Jordon Furlong posts at  Law21 (eh?) about a particular pet peeve of mine, the rudderless direction of bar associations,  As the wind blows, so goes the bar, whether the ABA in it’s “lets form a committee” approach to long-standing, well-known issues that have sailed past it, to local, specialized bar associations that become so embroiled in the fragile egos of its self-important “leaders” that it squanders what little authority it might have had on parochial projects of no consequence to its members.

Jordon, being a better natured fellow than me, allows these pointless institutions some leeway.

[A]ll of these activities have merit, to one degree or another, and lawyer associations legitimately can pursue any of them. The challenge is that, especially in a recessionary period and in the face of unprecedented private-sector competition, they can’t pursue all of them. Associations have to choose strategically — and more importantly, they have to decide what their foundation is.

What’s that one thing, that single unique and effective purpose, that associations primarily serve and upon which they are built? It’s not annual meetings, which have dwindled in attendance and importance as physical distances have become less of an obstacle to networking. It’s not improving the image of lawyers, investing thousands of dollars in fruitless efforts to make lawyers more appreciated and valued by a public that is quite happy to stereotype and scapegoat us. So what’s left?

This is Jordon’s kind way of saying that bar associations have grown pointless.  The mission is long forgotten, or too far from any mission that might conceivably serve the needs of members, and all that remains is the trappings of an association.  Award dinners and resume fodder aren’t enough to justify paying the tariff.  Why exist?

Jordon offers an answer.

My own suggestion is this: lawyer associations should transform themselves into lawyers’ marketplace evangelists. They should adopt as their mission a sustained campaign to trumpet the unique advantages of choosing lawyers over the many other options spreading throughout the legal services market. Our de facto monopoly on legal services is already disappearing, and our regulatory advantages likely will follow shortly.

Lawyers need to differentiate themselves from the people, processes and programs that are coming into the marketplace and drawing clients away; but no lawyer or firm is going to launch an expensive and complex campaign that will benefit competitors as well as colleagues. Lawyer associations can. And they can do so by emphasizing lawyers’ training, professionalism, ethical standards and other outstanding characteristics with which lawyers are proud to be associated.

He’s absolutely right.  Lawyers, when we conduct ourselves in the highest order of our profession, fulfill a need that no online legal form can serve.  The public has lost faith in lawyers, and the law, to serve them in a professional manner, meaning putting our clients’ interests before our own and putting in our own efforts to provide excellent representation.  The path of professional failure is strewn with our crass laundry-soap marketing efforts, and whining about work/life balance and the unfairness of every kid a year out of law school not being able to buy a BMW while leaving the office by happy hour.

But it’s not just the reinvention of the image of the profession, but a renaissance of the profession itself.  Lawyers do not only possess a monopoly on the right to practice law, but a duty to practice is professionally as well.  Without the latter, the former is just more garbage marketing.  We clearly need to change the image, but we need to live up to the image we want other to see.

How many out there are prepared to take down the crap on your websites that proclaim your vast experience when you’ve only been a lawyer for 12 minutes? 

This too can be part of the same mission, to strongly encourage lawyers to return to the fold of a learned profession.  We can embrace those who strive for excellence, and we can shun and reject those who think they look better walking the street in short shorts.  We can be proud of what we do and who we are, but only if and when we deserve to be proud.

As Jordon urges bar associations to change their external focus, he also offers this suggestion to change their internet focus:

Internally, I think they need to focus on collegiality and collaboration. As society becomes more virtual, face time becomes far more valuable. But lawyer gatherings of all kinds still over-emphasize the role of educational sessions and business meetings — events that lawyers can attend from their desks or on their smartphones — while relegating socializing and networking opportunities to short coffee breaks or abridged cocktail parties at the end of the day. Associations should reverse this: host gatherings to network and socialize first, and to learn or conduct business formally as a sidebar. Look for ways to encourage face time and personal interaction among lawyers — hold un-conferences, sponsor speed-roundtables, form micro-panel discussions for small, specialized groups, and so forth.

It’s unclear whether Jordon’s suggestion is similar to mine, as neither collegiality nor collaboration are goals in themselves, but merely means to an end.  Initially, I’m not a fan of collaboration, the elevation of consensus and compromise over the far harder choices of right and wrong.*  While I realize that collaboration is fashionable, it’s also the quickest route to mediocrity.  I’m not a fan of mediocrity.

But the collegiality suggestion is more promising.  Through the growth of norms of conduct, praise and admiration for those within the profession who strive for excellence, and bringing those whose concerns are limited to the quick buck back into the fold of personal pride and responsibility, we can do far more to elevate lawyers back into a profession, one worthy of the public’s trust and admiration, than can a hundred new ethics regulations.  Through collegiality, we can create an atmosphere that rewards those who strive for excellence and shows disdain for those who would turn law offices into used car lots.

The bottom line is that we’ve watched the law slide down the slope of professionalism into the gutter of mercenary self-interest.  If this is the best we can do for ourselves, then perhaps self-help forms and pro se trials are no worse than wasting money on a lawyer.

Bar associations have, for the past decade, played a critical role in encouraging our downward spiral.  Their focus has been on appeasing the latest craze, enabling the quick buck and excusing the self-serving behaviors of lawyers who have disgraced a once-great profession.  If only the pompous few who feel compelled to be important bar association leaders could put their self-aggrandizing energies to use in restoring a sense of professionalism among lawyers, and furthering our purpose as learned professionals to help our clients, they might have a point to their continued existence.

And so might we.  If our only point is to make a buck, then we have come to the end of the road, just like our associations.  Sure, lawyers need to earn a living that justifies the cost, in both money and opportunity, of entrance, but that comes as an adjunct to our deserving the respect and trust of the public for our dedication to excellence and our clients’ cause.  It would be a damn worthy mission if bar associations would become a part of this fight.

* Addendum: Having thought about this a bit further, it occurs to me that I may have misunderstood Jordon’s point about collaboration.  It may be that he’s suggesting that we help each other, to be better lawyers and better serve our clients, rather than become enablers of mediocrity within the profession.  If so, then I’m with him all the way and apologize for having maligned his ideas due to a disagreeable choice of words.