Two lawyers have filed a federal lawsuit against the Oregon State Bar, contending the regulatory body is violating their constitutional rights by requiring them to pay dues or fees as a condition of practicing law in the state.

The suit also contends the bar is violating the lawyers' First Amendment rights by requiring them to subsidize the organization's political and ideological activities through its fees and dues.

West Linn lawyer Diane L. Gruber and Klamath Falls lawyer Mark Runnels filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Portland on Wednesday.

The lawsuit cites the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June, in Janus v. American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees, that public employees cannot be required to pay unions dues or fees if they opt out of membership.

They're urging a judge to prohibit the Oregon State Bar, which is not a union but a regulatory agency, from collecting such dues or fees.

"This isn't an attack on the state bar,'' said attorney Michael L. Spencer, who filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs. "The requirement to be a member of the bar violates our free speech and free association rights under the Janus decision.''

Instead, lawyers should be required to be licensed, but "that's different from membership with the bar, which implies somebody speaks for you,'' Spencer said.

The Oregon State Bar regulates the legal profession in the state. Bar dues for Oregon lawyers range from $125 to $552 annually, depending on a member's status with the bar. There are currently 19,706 bar members, including inactive members whose dues are lower.

If unsuccessful on their broader challenge, the lawyers also are urging the court to award them damages for dues collected that have supported the political or ideological activities of the state bar.

They contend that the bar's publishing of a "Statement on White Nationalism and Normalization of Violence," which ran in the April issue of the Bar Bulletin, was blatantly political and in violation of a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The decision, Keller v. State Bar of California, held that attorneys required to be members of a state bar association have a First Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing the organization's political or ideological activities.

The bar's statement in the Bulletin denounced hate mongering, referencing the white nationalist march last August in Charlottesville, Virginia, and the May stabbing attacks on the Portland MAX train. It called out a "current climate of violence, extremism and exclusion" that threatens the rule of law.

On an adjoining page, a second statement signed by non-bar specialty groups went further, repeatedly criticizing President Donald Trump for having "catered to this white nationalist movement, allowing it to make up the base of his support and providing it a false sense of legitimacy."

The two statements were on opposite pages, with one green banner surrounding them both. The bulletin is a bar magazine mailed to members 10 times a year.

In May, the state bar stood by its statement but voted to issue refunds of $1 plus change to lawyers who objected to the second statement that decried the rise of white nationalism under Trump. The $1.12 refund was calculated as the per-member cost of publishing that issue of the bar bulletin, according to the state bar's board.

Helen Hierschbiel, the bar's chief executive officer, said the bar's board didn't formally adopt or support the second statement by the specialty legal groups and said publication of the two statements side-by-side was "ill-advised and confusing."

Gruber was among about two dozen lawyers who sought and were granted the small refunds. Runnels, according to his lawyer, didn't apply for the refund because he didn't receive a notice from the bar that it was available.

In response to the lawsuit, the bar is confident it complies with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Keller on mandatory bar fees, said Kateri Walsh, bar spokeswoman. Under Keller, attorneys who are required to be members of a state bar association have a First Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing the organization's political or ideological activities.

"We believe we have been compliant with that precedent,'' Walsh said. "Our work and our public statements have been squarely within our mission: to protect the public and promote access to justice for all Oregonians. We will respond substantitvely and vigorously, in court, in short order.''

-- Maxine Bernstein

mbernstein@oregonian.com

503-221-8212

@maxoregonian