Court of Appeals Approves First Comprehensive Changes to Rules Governing the Bar
January 23, 2024
On January 10 the D.C. Court of Appeals adopted comprehensive amendments to the Rules Governing the District of Columbia Bar. These amendments mark the first time since the Bar’s founding more than 50 years ago that the Rules have been comprehensively reviewed and updated.
修正案解决了“不一致之处”, inefficiencies, redundancies, loopholes, and misinterpretations” resulting from ad hoc changes adopted over five decades as the Bar grew and developed.
The original Rules went into effect when the Bar was established on April 1, 1972, and the organization’s Bylaws — which address the Bar’s governance and membership — were adopted on January 1, 1973. Since then, 这两份文件都是根据需要修改的, 但从未在全球范围内或彼此协调一致.
Work on the amendments, 包括对靠谱的滚球平台协会章程的审查, 发生在2020年到2022年之间, with the D.C. 靠谱的滚球平台公会规例/规则/董事会程序委员会(现为靠谱的滚球平台公会委员会).C. 大靠谱的滚球平台公会管治委员会) tasked to focus its review on editorial changes, 从章程中删除行政细节, and revisions to modernize the document and reflect actual procedures of the Board of Governors and the Bar’s membership.
管治委员会的工作始于审查大靠谱的滚球平台公会章程, 为项目开发框架, 并采用原则来指导审查的各个方面. After engaging in an iterative and substantive analysis of the proposed revisions, 该委员会向理事会提交了建议. On April 12, 2022, the Board of Governors unanimously approved the revised Bylaws as recommended by the committee, and on March 6, 2023, it petitioned the court to consider and approve several amendments to the Rules.
在将拟议的修正案送交上诉法院时.C. 前主席Ellen M. Jakovic said the committee carefully considered appropriate amendments to the Rules to make both the Rules and the Bar’s Bylaws “‘user-friendly’ for the members, to minimize redundancy, 并确保两份管理文件的一致性.”
The Board stated that the “amendments to the Rules will make it easier for D.C. Bar members to locate applicable rules and requirements regarding their membership and other procedures related to the Board and the Bar. These changes will also afford the Bar and the Board some flexibility in addressing basic governance issues, organizational concerns, 以及与会员资格有关的行政和其他事项.”
“I want to thank the D.C. Court of Appeals for recognizing the Bar’s need to ensure that its governing documents clearly define our organization’s functions, 方便大靠谱的滚球平台公会的政策及程序的执行, 并遵循有效治理的行业最佳实践,” said D.C. Bar President Charles R. Lowery Jr. “With the updated Rules, the Bar stands on an even stronger foundation to better serve its members.”
Lowery还特别感谢Mark A. 萨尔茨伯格是民主党前主席.C. 大靠谱的滚球平台公会管治委员会, as well as to other members of the committee “for all their hard work to make the Rules and Bylaws clear, consistent, flexible, 并赋予我们的成员权力.”
以下是修订的简要摘要:
规则一(大靠谱的滚球平台公会的组织)
Adding “to assist the legal profession in maintaining high standards of the practice of law in the District of Columbia” and “to promote access to justice and enhance the delivery of legal services to those in need” to the enumerated purposes of the Bar.
Rule II (Membership)
在新的第3节中，更新和定义了D.C. 靠谱的滚球平台资格和增加“退休”作为一个额外的类别.
Under new Section 4, changing references to “membership dues” or “dues” to “license fees” throughout the Rules.
Rules III (Officers), IV (Board of Governors), V (Public Statements), and VI (Meetings of the Bar)
简化和精简规则三至规则六的内容, the majority of which pertained to Board-related details and membership meetings that are now properly set forth in the Bylaws.
Changing the title for Rule V from Executive Committee to Public Statements and deleting almost all of the previous content under that Rule, 除了与“公共表达式”相关的语言.” Due to the challenges posed against integrated bars across the country, the Board recommended that it would be prudent to retain this explicit limitation on the Bar’s ability to make public statements in the Rules.
The Court of Appeals also approved minor editorial changes to Rules VII (Referendum Procedure), VIII (Disbursements), and IX (Bylaws).
Additionally, Section 2 of Rule XV (Amendment of Rules) is deleted in its entirety from the Rules because the provision governing Bylaws amendments exists appropriately in Bylaws Article X.
“The Bylaws are the appropriate governing document to set forth how they may be amended.
Having an identical provision in the Rules would be redundant and unnecessary — and, worse, 会导致章程和规则之间的混淆和不一致,” the Board said.
