Governor Stitt selects Jason Reese as new general counsel

GOVERNOR KEVIN STITT ANNOUNCES NEW GENERAL COUNSEL 

OKLAHOMA CITY (Dec. 31, 2020) – Governor Kevin Stitt announced today the selection of Jason Reese as his new general counsel following current general counsel Mark Burget's decision to return to Search Ministries after fulfilling a two-year commitment to the governor.  

“Over the past two years, Mark Burget's wise counsel and legal expertise has helped guide our office through historic challenges facing the State, and I am thankful for his dedicated service to our team," said Gov. Stitt. "As Mark transitions out of the office, I look forward to welcoming Jason Reese as my new general counsel. Jason is a longtime litigator and former Oklahoma House of Representatives attorney with more than 15 years of experience, so he’ll bring a robust understanding of law and policy to the office. He will serve my administration well as we continue to work toward becoming a Top Ten state.”   

Lepak: A First Amendment victory within the Bar Association

A First Amendment Victory Within the Bar Association

By Benjamin Lepak

Attorneys in Oklahoma are required by law to join and pay dues to the Oklahoma Bar Association to practice their profession. The OBA uses that dues money for many things, including political advocacy. Consequently, lawyers are forced to fund political speech they may disagree with in order to earn a living. Many lawyers contend this mandatory bar arrangement fundamentally intrudes on their First Amendment rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court agrees. In Keller v. State Bar of California, decided 30 years ago, the Court held it unconstitutional for bar associations to use mandatory dues to engage in political speech without providing meaningful procedures for lawyers to “opt out” of funding the speech.

The key word here is “meaningful.” Last year, a Tulsa attorney filed a federal lawsuit against the OBA, alleging Oklahoma lawyers’ First Amendment rights were protected only on paper, not in reality.

1889 Institute: abolish ABA accreditation for OK law schools, lead way in innovation

ABOLISH ABA ACCREDITATION FOR OKLAHOMA LAW SCHOOLS

Oklahoma can lead the way in legal education innovation.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (March 25, 2020) – According to a new 1889 Institute study, the American Bar Association (ABA) has a monopoly over legal education in the United States since 47 states have made the ABA their exclusive law school accrediting authority. Oklahoma is one of these states. Like the others, this state was urged by the ABA to give it such authority. This creates a conflict of interest wherein a politically active organization has outsized influence over the educations of attorneys, who constitute a plurality of legislators, make up the entirety of the judiciaries, and exercise great influence over executive agencies at the state and national levels.

“Though only 14 percent of lawyers belong to the ABA, they wield outsized influence over all three branches of our government by virtue of their dominance of legal education,” said Ben Lepak, 1889 Institute Legal Fellow and author of the study. “The ABA’s obsolete requirements, such as a certain number of paper volumes in a law library, stultifies innovation, increases the cost of a legal education, and limits the number of individuals educated in the law,” he said.

Lepak’s study points out that the ABA’s original mission in accrediting law schools was not to improve legal education, but to cut down on the number of attorneys due to what many already in the profession considered “overcrowding.” In other words, they wished to raise their fees by reducing the number of new lawyers.

“Since the ABA’s primary mission is to act in its members’ interests, it is a conflicted interest group that doesn’t even speak for most lawyers,” said Lepak.

The paper recommends that the Oklahoma legislature repeal the ABA’s exclusive ability to accredit law schools by repealing the requirement that to practice law in the state, one must have attended an ABA accredited law school. In turn, this should be coupled with a revamp of the bar exam to make it more relevant to the actual practice of law, making it a multi-part exam that would allow provisional licensing in certain aspects of the legal services where an examinee has proven proficient.


About the 1889 Institute
The 1889 Institute is an Oklahoma think tank committed to independent, principled state policy fostering limited and responsible government, free enterprise and a robust civil society. The publication, “Breaking the ABA’s Law School Cartel: A Proposal to Make Oklahoma Top-Ten in Innovative Lawyer Education,” can be found on the nonprofit’s website at http://www.1889institute.org.

1889 Institute files amicus brief in US Supreme Court over state bar associations and political speech

1889 INSTITUTE FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Oklahoma Bar Association tramples first amendment rights of state’s attorneys

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK (January 2, 2019) – The 1889 Institute, an Oklahoma state policy think tank, has filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court. The amicus (friend of the court) brief asks the court to review the case of a North Dakota attorney who has been forced to fund political causes he opposes through mandatory membership in the state bar association. This also occurs in Oklahoma, where attorneys are forced, by law, to join the Oklahoma Bar Association if they wish to practice in the state.

“The Oklahoma Bar Association uses its members’ money for political and ideological advocacy, not just to make sure lawyers are qualified and behave ethically.” said Ben Lepak, Legal Fellow at the 1889 Institute and author of the brief. “That violates lawyers’ First Amendment right to freedom of association and their right to choose what political speech they will and will not support with their money.”

Lepak went on to say, “And it’s totally unnecessary. In 18 states, attorneys aren’t forced to join a bar association or pay money to a bar association to practice law, but the state still regulates attorneys, and attorneys still pay for the cost of that regulation.”

1889 Institute’s brief argues that the case of Fleck v. Wetch has national reach, so the court should do far more than merely correct one bad decision of a lower court. The brief highlights the political activity of the Oklahoma Bar Association, which the brief argues is representative of political activity by mandatory associations in 30 other states. The Supreme Court reviews only a small fraction of the cases it is asked to hear.

A similar lawsuit was filed against the Oklahoma Bar Association in March 2019 by a Tulsa attorney who has accused the OBA of using his mandatory dues to fund political activity. That case is pending in federal court in Oklahoma City. If the nation’s Supreme Court takes the North Dakota case, attorneys nationwide, including Oklahoma attorneys, might see their First Amendment rights vindicated.”

The 1889 Institute has critiqued the OBA’s compulsory membership. It has also criticized the privileged status the OBA holds in selecting state judges. Publications include “The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s Unchecked Abuse of Power in Attorney Regulation,” “Legislators in Black Robes: Unelected Lawmaking by the Oklahoma Supreme Court,” and “Taming Judicial Overreach: 12 Actions the Legislature Can Take Immediately.”


About the 1889 Institute
The 1889 Institute is an Oklahoma think tank committed to independent, principled state policy fostering limited and responsible government, free enterprise and a robust civil society. The Fleck Brief, and other reports on licensing can be found on the nonprofit’s website at http://www.1889institute.org/licensing.html. Reports on the Oklahoma judicial system are available at https://1889institute.org/govt-profiteering. 

1889 Institute: Oklahoma Supreme Court’s Unconstitutional Regulatory Actions

1889 INSTITUTE BRINGS ATTENTION TO OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS

Attorney licensing in Oklahoma violates separation of powers and free speech

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK (February 6, 2019) – The 1889 Institute, an Oklahoma state policy think tank, has published “The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s Unchecked Abuse of Power in Attorney Regulation.” It indicts all three branches of government in Oklahoma, but especially the state’s Supreme Court, for violating basic principles of American liberty and governance. This is due to the Oklahoma Supreme Court commandeering legislative and executive powers when, in 1939, it unilaterally declared for itself the sole power to authorize and administer the regulation of attorneys in the state.

This is now especially worthy of attention given Governor Stitt’s highly appropriate criticism of conflicts of interests in the memberships of boards and commissions in his State of the State address.

With the stroke of a pen, the Oklahoma Supreme Court usurped from the legislative and executive branches the power to regulate attorneys and the practice of law. In response to this invasion into their reserved constitutional spheres, the other two branches did nothing.

In addition to this usurpation of power, the Oklahoma Supreme Court delegated its self-declared authority to license attorneys to a private organization, the Oklahoma Bar Association. This has created a cloistered, autocratic attorney licensing system answerable only to itself and not to the people of Oklahoma through their duly and constitutionally elected representatives.

“As a licensed attorney in Oklahoma, it was surprising to discover that the system under which I practice is not authorized by the state constitution,” said the report’s author, Benjamin M. Lepak, Legal Fellow at the 1889 Institute. “It is particularly disappointing to consider that this system was originally conceived—and is currently administered—by judges and attorneys. Lawyers are supposed to be dedicated to preserving the Rule of Law, not undermining it,” said Lepak.

The 1889 Institute report briefly reviews the history of how Oklahoma’s current attorney licensing system came to be. It points out that attorney licensing is, for all intents and purposes, administered by a private trade association, the Oklahoma Bar Association, illegitimately granted monopoly rights by the Supreme Court.

“Not only is my profession regulated under a system not properly authorized by law, but my freedom of speech is violated by being forced to join the Bar Association,” said Lepak. “The Bar takes political and policy positions on issues with which I and other Oklahoma attorneys disagree, but we are forced to pay dues to advance those positions in order to continue practicing law,” he said.  “Attorneys in 18 other states are not subjected to such First Amendment violations, as bar membership is not required in those states,” Lepak added.

According to the report, the simplest solution to restore the Rule of Law in Oklahoma would be for the Oklahoma Supreme Court to reverse its 80-year-old decision that usurped power over attorney licensing. The legislature should enact a law deregulating the practice of law, establishing a system similar to that of Great Britain’s. The Oklahoma Supreme Court would retain its common law right to administer the courts, including determining qualifications for those who practice before them. The practice of law outside the courts would be privately regulated through certifications.

The legislature should consider proposing a constitutional amendment that would return the power to regulate the practice law in the state to the people through their directly elected representatives.

About the 1889 Institute

The 1889 Institute is an Oklahoma think tank committed to independent, principled state policy fostering limited and responsible government, free enterprise and a robust civil society. The publication, “The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s Unchecked Abuse of Power in Attorney Regulation” can be found on the nonprofit’s website at https://1889institute.org/licensing.

The Conservative View: The Black Hole

This week's Conservative View, by Adair County Commissioner Russell Turner (R-Stilwell).

The Conservative View
by Russell Turner

The Black Hole

I have always had an interest in science and astronomy. The study of our universe and the dynamics involved should be of interest to anyone who wants to see the bigger picture of our existence, one of the most intriguing phenomena is that of a black hole. A black hole has such a strong gravitational pull that even light cannot escape its grip. Whatever goes into it is lost forever and it will never be seen again, that scenario is very similar to the way private attorneys are paid to work for state departments in Oklahoma.

Senate Bill 1379, by State Rep. Mark McCullough and State Sen. Anthony Sykes, would have created the Private Attorney Retention Sunshine Act and would have required state agencies hiring private attorneys to use a competitive, public process anytime the contracts are greater than $5,000. Unfortunately SB 1379 did not receive a final vote in the just completed session of the State Legislature. In other state and local agencies there are laws in place that require competitive bidding if the expenditure to any one vendor goes above a certain amount. The bids are a part of public record and are available for anyone to look at them. Often the agencies that have to solicit the bids consider the process a hassle, but we all need to remember that the money being spent belongs to the people. Anytime the public cannot have full access to the expenditure of taxpayer funds there is always the temptation to abuse that trust and waste or embezzle those funds.

According to The Oklahoman, state agencies spent over $24 million dollars on private attorneys over a three-year period. “Because outside attorneys are hired so often in Oklahoma, it is troubling that the public is not allowed to closely scrutinize those contracts,” State Rep. McCullough said. “I believe the Sunshine Act would reduce the chance for the misuse of taxpayer funds to enrich politically connected law firms and I will continue to fight for this important reform.” Even the Wall Street Journal published an editorial criticizing the lack of transparency in the state’s hiring of private attorneys. If Senate Bill 1379 had became law it would have required private attorneys to provide a statement of the hours worked on the case and attorneys could not charge the state more than $1,000 per hour. I guess in reality we don’t have to look to the cosmos to find a black hole, we should start at the state agencies and look at their legal costs.

If you wish to contact Russell Turner, or want to subscribe to his email loop, email him at rdrepublican@windstream.net.