The recent decision by an appellate court to uphold a ban on inactive attorneys serving as neutrals has significant implications for over 70,000 inactive licensees in California. The court reasoned that the existing Rule 2.30 does not involve any suspect class or impinge on any fundamental constitutional rights, which would have otherwise necessitated a strict scrutiny review. Instead, the rule was evaluated under a lower rational basis review, which the panel found to be justified.
The rationale behind the decision was that the state has a legitimate concern: inactive attorneys working as neutrals could potentially generate complaints and related disciplinary proceedings, despite not contributing to the active-license fees that sustain the regulatory system. As such, the rule ensures that those serving as neutrals participate fully in the financial responsibilities accompanying active legal practice.
For further details on this legal development, the original coverage can be accessed here.