Talk:State Bar of California

message: I am reverting all those changes for the following reasons:
1. Grammar errors.  Various omissions of "a," "of," and "the." Hyphens are frequently used where em dashes would be more appropriate.
2. Dialect errors.  This is an article about an American public corporation and it was originally drafted in American English.  To prevent revert wars, it should stay in American English.  Furthermore, the citations are in the wrong style.  
3. Stylistic errors.  This is an encyclopedia for the general public, not for lawyers.  If the public wants incredibly boring detail written in legalese, they can always go to the State Bar's Web site.  The article should be concise, to the point, and accessible to the average layperson.  Otherwise we end up with horribly unreadable laundry list articles like e-commerce.  There is also severe overuse of the passive voice.  Lawyers today are trained to write in the active voice so that they are clear, direct, and assertive.
4. Geographic errors.  The reference to "this state" is too U.S-centered, especially in light of the fact that Wikipedia is intended for a global audience.  
4. Failure to cite sources for bizarre assertions like the quote about "When the ABA speaks, California does not listen."  
5. Just dumb errors.  New York uses the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility while Washington State uses the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.  I found this out with a 2 minute search on Google.
Whomever our anonymous visitor is, I hope he or she is not licensed to practice in the state of California.  If so, it sounds like we need to toughen up our bar exam! --Coolcaesar 07:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Drastic changes by anonymous user in single edit on 19 Dec 2005

message: Today I deleted the following passage:
California State Bar Law Office Study Program
The California State Bar Law Office Study Program allows California residents to become California Attorneys with no law school, or college, assuming they meet basic educational requirements.  If the candidate has no college, he or she may take and pass the CLEP, or College Level Examination Program []. The Bar candidate must study under a judge or lawyer for four years and must also pass the Baby Bar within three administrations after first becoming eligible to take the examination.  California Attorney, Michael P. Ehline, [] http://passthebarandbabybar.blogspot.com/ is one of only a few known attorneys on the Law Office Study Program to take and pass the CLEP. Ehline went on the Law Office Study Program and passed the California First Year Law Students Exam (Baby Bar), while on the California State Bar Law Office Study Program. Ehline passed the General Bar Exam and became a practicing attorney with no JD.  Attorney Ehline claims all it takes is desire and hard work if you want to become a lawyer in the traditional way.  
Therefore, you can become a lawyer in California the traditional way (Law Office Study), or by going to law school.  But you must first pass the Baby Bar.
The above was deleted because it violates the Wikipedia policy of no self-promotion (Section 1.4.2 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) as well as the Wikipedia:Notability guideline.  Mr. Ehline is not notable, and the Law Office Study Program is so rarely used that it does not merit an entire paragraph within what is already becoming a ridiculously long section of an article that is supposed to be about the State Bar, not the California Bar Exam.--Coolcaesar 07:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I took out a passage today 

message: First I note that the section has been removed by a person claiming to be a lawyer who attended traditional law school claiming study of law in a law office is "insignificant." The Law Office Study Program is the only available program that will enable those without money or higher education to become attorneys in California.  Saying it is "insignificant" defeats the intent of this article and suppresses valuable information.  Attorney Ehline is a public figure and is notorious under the Wikipedia guidelines. [] Ehline has articles about him in the LA Daily Journal as well as an instruction blog on becoming an attorney with no law school or college. []  [] A single paragraph is insignificant when compared to the value of the content to those who don't have the education or resources the censor of the article apparrently had.
]]
See also Wikipedia:Importance, which attempts to be a generic, all inclusive definition of criteria for inclusion.
The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. 
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following: Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works; Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.
Here, there are two independent sources about Ehline, Paul Pfau, Cal Bar Tutorial Web Page, and the Los Angeles Daily Journal Article, which are not press releases.  The sources do not mention Attorney Ehline in passing and instead are about him and how he became an attorney on the Law Office Study Program.  Furthermore, Ehline is not selling anything.  Ehline is an attorney not engaged in the bar review or law school business.  It would be great if the censor would recognize the fact that the single paragraph meets or exceeds the guidelines.
Although the article is about the Bar, the Bar exam is inseparable.  Perhaps we should do a wiki on Law Office Study?  If not, the single paragraph is a high value paragraph.
If not let's take it to an admin.  With Resepect.
:With regard to the frivolous "valuable information" argument, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or an indiscriminate collection of information, nor it it a directory. See Sections 1.4, 1.7 and 1.8 of official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.  If people are interested in learning about the law office study program, that's what the Admissions section of the State Bar Web site is for.  Even if Ehline's story is interesting (which I highly doubt), this article is not the place to draw attention to his meager accomplishments; several of my former law school classmates and current co-workers are ex-military who made the sacrifice to go back to school and get their bachelor's degrees and J.D.'s.  
:Wikipedia cannot be the first publisher of original research under the extremely strict Wikipedia:No original research policy.  When the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times does a profile on Ehline, then he might be worth mentioning on Wikipedia, but his story would be covered in a separate article and then his name would be linked from here as an interesting example of a person who has actually qualified through the law office study program.  But right now, an article on Mr. Ehline would not survive the rigorous Articles for deletion process.
:Furthermore, Ehline is not very notable per the notability guideline; a Google search reveals only 555 hits for his name (most of which appear to be hits in lawyer directories).  An example of a notable person would be Roger Traynor, whose article I did almost all the research for.  Note how Traynor has been mentioned in the L.A. Times, the N.Y. Times, and the Daily Journal, plus the California Law Review and several other publications.  
:To be absolutely sure, I just ran searches for Ehline on two major news databases: Infotrac OneFile (operated by Thomson Gale) and ProQuest Library.  Neither returned any hits.  OneFile, by the way, has 57 million articles from thousands of magazines and newspapers. ProQuest is even bigger.  
:As for the sources cited, Paul Pfau's Web site is not a reliable source because he himself is selling a product, which in turn raises doubt as to whether the Daily Journal article itself is being reprinted accurately.  And blogs are inherently unreliable as well as a poor indicator of what is really notable (since there are a lot of non-notable and bizarre conspiracy theories that are constantly exchanged through blogs).  
:I urge you to refrain from reinserting original research into Wikipedia, or you may be banned.  The no original research policy is a core non-negotiable policy of the Wikimedia Foundation.  The Arbitration Committee agreed with my assessment of the last user I encountered who was persistently unable to understand it.  --Coolcaesar 07:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I added the Section Back About Law Office Study

message: I noticed your dispute through a comment Coolcaesar made on the Anaheim Hills talk page.  As a young lawyer myself, I thought I'd throw in my two cents.
It seems to me that the section on this alternative path to bar admission is worthwhile, if only because it's so unusual (I'm fairly certain that my own state, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, doesn't have any similar options).  That being said, I don't see any reason why there's a need to mention a particular individual who used this path to become an attorney.  While this particular path to admission may be noteworthy, the individuals who take advantage of it are not.  Additionally, the quote at the end has no business being in an encyclopedia.
Although I know this is in mediation, I'm going to try and edit the paragraph.  If either you think it doesn't work, feel free to revert it, and I won't say anything further. JCO312 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All or nothing? 

message: I agree, so I removed the name.  But I left in the Daily Journal Article becuase there is simply not a lot of information avaiable about the program.  I further note I will seek to have any person banned who further alters the article, as there is a pending arbitration and the post "shall" not be altered when that happens.  Thanks.
:There was never a pending arbitration.  There was a request for mediation, which was rejected.JCO312 13:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Clearly whomever this issuethewrit fellow is (who doesn't know how to sign his posts), he or she does not understand the difference between mediation and arbitration.  The mediation request was rejected and no request has been filed with ArbCom, which would be premature as we have not yet had a complete breakdown in communications.  Anyway, I don't mind the phrasing of the now-truncated paragraph as it currently stands.  --Coolcaesar 07:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RESPONSE TO ALL OR NOTHING

message: I removed the following passages today:
Passage 1:
Well known, however, is the story of Maxcy Filer, who took the Bar examination twice a year for almost 25 years before passing on the 48th attempt in February 1991   At the Bar; A Man's Pride and Persistence Conquer the California Bar Exam's Most Famous Losing Streak  As of 24 October 2007, Mr Filer is still practicing law.   Attorney Search 
Passage 2:
While predictions circulate regarding which of the subjects will be tested on the essay portion of the examination, only one subject has consistently made its appearance on the essay portion of the examination during its past 15 administrations: Professional Responsibility.  Interestingly, although one of the two Performance Tests on the July 2007 exam dealt with Professional Responsibility, none of the six essays covered this topic.
Passage 3:
(n.b., the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico both have lower pass rates -- however, the applicant test pools in these jurisdictions are atypical, due to local admission rules which makes comparisons with the other bar exams administered in the 50 states meaningless). 
All three passages violate Wikipedia:Notability in and of themselves.  Passages two and three rely heavily on weasel words (a key sign of unreliability) and also violate core policy Wikipedia:No original research, in that they attempt a new synthesis of information that itself is not first published in a reliable source.  In turn, they also violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.  All three passages have a sharply different tone from the rest of the article, apparently because they were written by someone who has not received proper academic training in composing formal written English.  Such training is required of all University of California graduates through the Reading & Composition credit requirement (which leads me to suspect that the writer is either not a UC graduate or barely passed their R&C courses).  Finally, passage one is improperly sourced—the citations are cruder then those seen in most blogs. If anyone countermands these deletions without responding to these issues, I will be happy to countermand their reinsertions.  Any questions? --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing more weird passages  

message: Lawyerdude inserted some bizarre, extremely poor quality text out of compliance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style (excessive use of headings and subheadings) and with all core Wikipedia policies including neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not.  His summary of the Birbrower decision is just plain wrong (as well as poorly written) and would get a well-deserved F in any top-tier law school's Lawyering Skills course.  The Birbrower opinion by Justice Ming Chin clearly held (at 17 Cal.4th 135) that the out-of-state firm had performed the unauthorized practice of law in California and its fee agreement was unenforceable to the extent that it reflected fees for work improperly performed in this state.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purged more original research and improper garbage today 

message: Entirely inappropriate is the reference to bar difficulty b/c it makes this article too POV-ey. Removed/simplified to clean the article up and to make it conform to Wiki standards.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngfrazier (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleaned up your edits a bit.  One point I did is restore California administers what is widely considered one of the nation's most difficult bar examinations...  Deleting that had changed a well-sourced opinion into a statement of fact. TJRC (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed POV for Cali bar difficulty

message: Just caught a subtle deletion on 8 January 2011 of a passage which included a quote I had inserted. I'm fixing this.  
Of course, the losers who fail the exam may find Professor Little's derogatory reference to them as hacks offensive, but that's their problem for thinking they could become lawyers without first confirming whether they have the aptitude to become one.--Coolcaesar (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is anyone watching the vandals? 

message: Where do they find the people who work at the State Bar itself?  It seems that more attention needs to be focused on the employees there instead of who passes or fails the Bar exam.  No matter what amount of evidence a complaining party submits to the Bar in an attorney complaint, the "employees" deny it.  Now they have the Second Look appellate review department, but it doesn't change anything.  They can stare at complaint evidence for years in Sixth and Seventh Look appeals, but they still won't see what they don't want to.  It's really true, complaining to the State Bar about attorney malfeasance is just like complaining to an Internal Affairs department of your local police station.  It's not a waste of time, it's a waste of taxpayer's money giving these slackers jobs.
This is not an "off-topic complaint."  This is the talk page, not the article itself.  This is for discussion, and this remark is not related to any other discussion addressed on this page.  It doesn't have to be.
This is a great point.   A quote has been included, someone (probably from the Bar itself) keeps deleting it.    2.177.99.84 (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't work for the state bar, I'm a high school student. SantiLak (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Bar Employees 

message: I am not a fan of the term "illegal alien" even though it is utilized a fair amount by the media. The correct legal verbiage is "undocumented" per most courts and USCIS, but I digress. I added a section on the news of the historic admission of Sergio Garcia (who attended college, law school, and passed the, notoriously difficult, bar exam). The California Supreme Court still heard the case on his admission, even though the legislature had passed a law, signed by Governor Brown, to admit those who do not hold correct documentation as immigrants. The law should have made the decision moot, however the court still took it up. Garcia still faces challenges as, being undocumented, it is a violation of federal law for him to engage in the practice of law. However, the case and the statute, plus the decision of the State Bar to admit him are historic and may well impact decisions in other states. There is currently a case pending in Florida.  BerkeleyLaw1979  01:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Admitting Undocumented Aliens 

message: Recently an IP user has been making some edits that are questionable. They have added unreliable sources, out of context sources, and sources that have nothing to do with the bar to a section on criticism. In an attempt to appease them I researched and found some reliable sources and created a credible criticism section lower in the article. Apparently they weren't happy and decided to keep on reverting my edits and now the page is in their version. Since Wikipedia guidelines call for it, I am discussing this on this talk page, my talk page, and their talk page (although they have changed IP addresses). If you have any thoughts please chime in. SantiLak (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that because this issue has come up again I will post the concerns I have about the edits made by the IP user in more detail in hopes of reaching a consensus if they decide to participate in the discussion. At the beginning when the IP user started to add those things I suggested that they find reliable sources and that they move the criticism section lower in the article. In response they didn't and put the criticism section at the top. Instead of just deleting their material, I decided to research it and found some criticism of the bar with reliable sources and added it along with restructuring the criticism section and moving it lower in the page where it belongs as the criticism section is in almost all wikipedia articles. Now to their sources, the first one is Attorney Busters which is a totally unreliable source, the second one is from a law firm's petition and is their arguments and not encyclopedic material, the third one is a quote from an opinion that is taken way out of context to construed as admonishment when if you read it is just them stating that the State Bar does not regulate practice in federal court which is true and that is not criticism, it is just them stating that in their opinion.  Their final source is just as out of context as the third. It is from the state bar president describing how he wants to change the state bar and improve it. He discusses how their job is analogous of that of a criminal prosecutor in order to describe the difficulties they have in prosecuting cases against bad attorneys, they took it out of context. He discusses how the professional discipline of attorneys is not about punishment and how their job is really to deter misconduct and if necessary remove bad attorneys, they took it out of context. He discusses how there is an incredible backlog of misconduct cases and how he is planning to remove the backlog of disciplinary cases, they take it out of context. They took all of his quotes out of context in an attempt to construe them as criticism. I added legitimate and reliably source information in order add to the encyclopedic credibility of the article but instead they removed it. Even the slate article is out of context. On another point that I believe is important, the IP user went around and reverted several of my edits on other pages. For example I reverted a change by an IP user involving a political party in Ukraine because they had changed the party's affiliation and they reverted my change saying "Undid vandalism by a user previously warned by Admin." Changing a political party's ideology requires sourcing in order to prevent vandalism, especially in a place like Ukraine where IP's vandalize page's all the time now that the conflict is in full swing there. Then after User:Nyttend removed their edits, they posted edit warring warnings on my talk page even though I hadn't edited the page in weeks. Whenever I try to discuss it on their talk page, they just ignore many of my points and try to discuss other things about my talk page and won't respond. I hope they can join the discussion here so we can reach a consensus because I do believe there should be a criticism section but just not the way they made it. SantiLak (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Dispute 

message: 1.	Does not violate the original research rule - Quotes are from a published judicial decision:  
“Wikipedia Rule: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to ideas—for which no published sources exist.”  
They're quotes from a court case, clearly identified as such.
2.	Does not violate the Undue Weight rule:  
“Wikipedia Rule: An article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it because there are numerous countervailing citations showing that the Flat Earth concept is a fringe theory.  To show that a citation is a fringe theory, countervailing citations showing it as such must be produced.”  Requires "countervailing citations" and subsequent discussion and consensus specifically debunking the quote.   
3.  Criticisms of a public government entity do not raise to the level of criticisms against a private individual.  
4.	A judicial opinion is a primary source: 
“Wikipedia Rule: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.”  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.177.170.75 (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Konnigsberg US Supreme Court decision.   

message: I've moved the Timothy Sandefur blog material.  While Sandefur is an attorney and author, his self-published criticism of State Bar billing practices goes beyond his area of expertise. He is contending that his State Bar dues statement constitutes unfair billing, and he basically admits that he cannot contest the billing practice when he asks that some other lawyer file a class action suit. But as an intelligent and perceptive lawyer he has figured out what the issues are when looking at his bill. That is, he (like most other lawyers) reads the bill and decides what funds he wants to donate to.  Perhaps he can't find a class action lawyer to file suit because he's done some extra research and discovered how much money these "extra" fees generate for the various worthy and non-worthy causes. And perhaps he's discovered that other attorneys generally support these additional billing items. Another reason Sandefu's comments are not WP:RS is the fact that he is discussing his bar fee bill in particular (as an exemplar of all bar fee bills). This, ironically, puts him in a conflict of interest situation because he is saying "I'm looking at my bar fee statement and I think/realize I'm being subjected to 'unfair or fraudulent business practices, or unfair, deceptive or misleading advertising' practices." To compare, if he had studied the billing practices of the other states and had published the results of his studies, then it might be proper to say he was a reliable source as to this subject. As it stands, Sandefur is but one California attorney who has used his blog to complain. His complaint is not an encyclopedic one. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandefur blog – rationale for not using 

message: There are two reasons for removing this piece. 1. It is not a discussion about admission practices for first-time lawyers. 2. It is focused on a decision by the California Supreme Court, as the ultimate authority over California lawyers (and not the State Bar in general) about one particular person. The Slate piece may be appropriate for Stephen_Glass#Unsuccessful_California_bar_application. It is not appropriate in this article.  – S. Rich (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slate magazine piece about Stephen Glass – rationale for removal 

message: As can be seen, the material about Dunn has been revised and placed into a new section. In keeping with WP policies about WP:BALANCE, both sides of the story are presented. Also, the references supporting the material have been provided in proper citation format. I hope (and expect) that IP editors (mentioned above) will be satisfied with these edits and pick up a few pointers about how WP is properly edited.  – S. Rich (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Dunn controversy 

message: The first paragraph of this article would be much more accurately voiced if it read as follows:
"The State Bar of California, established 1927, was one of the nation’s first unified legal bars.  As a unified bar, it is a state government agency that also operates as a mandatory bar association.  Only active members of the State Bar may practice law in California.  The State Bar manages the admission and discipline of attorneys, including the administration of the California Bar Exam and the investigation of complaints from the public of professional misconduct.  Funding is provided by examination fees and by member dues authorized by the California Legislature in the annual State Bar Member Dues Bill, which must be signed into law by the Governor.  The State Bar of California operates as an agency of the Supreme Court of California but its immediate oversight is exercised by a board of 19 trustees – 6 elected by district, by and from the membership of the State Bar; 5 members of the State Bar appointed by the California Supreme Court; 2 members of the State Bar and 2 members of the general public appointed by officers of the California Legislature; and 4 members of the general public appointed by the Governor of California."
The source of the above information is the State Bar’s website at this URL:
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/StateBarOverview.aspx
The term “official bar association” is not an accurate description because unified bars are state government agencies whose operations include many functions exercised by bar associations – but as state government agencies, they cannot perform all of the functions that a private bar association can perform, because they operate solely on the public purse (or California's unified bar can only operate with funds authorized by the state legislature).  When a member of any unified bar pays member dues to that state bar, s/he is actually paying fees to a government agency.
I notice the article has section on the controversial firing of Joe Dunn.  You might also want to include a section about the State Bar’s funding crisis back in 1998.  Governor Pete Wilson vetoed the State Bar Member Dues Bill and the Legislature was not able to override the veto, with the result the State Bar could not collect any member dues that year and had to cease many operations for a time.  Bar admissions continued because the fees for examinations and admission costs are authorized by separate legislation.
Here is a link to a letter Robert Fellmeth wrote to Governor Wilson in 1998 at the height of the crisis, which provides information on that controversy – which was much more important than Joe Dunn getting the boot:  http://www.cpil.org/download/State_Bar_Funding_Crisis.pdf.
73.162.218.153 (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Revision to Paragraph One

message: It needs to be rewritten to reflect the fact that the bar has been essentially deunified and reduced to an attorney licensing agency--the ABA Journal just ran an article on this. Unfortunately, I have way too many other priorities in line ahead of this right now. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be rewritten from scratch 

message: I work in Communications for the State Bar of California. I am also a long-time experienced Wikipedia editor on a range of subjects. I am updating only where this article is badly out of date. If anyone has issue with my updates or changes, I welcome discussion. Sfmammamia (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI edits