardy started encouraging me to go to law school. In the most memorable letter I received from him, a thank-you note for an article that followed up on our discussion of his case, he told me: "Law is in your blood." And he urged me to go to law school.

Actually, law was not in my blood. No one in my family, to my knowledge, had gone to law school. In fact, my mother, when I told her I had been accepted to go to law school at Georgia State, had the following reaction: "Oh, no!" This line was delivered in a deep, moaning smoker's voice and in a tone reserved for someone revealing they have just been diagnosed with an incurable disease.

But Hardy had discovered a talent in me that I didn't even realize that I had and he encouraged me to pursue it. About the same time, Justice George Carley, whom I first started covering when he was chief judge of the Court of Appeals, also started urging me to go to law school.

I was helpless, having undergone their one-two punches. I applied to Georgia State's College of Law. I was accepted, probably on the basis of the recommendation letters of a former and sitting Supreme Court justice. And with that acceptance, which led to my leaving journalism, I effectively crossed the first step leading me through the looking glass to a new profession in law.

So fast forward to today. After the meeting in which Hardy received his award, I attended the Appellate Section luncheon, where I sat with Justice Carley, and listened to the various candidates for election to the Court of Appeals talk about the genesis of their interest in becoming an appellate judge.

One candidate, Chris McFadden, spoke of his father, who was a judge, and how he instilled a kind of reverence for that profession and how it made being a judge a pinnacle of achievement.

And I thought about how the aspiration for a professional goal doesn't always have to come from a parent. It also can come from someone with a love for what they do and who has an encouraging eye out for another someone with similar interests, and perhaps, with a little development, talents. Or, spotting a bright mind who doesn't necessarily share an interest in your precise profession, but who nonetheless with encouragement could be able to find the path to a hidden talent.

In a way, this trip to the State Bar's annual meeting is a sort of harmonic convergence of the influences that took me through the looking glass and brought me to this point. And it makes me all the more cognizant of the need to keep an eye out for someone who might need a helping hand--or simply a reflective look in the mirror--to realize that achievement of their goal begins with just little boost to the next step.

Up Before Sunrise

For the past two days, I've been up at dawn to head to the beach to take photos of the sunrise. I came down to Amelia Island for a little R&R ahead of the State Bar's Annual Meeting, which opened yesterday. This morning, I'm up at the same time of morning, but to get ready to head down to Amelia Island Plantation--where the State Bar is conducting its Annual Members' Meeting. This I have attended in the past to pick up the Best Newsletter Award for the DeKalb Bar Association. Now, it will be as a member-elect of the Board of Governors. (Swearing in is tomorrow.) Also on my agenda for today: the luncheon panel discussion for appellate court candidates that my friend and travel companion Chris Smith will be moderating; an afternoon CLE to learn the ins and outs of Casemaker; and, finally, an alumni reception hosted by Georgia State University's College of Law. Do I know how to have fun at the beach or what?

But here is the best part of the trip, so far. Last night, after dinner in Fernandina, I was at the grocery store with Chris and her husband when I ran into the person who first started pushing me to go to law school, whom I haven't seen in quite some time. He recognized me there all out of context and traveling incognito in shorts and a tie-dye T-shirt. He's down for the convention, too. The aisles of the Publix aren't the best place to catch up, so I'm looking forward to finding him again at the convention for a better discussion.

I'm taking my computer, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to get Internet access for updates. One of these days I may have to get a Blackberry or an Iphone or something like that.

Stone Mountain Circuit Gains Additional Seat On Board Of Governors; Tara Lee Adyanthaya To Fill New Slot

When I first took a look at the 384-page Agenda Book for the 2010 Annual Meeting of the State Bar of Georgia that came in the mail this week, I noticed something unexpected on page one. There with myself (Post 1), Gwen Keyes Fleming (Post 5) and Claudia Saari (Post 6) on the list of new Board of Governors members for the Stone Mountain Circuit is the name of Tara Lee Adyanthaya (Post 10). Post 10? I thought the Stone Mountain Circuit only had nine posts. Searching for more information on Tara Adyanthaya, I found she is midway through a term as Member at Large, Post 2. Yet, on the page one list of new members for that post is the name of Christine A. Koeher of Lawrenceville. I wondered what was up and only had to wade another 160 pages into the Agenda Book to find an answer. There, on page 161, in the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of May 13, 2010, under the heading New Business, is the following: "President Cavan provided a report on the Board of Governors composition. Based on an increase of the number of active members residing in these circuits, the Atlanta Circuit has gained 3 new posts and the Stone Mountain Circuit has gained one new post. Once the appointments are made to these posts, the Board of Governors will reach its 150-member cap. The creation of the Paulding Circuit does not go against the cap." So, not exactly breaking news, but who knew? Not me. Did you know? That sent me back to page one to take another look at the new board members list for the Atlanta Circuit, with which I am less familiar. Sure enough, there are three new posts--38, 39, and 40--on the list. In any event, the bottom line is the Stone Mountain Circuit has four new members being sworn in to the Board of Governors this year, all of whom are women. When we are sworn in, the majority of the board members from our circuit will be female. Here is a bio of our circuit's newly added BOG member, Tara Adyanthaya, from the Emory University website: Tara Adyanthaya is an Associate General Counsel focusing on healthcare matters. Prior to joining Emory's Office of General Counsel, Tara was a healthcare attorney with King & Spalding, LLP and Morris Manning & Martin, LLP. She started her career as a Staff Attorney with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Tara serves on the Board of Governors for the Georgia Bar and is the Secretary for the Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Law Foundation's Board of Directors. She is a past President and member of the Board of Directors for the Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association, former Member of the Board of Directors for the Litigation Section of the Atlanta Bar Association, former Chair of the Multi-Bar Leadership Council, and former member of the Investigation Panel of the Georgia Bar. Tara graduated with honors from the Walter F. George School of Law at Mercer University where she was on the Mercer Law Review and the Moot Court Board. She holds a Masters Degree in Bioethics from the University of Pennsylvania and received her B.A. in Philosophy and Psychology from Boston College. Named one of the Ten Outstanding Young Healthcare Attorneys nationally by Nightingale's in 2007, Tara is a member of the Georgia Bar, the American Health Lawyers Association, and the Georgia Academy of Healthcare Attorneys.