Brock, Ralph H.2010-04-022010-04-02199728 St. Mary's L. J. 47http://hdl.handle.net/10601/355Despite the opposition, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of compulsory membership in unified bar associations. Keller and Hudson are the culmination of a series of labor union and unified bar cases that uphold compulsory membership but establish constitutional limits on the uses of mandatory dues. Part II of this Article reviews those cases to identify bar activities that may be funded with mandatory dues and discusses the procedures available to dissenting members who object to the use of their dues for political or ideological purposes. Part III addresses the functions of the State Bar of Texas, examines its legislative policy and activities, and demonstrates how the State Bar has failed to provide a mechanism to protect the interests of dissenting members as required by Hudson and Keller. Part IV suggests that the State Bar can protect the rights of dissenters while maintaining a viable legislative program by adopting procedures, similar to those imposed by courts on the unified bars of other states, that comply with the requirements of Keller. In this way, the State Bar can prevent the historical drumbeat of opposition to the unified bar from becoming the crescendo of litigation that has plagued other state unified bars that have failed to protect the rights of dissenters.en-USCompulsory membership in bar associationsUse of mandatory duesState Bar of TexasArticle