Petition to Increase Bar Admission Fees

Seems like a bad time to increase fees with the economy in the toilet. Most of us lost a hugh amount in our 401 K’s etc.

Regarding the Petition to Increase Bar Admission Fees: The first few fees proposed do not appear unreasonable. However, when the proposal gets down to the readmission fees, from there on the fees are clearly completely unrelated to the alleged ‘increased costs’ of admitting applicants. Using regular application fees to lower student fees is, perhaps, understandable, but charging MORE for a reinstatement (where almost no costs or labor are involved) than for a full testing and application, up to $5000 for readmission of a disciplined attorney, is simply an unconscionable act of vindictiveness. Reinstatement fees should not be any more than an initial admission, and, if reason and equity are considered, should be less. Any attorney who is applying for readmission after being disbarred has ALREADY paid the price for his or her bad decisions. Allowing the admissions process to punish them again is simply mean-spirited.

I strongly urge that no bar dues be raised in a sever recession.

I believe that time is not right for an increase in Bar fees or dues. The Bar has not justified the need for an Admissions fee increase. We are in the midst of the most significant economic downturn in the past eighty years. Legal work has slowed significantly. Many law firms have stopped hiring new lawyers and some have laid-off employees. A significant number of students graduating from law school do not have jobs, and are also burdened with significant school-related debts.
I am particularly familiar with the Admission process. In 1991, I was appointed as a member of the Bar’s Character and Fitness Committee. In subsequent years, I served as chair or co-chair of the Committees of Bar Examiners’, Bar Examiners’ Review, Character and Fitness, and Admissions. Steve Waterman (Co-Chair of the Admissions Committee) and I led the reforms of the Admission process in 2000 and 2001. Presently, I am serving as a Bar Commissioner and have reviewed in detail the Bar’s information used to support the arguments for the increase in fees. I fully support the excellent work of the people involved Admissions process, but believe that they must be circumspect about any increase in Admissions-related fees.
Through Admissions, the Bar is carrying out part of its quasi-governmental licensing function. Virtually all governmental entities in Utah have been required to make significant cuts in their budgets during the past year. There is no evidence that any attempts have been made to reduce Admissions-related expenses. As a government attorney and a member of the Bar Commission who represents the interests of government attorneys, the apparent failure to make real efforts to cut expenses is troubling. While it is true that Admissions expenses have increased over time, so has the revenue. Efforts need to be made to keep expenses down and in line with increases in revenue.
I believe the Court should carefully scrutinize three specific aspects of the Bar’s request to increase Admissions-related fees. First, it has been the practice of the Bar to use excess Admissions income for general Bar programs. According to financial information provided to Bar Commissioners in July, from 1997 through 2009 the Bar collected approximately $225,000 in excess of the expenses for Admissions – those funds were then used by the Bar’s general fund. If the Court approves all the fee increases that are being requested, according to the information given Commissioners, the Bar will collect approximately $218,000 in excess of Admissions expenses for the next five years. Other Bar programs should be self supporting through annual dues or other fees collected. I believe that Admissions fees should only be used to cover the expenses of Admissions and not to fund other Bar programs.
Second, the information contained in the Petition to the Court does not reveal the same information given to Commissioners in July. The final page of the Petition is a chart (Exh. 16) that shows Admissions-related revenue and expenses. The chart excludes late fees. For the past fiscal year, late fees were $31,600. The late fees should be included when the Bar attempts to show the financial picture of Admissions. Including late fees in the chart submitted to the Court would give the true state of Admissions finances and show that the proposed increase in Admissions fees is significantly more than is required to cover Admissions-related expenses.
Finally, the Commission was also presented with information that a software fee was going to be increased from $100 to $150 for those taking the Bar exam who are using computers to answer the essay questions. I understand that this is not being presented to the Court because the Bar believes that it is within its discretion to increase this fee without Court approval. The Bar collected $45,435 for the software fee this past fiscal year. Assuming that approximately 450 applicants (likely mostly student applicants) are using computers to take the essay portion of the Bar exam, a significant number of student applicants are going to have a $150 increase in their Admission fee. This is significantly more than the $100 increase that is represented to the Court in the Petition and equals a 33 percent increase in Admissions fees to this group of applicants. Increasing the computer software fee should only be justified if there is an actual increase in the cost in the offering this service by the Bar. No information was provided to the Commission to suggest that there has been an increase in the cost for the software fee to the Bar.
I support an increase in Admissions fees if it is justified. I don’t believe that the case has been made to support a fee increase. Adequate attempts have not been made to keep increases in Admissions expenses in line with increases in revenue. At a time when so many people are struggling financially, the Bar needs to keep Admissions expenses down. It isn’t appropriate to raise fees only to have those fees pay for non-Admissions related expenses at the Bar. Furthermore, accurate information needs to be provided to the Court so that an informed decision can be made on this issue.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Rusty Vetter

This is a horrible time to increase the Bar Admission fee. The legal market is hurting this recession and many firms have cut the pay for starting associates. Time is also tough for small firms and solo practioneers (a majority of lawyers). If anything, the fee should be cut or stay constant. The administrative office has already dramatically increased filing fees- hurting business for lawyers and especially hurting clients who foot the bill for these costs. Lets not punish new attorneys.

Given that several law students will soon be graduating with no prospects for employment and deeply in debt, this appears to me to be a very bad time to increase bar admission fees.

I agree with the points previously raised by other posters, but I feel that considerations of equity and disadvantaging the underprivileged and the unrepresented incoming members of the Bar should also be considered.
It is my belief that if the bar needs more money for specific areas, it is wiser to increase the membership fees and other fees for those areas, as opposed to the test-taking fees. Admissions is a profitable area of the Bar, which is curious because that income is derived from those least able to provide it. It is perhaps telling that it is the people who are not yet members of the bar and thus have no power over the rules and costs associated thereto are those people which most bear the burden of the Bar’s costs.
This rule change will disadvantage less privileged law students who may not be able to afford the extra money to use a laptop. Poorer students will be unable to use the laptops that they have experience taking tests with. This is a serious inequity that needs to be considered before raising the costs of the use of laptops.