Opinion ID: 777056
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: The State Bar is a Nevada corporation under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the supreme court. Nevada Supreme Court Rule, 76(1). The State Bar governs the legal profession in the state, subject to the approval of the Nevada Supreme Court. Id. No person may practice law as an officer of a court of the state who is not an active member of the State Bar. Id. 77. Among the purposes of the State Bar is to advance public understanding of the law, the system of justice and the role of lawyers. State Bar By-law, sec. 2.1(j). In 1997, the Nevada Supreme Court appointed a committee on community relations. On October 6, 1997, this committee reported not only a serious public perception problem for Nevada's justice system but also a lack of coordinated proactive measures to counter negative perceptions. The committee recommended that Nevada's justice system seek innovative ways to improve its image. 1 In response to this report, the Board of Governors, in March 1998, approved a public information and education campaign and the hiring of a public relations person to conduct it. $200,000 were budgeted in furtherance of this campaign. The Professionalism Committee of the State Bar adopted as a campaign message Nevada Lawyers — Making the Law Work for Everyone. 2 In December 1999, the Board of Governors solicited comments on the campaign from members of the bar. Of six letters received in response, three were critical. Taking account of the criticism, the State Bar changed the message so that it read Nevada Lawyers — Striving To Make The Law Work for Everyone. This slogan has appeared on billboards, on radio and television commercials, and on all bar publications, including Gardner's bar certification card. Gardner, a member of the bar, took note that his bar dues were used to fund the campaign. PROCEEDINGS 3 On May 17, 2000, Gardner sued in district court to enjoin the campaign, alleging that it violated his rights of freedom of speech and association. He also alleged that the campaign was beyond the authority of the State Bar while being designed to enhance the prestige of its incumbent governors. The State Bar responded. The case was heard by a judge from the Eastern District of Washington. After a hearing and argument, the district court denied Gardner's motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the State Bar's motion to dismiss his complaint with prejudice. In an opinion the court found that the challenged campaign had no political lobbying purpose whatsoever and that Gardner had not been forced to adhere to or proclaim any political view or engage in any personally-repugnant political activity. The court further found that the campaign was germane to the State Bar's compelling interest and stated purpose to advance understanding of the law, the system of justice, and the role of lawyers, as opposed to nonlawyers, to make the law work for everyone. 4 Gardner appeals.