Posted on

 February 2, 2011 in 

You, being a Defending People reader, have probably already voted in the bar referendum, but there are apparently many Texas lawyers who haven’t. If you haven’t (or if any of your friends or associates haven’t), here’s the link:

State Bar of Texas 2011 Referendum

When asked to justify the changes, the State Bar’s argument has been that a) the rules have not changed in twenty years; and b) the committee spent seven years working on the amendments; so c) Texas lawyers should approve the amendments.

I disagree.

The status quo has worked pretty well, both for lawyers and for our clients. They might be improved on, but “they haven’t changed in 20 years” is not a reason to change them, and “we spent seven years working on this” is not evidence that the amendment is an improvement.

If and only if you are convinced that a particular amendment is needed, and will not cause more mischief than it will prevent, please vote “Yes.”

Otherwise, please vote “No.”

Share This Post, Choose Your Platform!

4 Comments

  1. Larry Standley February 3, 2011 at 9:04 pm - Reply

    I know I am a “broken record” here but please at least vote FOR Proposition “D” dealing with a common sense prohibition to lawyers having sex with a clients etc. See the following for a previous discussion on this item. I know minds’ change and I speak only for me personally but I think the reasoning laid out by Mark is still sound on this one issue made weeks ago: https://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2011/01/question-d.html

    Respectfully,

    Larry

    PS: I like flat fees for what it’s worth. I did not let a lawyer withdraw yesterday after being on a case 4 months and now that his client won’t plead – because he (the attorney) thinks he should but now can not pay his TRIAL FEE. As it’s said in search and seizure law – 4 months is too stale to ask for this “green” Motion to withdraw. That’s why I like flat fees.

    • Mark Bennett February 3, 2011 at 9:08 pm - Reply

      I voted for Question D. If it doesn’t pass, though, the State Bar will give us another chance to vote on the rule prohibiting lawyer-client sex. I promise.

  2. […] Vicki: Jeff Gamso of Gamso For the Defense addresses why Arizona’s proposed SB 1433 can’t pass constitutional muster. Mark Bennett at Defending People continues his quest to bust the balloon of the Texas Bar’s 2011 Referendum. […]

  3. […] Vicki: Jeff Gamso of Gamso For the Defense addresses why Arizona’s proposed SB 1433 can’t pass constitutional muster. Mark Bennett at Defending People continues his quest to bust the balloon of the Texas Bar’s 2011 Referendum. […]

Leave A Comment

Recent Blog Posts

Categories

Archive