I
blew
through
a
drop
dead
date,
fortunately
one
that
wasn’t
a
statute
of
limitations,
but
rather
a
personal
deadline.
The
State
Bar
of
California
told
me
that
I
had
to
decide
by
December
1,
2024,
whether
I
was
going
to
choose
inactive
status
for
2025.
I
thought
about
it,
dithered
and
then
the
deadline
had
passed.
So,
I
will
be
active
for
the
next
year.
Active
or
inactive?
That
is
the
question,
but
not
the
only
question
for
those
of
us
of
a
certain
age
who
are
trying
to
decide
what,
if
any
role,
we
older
lawyers
can
play,
should
play,
want
to
play
in
this
ever-changing
legal
world,
so
different
from
the
one
that
we
practiced
for
so
many
years.
While
it’s
too
late
for
me
to
make
the
choice
now
for
2025,
I
weigh
the
pros
and
cons
of
remaining
active
(after
48
years)
or
going
inactive.
The
California
State
Bar
doesn’t
have
a
“retired”
category.
The
benefits
of
going
inactive:
dues
are
waived
for
those
of
us
post-70,
and
there’s
no
need
to
fulfill
the
MCLE
requirements
that
are
due
every
three
years.
I
have
until
January
2026
to
fulfill
mine.
Another
inactive
advantage
is
that
I
don’t
have
to
take
the
MCLE-required
courses.
Those
include
civility
(really?
We
need
to
be
told
how
to
be
civil?
But
times
as
they
are,
perhaps
it’s
necessary).
As
we
all
know,
just
taking
a
course
in
civility
doesn’t
mean
that
bullying
lawyers
will
change
their
ways.
It’s
akin
to
putting
lipstick
on
a
pig.
Many
mediators,
including
me,
don’t
start
with
a
joint
session
any
more
(and
that
used
to
be
de
rigueur).
Animosity,
hostility,
and
other
unpleasant
emotions
can
derail
a
mediation
at
the
outset.
While
the
old
saw
is
that
you
catch
more
flies
with
honey
than
with
vinegar,
that’s
not
necessarily
the
case
at
the
outset
of
a
mediation.
Lawyers
should
set
a
civil
tone
in
making
sure
that
mediation
interactions
are,
if
not
cordial,
are
least
civil.
I
don’t
think
that
one
MCLE
hour
is
going
to
make
any
difference,
but
it’s
better
than
nothing.
And
it’s
not
just
lawyers
who
could
use
some
good
old
civility
training
or
a
refresher
in
the
same.
The
California
Commission
on
Judicial
Performance
publicly
admonished
a
superior
court
judge
for
conduct
unbecoming
in
his
efforts
in
trying
to
block
the
renaming
of
his
high
school.
That
conduct
included
name
calling
and
various
inappropriate
comments
on
social
media
that
the
CCJP
found
demeaned
the
judicial
office.
Perhaps
this
judge
needs
a
refresher
in
civility
as
well?
Donning
judicial
robes
is
not
a
pass
for
bad
behavior.
You
are
probably
way
too
young
to
know
this
particular
Beach
Boys
song
about
being
true
to
your
school.
This
judge
took
it
to
an
extreme.
Two
other
required
courses:
explicit
bias
and
then
a
separate
one
on
implicit
bias.
Two
more
courses
that
lawyers
will
check
the
attendance
boxes
for,
but
as
this
old
lady
lawyer
knows,
consciousness-raising
takes
time
and
two
hours
of
those
courses
will
not
necessarily
erase
a
lifetime
of
biased
thinking
and
biased
behavior.
It’s
a
start,
maybe.
I
think
almost
any
woman
or
minority
lawyer
could
teach
these
courses
based
upon
real-life
experiences
of
both
explicit
and
implicit
biases.
What’s
the
old
line
about
experience
being
the
best
teacher?
In
addition
to
the
required
hours
on
legal
ethics,
the
bar
requires
one
hour
of
competence.
Is
one
hour
enough?
You
tell
me.
Right
now,
due
to
some
dogged
health
issues,
I
am
not
taking
any
clients
nor
mediating
any
cases.
My
bandwidth
is
not
what
I
want
it
to
be,
and
I
don’t
know
whether
that’s
due
to
illness
or,
gasp,
age!
In
any
event,
I
don’t
think
it
would
be
fair
to
represent
clients
or
to
mediate
right
now.
What
do
other
dinosaur
lawyers
think
about
that?
So,
given
all
those
reasons,
why
don’t
I
just
go
inactive?
Here’s
why:
if
I
am
inactive,
then
any
advice
I
may
give
in
whatever
situation
is
UPL,
that
is,
the
unauthorized
practice
of
law.
I
have
former
clients
who
do
call
for
pro
bono
advice
from
time
to
time.
However,
if
I
tell
them
I
can’t
give
them
any
advice
because
of
the
potential
UPL
consequences
to
me,
their
eyes
glaze
over.
“But
you’re
a
lawyer,
right?
You’re
still
a
lawyer,
right?
So
why
can’t
you
advise
me
on
that?”
Er,
no.
It
doesn’t
work
that
way.
Nonlawyers
don’t
get
it,
nor
should
they
have
to.
And
the
last
thing
I
want
to
receive
is
a
disciplinary
letter
from
the
California
State
Bar.
Active
it
is,
at
least
for
another
year,
when
I’ll
have
to
perseverate
all
over
again.
But
next
year
I
will
calendar
the
drop
dead
date.
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at
[email protected].