The only way they anyone may listen to the rank and file attorneys is if the rank and file attorneys took over the BOG. This could occur if they ran a slate of candidates for BOG, and the campaign letter sent to attorneys was very short, direct and to the point–i.e. we are the slate of candidates that are opposed to the audits and business as usual. Nothing else would need to be said. Keep it real short so people read it, and let them know this is the anti-random audit slate.

An approach like that could possibly work.

In response to 12:13 and 1:05, as well as the post of 4/2/18, 10:38 p.m. that 12:13 references, I do actually believe there is a silver lining.

It's possible that the random audits process will not be adopted. But if it is not, I agree with these posters that the decision to not implement random audits at this time will have little or nothing to do with negative input from attorneys.

If not adopted it will be that everyone was sold a bill-of-goods when told it would cost little or nothing and have no real effect on Bar dues and Bar budget. When the justices raise the question of how could this policy not have a very substantial cost attached to it, the advocates of the random audit policy seemed to have no discernible, rational answer.

So, under the theory that if you cannot defeat a bad policy by appealing to people's intellect and sense of right vs. wrong, one can always defeat a bad policy if it is expensive(and this would be quite expensive) with no discernible funding source.

Bar dues presumably cannot, or will not, be quadrupled to pay for such policy. Now, THAT would really be a hue and cry if they were, and even then that would not even partially cover the immense expense. And saying that those randomly audited will pay for the audit(even if their books and accounting are in perfect shape), is even more ludicrous than saying we will build the wall and make Mexico pay for it.

I am glad at least some NSC justices offered pointed, relevant commentary and asked the necessary questions. But if they wish to show real assertive leadership, they should not leave it at that. They should proclaim there is a real problem with Bar leadership, and by extension BOG leadership, if such a proposal got as far as it did without those behind the proposal making any sensible inquiry, or conducting any rational budgetary/fiscal analysis of how this ludicrously ill-begotten monstrosity could ever be paid for without a huge financial impact.

How did this proposal or inquiry ever remotely get to the point where the NSC was assembled to discuss and consider it if there was no accounting presented that would even pay for a tiny fraction of it, much less all of it?

Preposterous. Now that you can all see who your leaders are and what their abilities and priorities are, will some worthy men and women please step forward and declare yourself as BOG candidates(opposing random audits and nonsense which is half-baked at best)?