American Bar Association took a stand

[DoBW]

"We call upon the entire profession, including lawyers who serve in elected positions, to speak out against intimidation"

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/03/aba-rejects-efforts-to-undermine-courts-and-legal-profession/

[SheltieLover]

1. Kick

[Lovie777]

2. The present DOJ and AG.....

[AmericaUnderSiege]

3. How very courageous.

But just to remind us all, these are the people who refused to disbar lawyers who participated in conspiracies to commit torture and murder under a previous tyrannical Republican regime, and have since refused to disbar the lawless clowns of the most recent one.

And they won't even speak out against the fifth columnists in their own profession who are enabling it with open bribery and corrupt court rulings.

These Nuremberg vultures had better nut up and defend the law, because they know damn well where this goes otherwise.

[TheRickles]

4. Rec x100!

[Ms. Toad]

11. You might want to fact check before recommending.

The ABA has nothing to do with attorney licensing.

[TheRickles]

15. OK, so how about the ABA censuring, disapproving, adverse recommendation, etc.?

Anything to show disapproval in the ways that are appropriate to the organization's bylaws. And what state bars took the actions that they're entitled to take - censure, disbar, etc.? Overall, the repercussions suffered by these bad actors has been minimal to non-existent from within their professional organizations. Please supply counter-examples if I'm wrong.

[Ms. Toad]

17. First - I have no idea whether any of these "bad actors" are members of the ABA.

It is a voluntary association of American attorneys which has no more to do with licensing or disciplining attorneys than the local grocery store. I think I am currently a member - because before I retired the law school I worked at signed me up. I'm still getting the magazine, so I suspect they (the law school) has forgotten to remove me. I have never sought out membership in the ABA. I don't have anything against them - I just never saw any personal or professional value to becoming a member.

But back to the bad actors - even if the individuals are members, the ABA is not in the business of determining who, among those who choose to join, is appropriate to practice law. For that matter, you do not even have to be an attorney to join the ABA. They have zero power to censure, disapprove, or make adverse recommendations as to any of its members (or non-members). Its interest is in the rule of law, not in the individuals who practice it. They craft model rules for what they believe reflects what the law is, or should be in various practice areas - for example - most jurisdictions have adopted the ABA Model Rules for Ethics. But once a jurisdiction adopts the model rules, it is up to those within the profession in that jurisdiction to enforce them.

As to who has disciplined them - here's an article that summarizes the actions, as of 9/2024.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/09/26/kenneth-chesebro-charged-in-wisconsin-here-are-all-the-former-trump-lawyers-now-facing-legal-consequences/

Do I think there should have been more, and harsher consequences - yes.

But if you're angry about that - file an ethics complaint against the folks you believe should be punished more harshly. Anyone can file an ethics complaint, and the Ethics committee (whatever it is named) in that jurisdiciton is obligated to investigate.

Just get your facts straight before you pile on against an organization that is currently speaking out very strongly against the current administration on the basis of things you imagine they refused to do in the past, when they had zero power to do so

[TheRickles]

28. Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed and informative reply. Much appreciated.

[LymphocyteLover]

34. I'm pretty sure they can influence disbarment proceeedings

[Ms. Toad]

37. You would be wrong.

They influence the rule of law, not the practice of it by individual attorneys. Matters of discipline are in the sole discretion of the jurisdiction that granted the license

[LymphocyteLover]

38. OK, but the ABA never has a say in that process?

[Ms. Toad]

39. No. It doesn't.

It is a voluntary association of attorneys which help attorneys network, provides legal education, advocates for/drafts uniform laws, and accredits law schools. Basically it is a club for attorneys and people who care about the law in the United States.

Licensing is controlled by each jurisdiction or the court (e.g. federal courts have separate admission requirements). These entities are loosely referred to as the bar for the jurisdiction. (The ABA is NOT a bar). The bar in each jurisdiction has a disciplinary process - generally carried out by at least two tiers of hearings (the initial and an appeal of some sort). As a general rule - anyone can make a complaint about an attorney. Courts who adjudicate legal complaints about an attorney can refer an attorney to the ethics committee. In some instances, a committee may be able to self-initiate a complaint. Unless witnesses are called by the ethics committee, there is no opportunity for external input. They act pretty much like a court - no one gets to jump in from the outside and tell/suggest how the committee should decide.

The bar of each jurisdiction may adopt the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (drafted by the ABA) - or not. If they choose to adopt them, they may modify them. (The same goes for the multitude of model laws written by the ABA). That adoption of an ethics code is generally a decision made by the highest court in that jurisdiction. But all they are doing is adopting (or not) a set of rules - not advice on how they should apply the rules in any particular case. It's roughly the same process that happens in a legislative body - the body adopts the laws (which might consider a model rule drafted by the ABA) and a distinct group (the courts) decides whether any individual person violated the law.

Just as the ABA wouldn't jump into a court dispute over whether someone violated a rule they drafted - which was adopted by a state, they wouldn't jump into a disciplinary matter over whether someone violated the ethical rule they drafted - even if the bar in that jurisdiction adopted the rules drafted by the verbatim. The ABA's involvement in the law is limited to proposing a framework - not intervening in cases applying that framework to a particular person.

[LymphocyteLover]

40. OK, thanks for that!

[LT Barclay]

5. Thanks for sharing. It's sad that while many of us are trying to figure out what we can do, those who

can and should know better are doing nothing.
Any effective way to lobby/pressure the ABA?

[Ms. Toad]

10. The ABA has nothing to do with disbarring attorneys. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

9. This is absolutely false.

The American Bar Association has absolutely nothing to do with licensing attorneys. They have no power to grant or rescind licenses (disbar attorneys). That power rests with each state, generally with the Supreme Court of that state - or with dedicated groups under the guidance of the Supreme Court.

[AmericaUnderSiege]

12. So tell us about the bar that has kept faith with the law.

Oops, there is none, because you've just posed a distinction without a difference - lawyers being lawyers, defending their industry over their alleged profession. Bar associations believe in nothing. They protect business interests alone.

[Ms. Toad]

16. The American Bar Association is not a bar.

The ABA is a voluntary association of attorneys, with absolutely no ability to grant a license to practice law to anyone anywhere - and similarly no ability to take one away. It can, unlike bars, make political pronouncements - as it did here

You accused them of being the group which refused to disbar who

"refused to disbar lawyers who participated in conspiracies to commit torture and murder under a previous tyrannical Republican regime, and have since refused to disbar the lawless clowns of the most recent one".

You might as well have accused the local supermarket of refusing to disbar the same people - they have just as much power to disbar attorneys as the ABA does. - ZERO

As for bars which have disbarred bad actors in this recent regime:

NY and WDC bars disbarred Rudi Giuliani
WDC Ethics Committee has recommended suspending Jeffrey Clark's license for two years (case still pending)
Colorado suspended Jenna Ellis from the practice of law for 3 years
California Bar has brought charges and recommend disbarment of John Eastman (case still pending)
Michigan has sanctioned Sidney Powell and additional investigations are ongoing
Multiple complaints are still being processed by multiple state bars against many of Trump's election attorneys - including Ephstyn and Mitchel

Many more have also been sanctioned by the courts (entities which include attorneys but also not bars - and also which have no authority to disbar), and have had criminal charges brought against them by prosecutors (groups of people which include attorneys but also not bars - and also which have no authority to disbar).

[AmericaUnderSiege]

20. We can ignore "sanctioning". That's ridiculous in context.

Giuliani being disbarred is a very, very rare case of a bar standing up for the law properly.

Republican lawyers have been shielded from justice who openly argued that it was legal for an administration to drive nails into a child's testicles if they felt that it served "national security."

The Republican Party is a criminal organization. There is no law in this nation until they are brought to justice.

[Ms. Toad]

22. Again - you slammed the ABA. The ABA has zero to do with the complaints you have.

Either your initial arguments, or the ones you are making now.

As for arguments made in court - an attorney's obligation is to argue an interpretation of the law that serves their client. They cannot misstate the law to the court. But they are free to argue that the law, accurately stated, supports their client's position. That is how the adversarial system works. You don't get sanctioned, or disbarred, for doing your job. It is the judge's (or jury's) job to determine which outcome is consistent with the law.

Personally, I would resign before I made those abhorrent arguments (and, frankly, would not have taken the case/job in the first place - as I have refused to take any job that required me to impose or continue (on appeal) the death penalty). But every client - not matter how horrible is entitled to representation. And representing them by arguing that the law supports their action - no matter how horrific - is not grounds for sanction.

As for Giulianni being the rare case - I see you ignored the rest of the resolved and ongoing ethics cases. And I didn't even list the criminal cases that are being litigated, or have been resolved, against some of the others, since you were focused on license-related consequences.

The ABA's position 3 weeks ago, and now, is solid and courageous - given the retribution that is likely to take place. Your attack on them for matters over which they have absolutely no control is unjustified.

[AmericaUnderSiege]

23. Don't give me that Nuremberg bullshit.

"Ze German law vass zat vee ver requiret to obey Ze Furhrer..."

Nope. Everyone trained in law knows better. Everyone. Every time. Everywhere.

And for the record, the US Constitution is not ambiguous. These people have no lawful authority.

[Ms. Toad]

24. I said absolutely nothing about excusing illegal behavior

Based on following orders. Nor did your example have anything to do with that. Your example was about an argument made in court that the law allowed the torture.

And, contrary to your opinion, anyone who has studied law knows the Constitution is one big messy ball of ambiguity.

[AmericaUnderSiege]

25. Again, no. No ambiguity.

Torture is illegal. Aggressive war is illegal. Slavery is illegal. Bribery is illegal. Treason is illegal. People have a right to speak, associate, protest, and have their privacy. There are no special exemptions that make some people above the law. Corporations are not people. Traitors and insurrectionists are barred from office, and the Constitution is a higher authority than the courts that are permitted limited authority to reconcile it.

That's...fucking...it.

[Ms. Toad]

26. Then there is no need for the courts, since everything is clear.

Just toss everyone in jail who disagrees with your interpretation of the law (including the Constitution).

[Tommy Carcetti]

35. Dude, just take the L.

As it was explained to you several times, the ABA isn't a "bar" that has any authority to suspend or de-license.

It's a voluntary organization.

It's taking a public stand.

That's a good thing, okay?

[AmericaUnderSiege]

36. Using a technicality to defang a painful fact is a very lawyerly tactic.

Well done. But also, do better.

[thebigidea]

41. Christ, just stop digging.

[AmericaUnderSiege]

42. Ditto.

[TomSlick]

29. The American Bar Association has no authority to disbar anyone.

It is a voluntary association with no enforcement power.

Disbarment is done by state bar authorities. Even then, it's not always the bar association - every state is different.

[Bluetus]

6. All hands on deck

Better late than never for the ABA.

And the AMA could speak up about the importance of vaccines, affordable drugs, Medicare and Medicaid.

We need all voices at full throat.

[malaise]

7. Very Important

Rec

[BOSSHOG]

8. Leadership through fear and intimidation leads to nowhere good

[TommieMommy]

13. Fantastic 👍👍😁😁

[ancianita]

14. Not for nothing, they're a voice.

A relevant NYT op-ed by Thomas B. Edsall
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/04/opinion/trump-imperial-presidency.html

In an essay posted on Substack, Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown, described a sequence — running from Feb. 21 to Feb. 27 — of what are, in effect, warnings designed to intimidate and even silence the nation’s legal community...

...What the Trump administration is doing is not just about specific lawyers representing unpopular clients, but is rather far more ominous: The administration is acting in ways that will necessarily chill a growing number of lawyers from participating in any litigation against the federal government, regardless of who the client is.

That, in turn, will make it harder for many clients adverse to the Trump administration to find lawyers to represent them — such that at least some cases either won’t be brought at all or won’t be brought by the lawyers best situated to bring them.

In addition to revoking the security clearances, Trump wrote in a Feb. 25 memorandum, “I also direct the attorney general and heads of agencies to take such actions as are necessary to terminate any engagement of Covington & Burling L.L.P. by any agency to the maximum extent permitted by law and consistent with the memorandum that shall be issued by the director of the Office of Management and Budget.”

The effects of the Trump administration’s initiatives soon become apparent. ...

“Some firm leaders,” ... have rejected outright or put up roadblocks to partners seeking approval to represent D.O.J. lawyers, F.B.I. agents and other civil servants who’ve faced various forms of attack.”
Penn and Monnay reported that their sources told them:

Individual attorneys want to enter what they see as a nonpartisan battle to preserve democracy by filing merit systems complaints for terminated federal employees, representing Jan. 6 prosecutors under investigation from D.O.J. and Congress or participating in litigation to halt Trump policies. Firms’ senior decision makers, however, agonize about the sustainability of representing current and former government employees opposite the administration.

It’s not just the left and the center that find the administration’s policies disturbing. Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, warned in a Feb. 26 essay, “Trump Punishes Large Law Firm for Representing His Adversary,” that the president’s actions threaten “the loss of an independent and qualified bar willing to stand up to authority.”

The implications of the revocation of security clearances, Olson continued, “go far beyond the practice of national security law. Anyone can find themselves in a fight with Trump or his allies on almost any topic under the sun, and the question is whether the counsel representing you in that dispute has to fear being made the next Covington.”

[Maeve]

18. Not all heroes wear capes some file briefs

[live love laugh]

19. That's all? They need to come together to legally fight for the country.

[heckles65]

21. I'm a lawyer and

I'm glad the AMA said -something,- but I'm disappointed how "white shoe" this is.

[DoBW]

27. The ABA released its statement ...

and said statement was linked to with a post here on DU. The statement supports law & order and democratic values. That's it

[Javaman]

30. How about they disbar anyone associated with this fascist government? nt

[2naSalit]

31. Well then...

That was strongly worded.

[blueseas]

32. Good News

For a change

[dlk]

33. Weak tea, indeed

And much too little, much too late.