Government

Voting Is A Jurisdictional Issue

If any of us wants to change the world or even just our little piece of it, if we don’t vote, then we have no standing to complain.

By  
on

(Image via Getty)

Is anyone else as ready as I am for this election to be over? It’s been quite a year, not over yet, and I, like just about everyone else, am pooped, exhausted, whatever adjective you choose to use. Despite our exhaustion — and if you are not exhausted, I have words for you that are not appropriate in a “family” website — please vote. Vote for whomever but please vote. Don’t forget the “down ballot” candidates who may well have more personal impact on our lives. Vote.

On another topic altogether, but yes, there is a vote involved, the California Supreme Court has voted, i.e., greenlighted (a Hollywood term) the provisional attorney licensing program. Perhaps it has decided that there may be other ways of deciding whether a 2020 law school graduate is ready for practice, at least in theory without the relic that is the current bar exam.

There’s a new California Rule of Court, Rule 9.49, effective in mid-November, which sets forth the dos and don’ts for the provisional licensing. The rule is only eight pages, and it’s good practice for potential provisional licensees to get used to reading rules of court. The rule sets forth, among other things, eligibility for the provisional license, responsibilities of a provisional lawyer (what he/she can/cannot do), and the duties and responsibility of a supervising lawyer. Here are the FAQs that accompany the new rule. It’s not diploma privilege, but it’s a start.

On a related matter, the State Supreme Court says the State Bar can begin recruitment for members of the Joint Supreme Court/State Bar Blue Ribbon Commission on the Future of the California Bar Exam. The Commission will develop recommendations “concerning whether and what changes to make to the California Bar Exam.” The Commission’s charter will also consider “whether to adopt alternative or additional testing tools to ensure minimum competence to practice law.” It will also look at “whether the exam (or any part of it) should be administered online and/or in person.” Results from the very first online exam in another state are not encouraging.

Perhaps the members of the California Commission, once selected, might want to review New York’s experience with review of its bar exam. It’s going to be critical that the California commissioners don’t have, to use a hackneyed expression, “a dog in the fight.” But looking at the list from which potential commissioners will be selected, it would appear that some of the future commissioners not only have a dog in the fight but may also fight to the death to defend their positions.

How many times have you heard or seen a person willing to sunset his/her own job? Not very many, I would imagine. How many would be willing to say that there is a better way to test lawyer competence for purposes of bar admission? What do you think? If Joe Patrice’s recent post is any example, it may look like the fox guarding the henhouse.

Sponsored

How many times do the status quo defenders get to preserve the status quo?

We all know that using social media can get folks in trouble. A committee of the California Supreme Court has reminded appellate justices that if a staff member posts something to social media that is inappropriate, the whistle must be blown and necessary steps taken to prevent it from happening again. If the comment has already been published, then steps should be taken to delete or remove that comment, repudiate, or correct that. (Repudiation may not be the best course of action, given the “Streisand effect” in which an attempt to suppress or censor content on a website backfires to the chagrin of the person trying to silence it.) The judicial canons include the requirement that the appellate justices exercise reasonable direction and control over their staffs who are under their aegis.

Here’s my segue on social media. After you’ve voted, whether in person or by mail, and you’re looking for something to stream, try The Social Dilemma on Netflix. As readers know, I am not a fan of social media, looking at it as this enormous time suck when we could be doing other things. I am on LinkedIn, isn’t everybody (?) but that’s it. Watch the movie and draw your own conclusions.

Every lawyer, every person should watch it (and that includes appellate justices). You may well come away with a different view of how social media controls our lives, how it is a force for good and yet also an existential threat. You may agree with the views expressed or not, but I think it’s an important film to watch and think about, regardless of your political philosophy, your views on climate change, whether you think the earth is flat, whether you think COVID-19 is a hoax. And yes, there are many people on social media who believe that the world is indeed flat and that the virus is a hoax. I’m just saying.

The film does have a particular point of view emphasized through extensive interviews with people who were “there at the creation” in Silicon Valley. Lots of mea culpas. Lots of rueful thoughts. Lots of people who “got religion” after spending time at Google, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc. If you prefer to read, rather than watch election results or stream movies, then read Dave Eggers’ book The Circle. A similar tale about the influence of social media. I found it much more menacing.

Sponsored

Whether you consider it social media or unsocial media, please vote. There is no excuse not to. If any of us wants to change the world or even just our little piece of it, if we don’t vote, then we have no standing to complain.

Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

Topics

, ,