[Defiant]

The excerpted portion of this article concerns me the most. From my reading, it appears that the rules are changed to allow the bar association to pursue ethics charges against an attorney for discriminating in the accepting of representation of any client on the basis of any category defined by federal or state law. As we have seen in Kentucky and throughout the US, this kind of law can and will be used to force lawyers to represent people with whom they disagree or else face discrimination lawsuits.

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.

[Smedley]

As an attorney I recommend ACTUALLY ENFORCING THE PRESENT RULES, and not letting judges review violations of other judges.

[Red Badger]

Move............................Florida needs more lawyers.....................like you......................

[TheDon]

Just bake the d@mn cake...

[BenLurkin]

A crude but effective mechanism for rooting out lawyers who are not atheists?

[Nifster]

Lawyers sure are long winded. They also love making and breaking rules

After all it just depends on what the meaning of is is

[kaehurowing]

I hate to tell you this, but what is being considered by the ABA national convention this month is worse:

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/scepr_report_to_hod_rule_8_4_amendments_05_31_2016_resolution_and_report_posting.authcheckdam.pdf

Among other things, it would bar such organizations as the Christian Legal Society and Alliance Defending Freedom

[GenXteacher]

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.

[henkster]

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.”

[Diogenesis]

Lawyers should be free to choose,
and those that defend terrorists should share
their punishment.

[Thud]

You are correct, save that this will be very selectively enforced based entirely on political criteria.

[Auntie Mame]

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?

[Defiant]

Why was (Vanity) added to the title? It is not a vanity, I didn't write the linked article. It's written by the author who is named, and published in the Cal Bar Journal. I merely commented on it, in the first post.

I think the Vanity tag should be removed.