The Asay discipline, issued yesterday, reveals two problems with Mark Gifford in the role of bar counsel. Mark Gifford is choosing who is right and wrong in a dispute that at its center is a contract dispute which should be decided by the court. Gifford is forcing lawyers to litigate a bar dispute that should be a court dispute. A lawyer like any citizen should be entitled to having a court decide a contract dispute and not Gifford and a board picked by Gifford. In the Asay discipline as well as several other cases it is clear that Mark Gifford is deciding who is right and wrong in a dispute that should be settled by the court. Asay's client contended that the fee agreement for both cases was a contingency agreement. Asay disagreed. This is the very nature of a contract dispute and courts are to resolve contract disputes, or at least they were until Mark Gifford became bar counsel.
Problem two is the high salary we as bar members are paying for precious little work by Gifford. I recall that we are paying Gifford $150,000 a year plus retirement plus medical plus vacation ultimately meaning we the bar are subsidizing a salary of $180,000 or more for a job that does not require part time effort. Gifford is handling less than a dozen cases a year and that is part time work at its most. It is time we return to an as needed bar counsel and pay for only what is required. Paying Gifford $180,000 or more a year is costing every bar member money.
The attorneys I know, including some judges, are concerned that legitimate misgivings with Gifford are being ignored or swept under the rug. The Bar did not publicly address that members of the bar soundly expressed dismay with the office of bar counsel in the annual 2015 survey. This all seemed swept under the rug. I am dismayed with our bar and our Supreme Court.
