In re New Hampshire Bar Ass'n

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that RSA 311:7-g, which required a referendum on mandatory membership in the New Hampshire Bar Association, violated Part I, Article 37 of the New Hampshire Constitution by encroaching on the judiciary’s inherent authority to regulate the practice of law and unify the Bar. The court concluded that RSA 311:7-h, governing the Association’s legislative activities, was dependent on the invalid provision and therefore had no legal effect. The court did not reach the separate free-speech challenges to RSA 311:7-h.

Holdings

1. RSA 311:7-g is unconstitutional because it impermissibly encroaches on the judiciary's inherent authority to regulate the practice of law and determine whether the New Hampshire Bar should be unified, in violation of Part I, Article 37 of the New Hampshire Constitution.
2. The court did not decide whether RSA 311:7-h violated federal or state free-speech protections; because RSA 311:7-h operated only if mandatory membership existed under RSA 311:7-g, and RSA 311:7-g was unconstitutional, RSA 311:7-h was without legal effect.

Questions Presented

1. Whether RSA 311:7-g, which required a referendum on compulsory membership in the New Hampshire Bar Association and permitted de-unification based on the vote, violated the separation-of-powers provision of Part I, Article 37 of the New Hampshire Constitution.
2. Whether RSA 311:7-h, which restricted the New Hampshire Bar Association's legislative activities when membership was mandatory under RSA 311:7-g, was independently unconstitutional.
3. Whether the judicial branch possesses inherent constitutional authority to regulate the practice of law and determine whether the State Bar should remain unified.

Disposition

other