As a retired lawyer who practiced in America, I am appalled by the shameless authoritarian impulses behind this interference with attorneys' freedom of conscience, association and expression. It also interferes with the attorney-client relationship in a way that could deprive people and organizations associated with unpopular causes or a…
As a retired lawyer who practiced in America, I am appalled by the shameless authoritarian impulses behind this interference with attorneys' freedom of conscience, association and expression. It also interferes with the attorney-client relationship in a way that could deprive people and organizations associated with unpopular causes or accused of wrongthink of legal representation.
Frankly, one could argue that there's an element of involuntary servitude in the requirement that a lawyer "advance" equality, diversity and inclusion. At the least it is a coercive hijacking of a lawyer's skills, experience, knowledge and labor toward ends with which he or she might not agree.
Sure, no professional licenses are granted unconditionally; a member of the bar is required to abide by rules of professional reponsibility and court rules as a condition of being permitted to practice law. The new rules (are they final or just proposed?) are untenable because they aren't concerned with ensuring orderly and ethical conduct by members of the profession in their dealings with one another, clients, judges and other members of the profession. Instead, they aim to use lawyers to achieve a particular social outcome.
I would be up in arms were I subjected to these rules.
As a retired lawyer who practiced in America, I am appalled by the shameless authoritarian impulses behind this interference with attorneys' freedom of conscience, association and expression. It also interferes with the attorney-client relationship in a way that could deprive people and organizations associated with unpopular causes or accused of wrongthink of legal representation.
Frankly, one could argue that there's an element of involuntary servitude in the requirement that a lawyer "advance" equality, diversity and inclusion. At the least it is a coercive hijacking of a lawyer's skills, experience, knowledge and labor toward ends with which he or she might not agree.
Sure, no professional licenses are granted unconditionally; a member of the bar is required to abide by rules of professional reponsibility and court rules as a condition of being permitted to practice law. The new rules (are they final or just proposed?) are untenable because they aren't concerned with ensuring orderly and ethical conduct by members of the profession in their dealings with one another, clients, judges and other members of the profession. Instead, they aim to use lawyers to achieve a particular social outcome.
I would be up in arms were I subjected to these rules.