The Gazette 1980

GAZETTE

APRIL 1980

Certification of Legal Specialists in the State of California

By JAMES B. CORISON

Riverside, California (Chairman California Board of Legal Specialization)*

During the last few years, a new movement within the legal profession has come into being. Although the move- ment is growing throughout the United States, its roots are in California. The following is a short history of its development in the Golden State. In 1966 the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California took its first step in the implementation of an innovative programme for the formal certification of legal specialists. The programme was designed to meet needs of the public and of the profession arising from the recog- nised increase in specialised law practice over the past few decades which resulted from ever broadening demands upon lawyers. Countless governmental agencies with their regulations, more complex tax laws, a changing attitude within society concerning social and economic rights, laws for the protection of the environment and for the conservation of resources all have contributed to the "specialised lawyer". Initially, a Special Committee was created to conduct a thorough study of specialisation and to prepare, if found to be necessary and practicable, an experimental programme under which members of the bar might seek to become certified specialists. During the three years of its existence, the Committee collected information on the subject of specialisation, conducted panel discussions at association meetings and held informal all-day hearings to learn the views of local bar associations, deans of law schools, members of the Conference of Barristers and other interested persons. In addition, the Committee devoted considerable time and effort to the preparation of a survey of 2,196 members of the California Bar, selected at random, to ascertain the extent and nature of existing de facto specialisation and the desirable characteristics of a certification programme. The survey was conducted in early 1968 and revealed that two out of three attorneys concentrate their practice in one field or a related few fields of law, that concen- tration increases with years of practice, and that attorneys who concentrate have higher incomes. The survey further showed that 72% of the bar would prefer to concentrate its practice in the future. Large majorities anticipated that the public and profession would benefit from certification of specialists and that certification would generally improve professional competence. After an analysis of the information received and an interpretation of the results obtained from the survey, the committee recommended that certification of legal specialists be tried on an experimental basis in three diverse fields, Criminal Law, Taxation, and Worker's Compensation (recovery for industrial injury). The three fields were especially chosen to test the ability of the organised bar: (1) to create meaningful standards for certification; (2) to set up reasonable testing procedures

for practitioners who presumably are already above average in knowledge and expertise; (3) to provide adequate continuing legal education for the specialist when certified; and (4) to administer such a programme fairly, objectively and without cost to the rank and file lawyer not affiliated with the specialisation programme. The work product of the now disbanded Special Committee was the California Pilot Programme in Legal Specialisation, approved by the Board of Governors in 1970 and adopted by the Supreme Court of the State of California in 1971. It rested upon four basic concepts; experience as a lawyer, substantial involvement in the speciality field, special educational experience and adequate testing to insure quality performance. Several other characteristics of the plan are as follows: (1) Participation is voluntary. (2) The certified specialist is not to take advantage of his position to enlarge the scope of his representation of a referred client. (3) The existence of certified specialists in a field of law does not preclude the non-certified lawyer from prac- tising in the field. Conversely, the certified specialist is not precluded from practising in other fields of law. (4) A lawyer may be certified in more than one field of law if he meets the established standards. (5) The responsibilities and privileges of the certified specialist are personal in nature and may not be attri- buted to or fulfilled by a law firm. (6) A certified specialist is authorised to communicate the fact of his certification to other lawyers and to the public. (7) Certified specialists must demonstrate continued proficiency in the field by qualifying for recertification every five years. The Pilot Programme created what was initially a nine- member, now a thirteen-member, Board of Legal Special- isation (the "Board") and nine-member Advisory Commissions for each field to implement the plan. The Board now consists of six lawyers-at-large, the dean of an accredited law school (currently the University of Southern California), a representative of Continuing Education of the Bar (a Berkeley based continuing legal educational institution sponsored by the State Bar of Cali- fornia and the University of California), the Chairman of the Committee on Maintenance of Professional Compe- tence of the State Bar and four Chairmen of Advisory Commissions (a new commission for Family Law has recently been added). The Advisory Commissions consist of acknowledged experts in each field. Only one of the members-at-large of the Board is a certified specialist. All members of the Advisory Commissions are certified except for the members of the newly established commis- sion for Family Law.

54