Posted on 08/01/2016 2:27:59 PM PDT by Defiant
.............................
Discrimination and harassment
Current Rule 2-400 prohibits an attorney, in the management or operation of a law practice, from unlawfully discriminating or knowingly permitting unlawful discrimination in: (1) hiring, promoting, discharging or otherwise determining the conditions of employment of any person; or (2) accepting or terminating representation of any client. The protected categories under the current rule are identified as “race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability.” Paragraph (C) of the current rule provides that no disciplinary investigation or proceeding may be initiated by the State Bar against an attorney under the rule unless and until a court other than the State Bar Court has first found that unlawful discrimination occurred and that finding stands after all appeal rights have been exhausted.
The commission is proposing two principal changes to current Rule 2-400 as reflected in the proposed Rule 8.4.1. First, the commission recommends expanding the categories protected under the rule to correspond to those recognized in federal and state anti-discrimination laws, along with a catchall provision for any “other category of discrimination prohibited by applicable law.” Second, the amended rule would eliminate the requirement of a final civil determination of wrongful discrimination before a disciplinary investigation can commence or discipline can be imposed. A majority of the commission concluded that current Rule 2-400(C) makes enforcement nearly impossible. By eliminating the requirement of a final civil determination, the State Bar Court will have original jurisdiction to adjudicate discrimination claims against attorneys under the current procedures of the disciplinary system.
The proposed elimination of current Rule 2-400(C)’s pre-discipline adjudication requirement has raised concerns among some members of the commission and the Board of Trustees concerning due process, the increased demands on State Bar resources that may result, and questions regarding any evidentiary or preclusive effects a State Bar Court decision may have in other proceedings. Accordingly, the board has authorized the circulation of two alternative versions of proposed Rule 8.4.1: Alternative 1, which is the version the commission recommended; and Alternative 2, which incorporates the expanded list of protected characteristics and broadening of the rule’s scope as reflected in Alternative 1, but which largely retains the jurisdictional limitation in current Rule 2-400(C).
By my reading, if I handle civil rights cases, I could be forced to accept a case on behalf of a gay activist wanting to sue that bakery, even if my political beliefs favored the baker. I could be forced to represent the Black Lives Matter thug that walks into my office if I handle civil trespass or criminal matters, instead of the landowner whose store they burned down or the bystander they hit with a rock. If I don't represent anyone who walks into my office and asks me to handle a case of the type that I hold myself out as handling, I will be hauled into the ethics court run by the lefties who control the state bar association and reprimanded or disbarred.
That is outrageous. As a lawyer, I will only represent the people and cases that I believe in, the causes I think are just and the matters that interest me. I have seen the tyranny reach out to strike churches, health care and service industries, and now it is reaching into intellectual services provided by professionals. It must be stopped, but in California, I doubt it will be.
Another line crossed.
As an attorney I recommend ACTUALLY ENFORCING THE PRESENT RULES, and not letting judges review violations of other judges.
Move............................Florida needs more lawyers.....................like you......................
Just bake the d@mn cake...
A crude but effective mechanism for rooting out lawyers who are not atheists?
Lawyers sure are long winded. They also love making and breaking rules
After all it just depends on what the meaning of is is
I hate to tell you this, but what is being considered by the ABA national convention this month is worse:
Among other things, it would bar such organizations as the Christian Legal Society and Alliance Defending Freedom
Tool to remove all but left-wing lawyers from practice, just a different form from the “bake the cake” rules designed to force practicing Christians out of the business world.
Be on retainer with a conservative religious public interest group, even if only for a dollar a month. That creates a conflict of interest and you have to decline representation of “the other viewpoint.”
Lawyers should be free to choose,
and those that defend terrorists should share
their punishment.
You are correct, save that this will be very selectively enforced based entirely on political criteria.
If they ever tell me who I have to represent, I will move.
That’s how I read it.
Maybe I can be on retainer for Jim Thompson....that will keep me out of trouble with the California bar, right?
The bar can’t handle and won’t handle the thousands of complaints they already have in house and they want to open up the door for more complaints?
I think the Vanity tag should be removed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.