The data show that the cost of providing services and benefits to both of its member types is also generally the same. Historically, there was a sense that law firms, particularly larger firms, could afford to pay more and therefore they should. Interestingly, that rationale was not adopted with regard to law schools of different sizes. At the same time, while the original justification for lower dues for smaller employers was to encourage them to join NALP, this strategy has not proven to be an effective membership recruitment tool. We did agree that a volume discount by number of branch offices was consistent with the goal of parity and had been an effective membership recruitment tool.
Parity is a fairness issue.
Our decision to re-establish parity in dues, both by types of organizations and by size as was the case prior to 1987, will affirm NALP's allegiance to the principles of fairness and equity. These worthy goals must be funded. Our decision was also based in part on the realization that as new, immediate relevant needs arise, NALP should have the financial ability to respond decisively and meet those needs. NALP has not been able to do this in the past. It is clear to us that given NALP's current revenue streams, it would be difficult if not impossible to accumulate the resources that will be required by these important initiatives.