No, we don’t need a Supreme Court bar

Former California Supreme Court law clerk Christopher Hu suggests California could benefit from a "specialized high court bar," much like that which has developed in the U.S. Supreme Court. But I am not certain what he is really advocating. The U.S. Supreme Court, to which I was admitted in 1980 and have appeared before, does not have a "specialized bar" or really any special competency requirements for admission. The "specialized bar" Mr. Hu described is composed of a few highly skilled attorneys, many veterans of the U.S. Solicitor General's Office, who are often and repeatedly retained, usually by big business interests, to brief and argue cases in that court. This "specialized bar" is selected in the marketplace. There are no qualifications, testing or requirements for admission to this "bar."

If Mr. Hu is arguing for a "specialized bar" for the California Supreme Court with requirements for admission, other than passing the state bar exam, then I believe that is a bad idea. I spent 35 years in the California Attorney General's Office Criminal Division. I was privileged to argue a number of cases in the California Supreme Court over four decades. More importantly, I helped to prepare scores of deputy attorneys general for arguments in the state's high court and have sat through countless Supreme Court calendars composed of both civil and criminal cases.

The opportunity to argue a case in the state Supreme Court is the crowning achievement of many attorneys' careers, and the overwhelming majority of them more than rise to the occasion. Indeed, based on my experience, I believe the Supreme Court benefits from the practical, ground-up experience of attorneys who have litigated and lived with a case in the trial and lower appellate courts; attorneys who are close to their clients and close to the issues as more than abstract notions. I also believe it is important for all the state's attorneys to be welcome in its highest court, for there to be a connection between that court, its justices and the attorneys it has admitted to practice before it as well as all the courts in the state. If a "specialized bar" would eliminate or push out these advocates, it is not an idea that should be pursued. IMHO. If the "market" chooses a small number of attorneys to argue in the California Supreme Court, well, that is for those interests to develop.