How the 1968 BAR Merger Subverted New Hampshire’s Legislative Will and Entrenched Judicial Corruption
In the preceding installments of this series, we’ve peeled back the layers of New Hampshire’s judicial system, revealing a web of self-serving machinations that have transformed what should be a bastion of justice into a tool for elite control. From the “Quiet Coup” in Part I that quietly commandeered the legal profession, to the open letter in Part II calling on Granite Staters to awaken, the foundational manipulations in “The Foundations of the New Hampshire BAR Association,” the racketeering schemes in Part III’s “RICO for Revenue,” the birth of a shadowy “Deep State” in Part IV, and the mechanized alliance of judges and lawyers in Part V’s “Machine: Judges and Lawyer Class”—each piece has exposed how power has been consolidated away from the people and into the hands of an unaccountable few.
Now, in Part VI, we turn to a pivotal moment in this saga: the 1968 “unification” of the New Hampshire BAR Association (NHBA). This was no mere administrative tweak; it was a brazen judicial power grab that ignored existing law, forced mandatory membership on every lawyer in the state, and solidified the BAR as a monopolistic entity beholden to the courts rather than the legislature or the public. At its core, this unification was corrupt because it bypassed the 1873 statute that had legally established the BAR as a voluntary organization created by the people’s elected representatives. That law remained in full effect, yet the New Hampshire Supreme Court arrogantly decreed otherwise, setting the stage for the entrenched “deep state” we’ve dissected in prior parts.
The 1873 Foundations: A Legislative Creation for Voluntary Association
To understand the corruption of 1968, we must first revisit 1873. That year, the New Hampshire Legislature passed Chapter 115 of the Laws of 1873, incorporating “The BAT Association of the State of New Hampshire” as a voluntary, philanthropic organization. This was no accident—New Hampshire became the first state to establish a modern statewide BAR association through a special legislative act. The purpose was clear: to create a club-like group of attorneys focused on mutual improvement, ethical discussions, and public service, without compelling anyone to join or pay dues. It was “for the purpose of… increasing its usefulness in promoting the due administration of justice,” but membership was optional, reflecting the Granite State’s live-free-or-die ethos.
This legislative origin is crucial. The BAR was a creature of statute, born from the democratic process. The 1873 law emphasized voluntarism, ensuring no lawyer could be coerced into association or financial support. For nearly a century, this setup worked—attorneys could choose to participate, and the organization grew organically. In 1967, the legislature even amended the charter to rename it the “New Hampshire BAR Association,” reaffirming its statutory roots. Critically, the 1873 law was never repealed or modified to allow for mandatory unification. It stood as a bulwark against judicial overreach.
The 1968 Power Grab: Court-Ordered Unification Amid Controversy
Fast-forward to 1968. The voluntary NHBA, facing what it claimed were challenges like low participation and funding issues, petitioned the New Hampshire Supreme Court to “unify” the BAR—making membership and dues mandatory for all practicing attorneys in the state. This would transform the organization into an “integrated” or “unified” BAR, where every lawyer must pay up or lose their license to practice. The court, in In Re Unification of the New Hampshire BAR (109 N.H. 260, 1968), granted the petition on December 31, 1968, ordering a three-year trial period starting July 1, 1969.
The majority opinion, penned by Justice Lampron, asserted the court’s “inherent power” to regulate the legal profession, claiming authority over admission, discipline, and now, forced association. They cited the need for better ethics enforcement, continuing education, and unified advocacy on justice-related issues. But here’s the rub: the court completely sidestepped the 1873 law. Nowhere in the decision do they address repealing or superseding the legislative charter. Instead, they bootstrapped their jurisdiction from vague constitutional interpretations, declaring that judicial power “vests in the courts all the judicial power of the state” and includes supervising the BAR.
This was a divided court—Justice Grimes dissented vigorously, arguing that compulsory membership violated personal liberties unless a “compelling necessity” existed, which he saw none. Opponents at the time raised alarms about coercion, First Amendment violations (forced association and speech), and the BAR’s potential to lobby on “political” issues, even if limited to justice matters. A 1961 legislative attempt to unify via statute (House Bill 458) had failed, indefinitely postponed—yet the court proceeded anyway, ignoring the legislature’s inaction.
In 1972, after the trial, the court made unification permanent in In Re Unified New Hampshire BAR (112 N.H. 204), again over dissent. The association had “prospered,” they said, with increased participation and programs. But critics noted that a referendum showed lukewarm support—only 41% participated, with a slim majority in favor. Grimes reiterated: no proof unification caused improvements, and it offended liberty without public necessity.
Why This Was Corrupt: Subverting the Law for Elite Control
The corruption lies in the blatant disregard for the 1873 law. That statute created a voluntary BAR under legislative authority, yet the court imposed mandatory unification without legislative consent or repeal. This wasn’t evolution; it was a coup, shifting control from elected lawmakers to unelected judges. By 1968, the BAR became a court-appendage, with licensure shifting from courts to the NHBA by 1972. This entrenched the “machine” of judges and lawyers from Part V, creating a self-regulating monopoly that funds itself through forced dues—now up to $50 annually by 1968, far higher today.
Ties to prior parts are evident: This unification fueled the “RICO for Revenue” schemes (Part III) by centralizing power for revenue generation via fees and fines. It birthed the “Deep State” (Part IV) by insulating the BAR from public accountability. And it stole the profession (Part I) by mandating conformity, stifling dissent. Dissenters like Grimes warned of “enforced professional guildism,” echoing modern concerns about BAR associations pushing agendas beyond pure justice.
Nationally, unified BARs have faced scrutiny—e.g., U.S. Supreme Court cases like Lathrop v. Donohue (1961) upheld them narrowly, but debates rage over free speech violations when BARs lobby. In NH, this move ignored the people’s will, as expressed in the unrepealed 1873 law.
A Call to Action: Reclaim the BAR
Granite Staters, this 1968 unification wasn’t progress—it was corruption disguised as efficiency. It violated separation of powers, overriding legislative intent to entrench judicial dominance. We must demand reform: repeal unification, return to voluntarism, and hold the BAR accountable. Contact your legislators; question the NHBA’s monopoly. The evolution of our judicial system won’t stop until we stop it.
Stay tuned for Part VII, where we’ll explore how this unified BAR has weaponized ethics rules to silence critics and protect the machine.
Sources drawn from historical records, court decisions, and NHBA archives.
