The following are summaries of supporting case law. It is clear from the review of these cases that there is substantial legal precedent establishing that a duly organized association may provide information or services which may be considered legal in nature to its membership without violating the state statutes prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law.
Further, The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the freedom of association exists under the umbrella of the First Amendment rights of freedom of peaceable assembly, freedom of speech and freedom of petition. Additionally the First Amendment also protects the rights of members of an organization through this right of association allowing them to assist one another, through a specialized department of their association, in the assertion and protection of their legal rights.
Below are the summaries of applicable case law.
Case #1
NAACP v. Button (1963) 371 U.S. 415, 83 S Ct. 328
Major Case Points:
State could not foreclose the exercise of constitutional rights by merely labeling
the activity solicitation.
Abstract discussion was not the only species of communication which the constitution
protected, but the First Amendment also protected the vigorous advocacy of lawful means.
The Court concluded that the activities of the NAACP, its affiliates and legal staff were modes of expression and association which were protected by the First and Fourteenth
Amendment.
First major U.S. Supreme Court case to hold that minority group organizations may provide legal services to its members for the purpose of assisting the members in the assertion of their legal rights.
Case #2
Virginia State Bar (1964) 377 U.S. 1, 84 S. CT 1113
The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel.
Major Case Points:
The Court held that the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech. Petition and assembly give railroad workers the right to gather together for lawful purpose of helping and advising one another in asserting their rights under federal statutes.
The Court further held that the right of railroad workers, personally or through a special department of their Brotherhood, to offer advice concerning the need for legal assistance, was an inseparable part of the constitutionally guaranteed right to assist and advise each other.
Although Virginia had the right to regulate the practice of law within its borders, the state could not ignore the rights of individuals guaranteed by the constitution.
The initial position of the Virginia State Bar Association was accepted by the Virginia Supreme Court and supported by the American Bar Association (ABA) and a majority of state bar associations. Following the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, a petition for the reconsideration was supported by the ABA, the state bar of 44 states and four (4) major local bar associations. The Trainmen decision was allowed to stand as controlling legal precedent.
Virginia State Bar attempted to enjoin Railroad Brotherhood from alleged solicitation of legal business and the unauthorized practice of law.
Case #3
United Mine Workers of America v. Illinois State Bar Association (1967) 389 U.S. 217, 88 S. Ct. 353
Major Case Points:
The Court held that the freedom of speech, assembly and petition guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments provided the right to hire attorneys on a salary basis to assist its members in the assertion of their rights.
The Court held that the decision issued in the Button and Trainmen cases were still
controlling. The Court also stated that the grievances for redress of which the right of
petition was insured, and with it, the right of assembly, are not limited to religious and
political ones, and the right of free speech and free press are not confined to any field
of human interest.
Illinois State Bar Association sought to prohibit the Union from engaging in certain practices alleged to constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
Important factors which impacted the decision:
Case #4
United Transportation Union v. State Bar of Michigan
Major Case Points:
The United Transportation Union utilized a system virtually identical to the one described in the Trainmen case. However, in addition to designating approved counsel, the Union also negotiated a commitment from the attorneys for their fees.
Important factors involved in the action:
The Court’s opinion stated that at issue was the basic right to group legal action. The Court stated further that the common thread running through its decisions in NAACP, Button, Trainmen, and United Mine Workers was that collective legal activity undertaken to obtain meaningful access to the Court is a fundamental right within the protection of the First Amendment.
This proposition has been expanded to include the right to collective legal activity for the protection or assertion of a legal right which might not necessarily involve courtroom litigation.
Advocacy of public and private issues is made more effective by group association.
The right to assist and advise the association members, either personally or through a department of the association, regarding their legal rights is a fundamental element of the right of freedom of association.
Associations are not limited to forming for religious or political objectives.
The right of free speech and free press are not restricted to any particular field
of human interest.
A common thread identified in the legal decisions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court was that the right to collective legal activity is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld activities of the Union designed to limit the level of legal fees charged its members for representation in cases involving injury to or death of
its members in work related accidents.
Conclusions That Can Be Drawn From the Case Law
There is substantial legal precedent establishing the right of freedom of association. It is now accepted that individuals have a fundamental right to associate in order to promote ideas and beliefs.
Related Cases, Opinions, and Articles of Interest
