[Labyrinthos]

But I didn't write the law. It was written by state legislators, most of whom are lawyers. Why hasn't it been contested as unconstitutional under state laws? And if it is deemed constitutional, why hasn't legislation been put forward to amend that state's constitution to stop government interference in private enterprise?

Actually, the rule was put in place by the chief administrator of the courts, not by the state legislature, and there are cases out there indicating that the rule does not implicate the taking clause because its a condition for being allowed to practice law.

[reformed_democrat]

. . . there are cases out there indicating that the rule does not implicate the taking clause because its a condition for being allowed to practice law.

Thank you. That explains a lot.

I've often wondered why no one did anything about that. It seems overly dictatorial -- "If I let you have this, you have to let me have that." -- and no lawyer worth his salt (at least none that I know) puts up with that without a fight.

Does this apply specifically to trial lawyers, or is this required for all attorneys practicing in the state ?