On Friday, May 9, 2008, the Missouri Bar committees gathered in the Capitol Plaza Hotel in Jefferson City. This meeting represented the final 2007-08 meeting for most committees. The meeting also provided free CLE and a free lunch talk for all attendees.

Lawyers enjoying the convention

This session covered two topics: (1) the new Missouri Bar Administrative Law deskbook and (2) a case law presentation. To participate in writing the deskbook, please contact lkgardner@hotmail.com. The case law presentation included the latest installment of the Aquila Litigation, which is ongoing and controversial in Western Missouri.

Paul Gardner speaks on administrative law

The eminent domain session covered two topics: the new eminent domain legislation and the potential state Constitutional amendment restricting eminent domain use. Mr. Denlow led a discussion of the new eminent domain law, which he and others regards as "a mess." According to Pete Donovan, the new law does not follow "existing case law" and ignores a land parcel's "future use" in determining fair market value. In addition, now landowners may need an expert witness to ascertain the land's value; whereas, a landowner previously could estimate his land's value by himself. Phillip Morgan of the Missouri Department of Transportation worried that the new fair market value calculation lacks an explicit assessment of the land's highest and best use, warning, "It's a roving commission!"

Robert Hess discussed the eminent domain referendum. Bob Denlow praised his presentation as a "must-hear" for developers. Under the proposed state Constitutional amendment, two provisions may make eminent domain land acquisition more difficult: (1) if the government acquires property, the government may not transfer the property for twenty (20) years; and (2) under the proposed Article VI, the government must show a "nuisance," rather than a "blight" and give the property owners an opportunity for abatement.

Mr. Hess discussed the initiative petition process, explaining that the eminent domain reformers turned in their petitions on Sunday. Mr. Denlow then urged that eminent domain reform currently has a "free pass" as no Missouri law firms are doing anything to help their developer clients. He noted that "in today's political climate, . . . if any ballot goes on to restrict eminent domain, I'd go to Vegas and bet the house that it'll pass."

Bob Denlow (right) presents new eminent domain legislation

Judge Breckenridge thought that her nomination and confirmation was proof that the Missouri Plan works. She decried advertisements that alleged that judges were picked in smoke-filled rooms. "Where are these smoke-filled rooms?" she asked. Judge Breckenridge discussed the Missouri judiciary's sexual, racial, and political diversity, and argued that the Missouri Plan continues to work, despite billboards, radio advertisements, and blogs arguing against it. The Missouri Plan, she explained, is important to Missouri's legal system and "indeed, our state's heritage."

Judge Breckenridge found it "fascinating" that all of the judicial selection reformers' suggestions focus on reforming different aspects of the Plan, though she did not clarify why this aspect of reform efforts was interesting or telling. She thought that all of the reform efforts were "guaranteed" to ensure "the influence of politics and money" on the judiciary. Judge Breckenridge concluded by thanking the Missouri Bar and its members for their work in promoting the Missouri Plan and encouraged them to continue.

Charlie Harris (podium) introduces Hon. Patricia Breckenridge (second from left)

After a reading of the minutes, the Legislation committee reported the "good news" that House Resolution 49, proposing judicial selection reform, was defeated on the House floor. House Joint Resolution 41, the "jurisdiction-stripping resolution" was voted out of the Senate in "substantially revised form." HJR 41 is "still not something we want to see passed," but is better with revisions.

A Tort Reform Legislative Committee member asked why the Bar had taken no action on several bills that the Tort Reform Committee had suggested opposing, such as H.B. 2286, which bars uninsured motorists from recovering from auto accidents. The Legislation Committee cited time constraints arising from the "crisis" with the Missouri Plan.

For approximately forty minutes, the Board went to closed session to discuss and evaluate "dues protests and potential litigation."

Upon returning to open session, Vice President "Skip" Walther reported that the Bar had "spent a great deal of time getting to know a lot of legislators," which will "help [the Bar's] stead next year." President-Elect Thomas Burke reported that he had been "very busy this year" meeting with legislators and lawyers and "debating with Bill Placke."

President Charlie Harris reported that, over the last four or five months, the Bar had "spent a lot of time" dealing with legislative and civic groups "fighting some legislation." Mr. Harris particularly praised Skip Walther, Tom Burke, and Ron Baird for their efforts in defense of the Missouri Plan.

Board of Governors Meeting