The decision of whether to remain active or become inactive is a critical one faced by seasoned legal professionals, particularly those who have dedicated decades to the industry. This quandary comes to a head for many, including seasoned attorney Jill Switzer, who recently found herself inadvertently remaining active with the State Bar of California due to missing a key decision deadline. In a recent article for Above the Law, Switzer delves deeply into the considerations and consequences of such a decision, weaving in her personal experiences.
For many veteran lawyers like Switzer, going inactive offers several advantages. The California State Bar waives dues for lawyers over 70 and eliminates the need to complete the MCLE requirements, which include courses on civility, explicit bias, and implicit bias. Switzer emphasizes that while these courses are mandated, a few hours of instruction are unlikely to eradicate ingrained behaviors developed over a lifetime. Nonetheless, she acknowledges that such courses are a step in the right direction, albeit a small one.
Switzer also touches on the challenges posed by a changing mediation landscape, where joint sessions are becoming less frequent due to increasing tensions among participants. Maintaining civility—a skill Switzer argues is critical yet undervalued—stands as a fundamental component in these settings. Her concern extends beyond lawyers; she highlights a case involving a superior court judge whose conduct sparked a reprimand, illustrating how civility is crucial across the legal profession.
While the inactive status seems appealing, it isn’t without its drawbacks. Switzer notes the significant issue of potential unauthorized practice of law (UPL) for inactive lawyers, which restricts their ability to offer legal advice, even pro bono. For her, this is a pressing concern given her ongoing connections with former clients who seek advice.
In her reflection, Switzer demonstrates how the legal profession demands continuous recalibration, especially for those long in the field. The decision to remain active, while guided by pragmatic concerns, also reflects a commitment to enduring professional obligations and a desire to still contribute meaningfully to the legal discourse.