Posted on 12/16/2008 10:31:04 AM PST by radar101
Throwing our constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of association down the drain, the State Bar of Arizona is considering a revision to the attorneys' oath of office that would silence conservative viewpoints on gay issues. The oath would be revised to add the language in red as follows:
“I will not permit considerations of gender, race, religion, age, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, or social standing to influence my duty of care.”
Severl attorneys including myself have expressed their opposition in a letter to the Bar. They point out that the language is so broad, it could be used to ban an attorney from publicly expressing a viewpoint on gay issues. It could also prohibit an organization of Christian attorneys like the Alliance Defense Fund or the Christian Legal Society, which holds Bible studies at law schools, from refusing to admit persons of alternative sexual preference to their organizations.
The State Bar of Arizona is a mandatory association for attorneys wishing to practice law in Arizona. As such, they have the power to revoke the license to practice law in Arizona of any attorney they believe has violated this provision. A clause like this has no place in an oath of office, which should consist of nothing more but generally swearing allegiance to the laws of the land. Adding a controversial restriction on our First Amendment rights in order to promote a politically correct left wing agenda is inappropriate and a gross abuse of power by the Bar. If they go ahead with this curtailing of our rights, there will be plenty of lawsuits, and rightly so.
Please call or email the president of the State Bar of Arizona and express your objection to this outrageous infringement upon our rights, Ed.Novak@azbar.org or 602-340-7239.
They virus has spread from California! Close the borders now!!!...........
Yes, our Supreme Court tried to do the same thing to us a few years ago, prohibiting attorney membership in any organization that discriminated on the basis of the laundry list. It effectively would have barred Roman Catholics from the bar (since no women priests), and other Christians (no discrimination against homosexuals). A number of us threatened to file a civil rights suit against the Court and Bar Association and they backed down.
But that was 15 years ago. I’ve been expecting the same thing to pop up again in another guise.
“If they go ahead with this curtailing of our rights, there will be plenty of lawsuits, and rightly so.”
And a lot of those lawsuits will be coming from gay rights people who demand every attorney handle their marital orcivil union cases, their all-too-prevalent domestic battery cases, their property split arguments, adoption demands and discrimination suits. And if you refuse to take the case, look for a lawsuit.
I hate to say it, but it serves lawyers right. They had no business having such a thing as the bar (i.e. a closed shop) in the first place.
I'm not sure where this guy is getting the idea that this would violate a lawyer's 1st Amendment rights. All this provision says is that you will put in the same professional effort for a gay client as you would a straight client. Unless there is some provision in the AZ ethical rules or AZ law that requires you to take on gay clients, there is nothing here that would force you to have gay clients to begin with. But, if you take a gay client on in a drunk driving case or whatever, you can't give them a lower level of service due to their sexual orientation.
I have to ask the question: why is there a bar in the first place? Is it not just another way to restrict membership and drive up wages, just like unions and all forms of licensing? And for those of you who think the law is special and must not be left to the caprices of the market, do closed shops generally produce the most vital and impressive labor markets? Here’s a better question: did we ever leave the Dark Ages?
No, but they'll force us to allow the murder of babies in the womb. Is part of the ritual, while repeating above words, to have them cut off too?
No, that’s what the bar used to be like. In my state, we had a private voluntary bar that was basically forcibly taken over by the Supreme Court about 20 years ago, and transformed into a government organization for keeping attorneys in line.
I had no problem with the bar as a union, but it doesn’t function that way any more. A perfect example is out of state competition. Our state does nothing to stop it, even though it is illegal for someone not admitted to practice in the state to practice law, and yet continually puts more and more red tape on lawyers who are admitted to practice in the state.
As a result, most of the high-paying legal work is now done by out of state lawyers in places like New York and L.A., not by local attorneys.
“A perfect example is out of state competition. Our state does nothing to stop it, even though it is illegal for someone not admitted to practice in the state to practice law, and yet continually puts more and more red tape on lawyers who are admitted to practice in the state.”
That’s pretty typical in a lot of states. I don’t know that there is much a state bar can do to an out of state attorney. What are they going to do, take his license? They only have authority over people they license. We have criminal statutes in my state for the unauthorized practice of law, but they are narrowly written and don’t apply to many different situations where someone would actually be engaged in the practice of law in our state, and prosecutors almost never prosecute any cases under those statutes so they are pretty useless.
You are right. California is one of the few states I know where the government gets aggressive about the unauthorized practice of law and will go after outside attorneys. My state just shrugs and says it’s not a priority.
What the Bar could do is at least make a stink about it. But no, they are too wrapped up in being politically correct and doing what the Chief Justice says, like continually talking about increased mandatory pro bono and new silly CLE requirements.
Well “social standing” is also on the list. So I’m not sure they’re making gay of equal importance as gender so much as listing everything they could think of that condescending people used as an excuse.
“I hate to say it, but it serves lawyers right. They had no business having such a thing as the bar (i.e. a closed shop) in the first place.”
Somebody has to oversee licensing, continuing education, attorney discipline and all that.
“What kind of work are out of state attorneys stealing from your area?”
Where it really hurts us is in transactional/real estate/ business. A lot of the significant transactions such as business sales, large real estate transactions, hotel and resort sales, are now done entirely out of state by large law firms in New York, Chicago and L.A. A lot of the deals are even escrowed out of state so the parties and their attorneys can claim they did not have minimum contacts with our state. But they are still drafting legal documents that are subject to our state laws and supposed to be effective here.
I guess I would be less upset if these big shots knew what they were doing. I remember a couple of years ago reviewing a purchase and sale agreement for a hotel sale here and it had page after page of boilerplate about the golf course. Only problem is the hotel is in the middle of a city and has no golf course. The document was obviously simply cut and pasted from some resort transaction, probably in Arizona (which you could guess from other clues). But some 3rd or 4th year associate in Chicago was probably billing $400 an hour (or more) to prepare that document.
I don't have a problem with telling attorneys that if you take a gay person on as a client, you have to give them the same level of professionaly commitment as you would any other client.
Would it be different if they put “pedophile” there or “people with blonde hair”?
Well, if you agree to represent someone charged with child molestation, you do owe them a duty of care when it comes to your work. Lawyers are supposed to be dispassionate in their work and represent their clients without predjudice.
It's more of an issue with transactional work. I practice commercial real estate law out of DC, but I do deals all over the country (and the world). I'm only admitted in two states plus DC, but I don't violate any ethical rules or laws by working on a transaction in one of the 48 other states where I am not barred.
“I’m only admitted in two states plus DC, but I don’t violate any ethical rules or laws by working on a transaction in one of the 48 other states where I am not barred.”
Well, see, that’s the problem, actually you are. In my state you at a minimum would have to affiliate with local counsel to review the documents for legal compliance with my state’s laws. But that’s not happening. The firms play the game of doing all the work out of state and then escrowing the transaction out of the state to claim they are not practicing law here. They actually have couriers of a local title company fly to the closing in Chicago, or wherever, and then fly back here just to record.
Unfortunately, the ABA (which is no friend of the legal practice) has made it worse with their “model rules” on multi-jurisdictional practice, which are treated as if they have blessed what’s going on even though states, including mine, have not approved them. But what it has done is give the large national firms the cover to drive the local firms out of business. And the absurdity is the national firms charge 3 to 4 times more than the local firm would charge to put out the same or better product.
Unfortunately, there is no way that my state is going to bring a lawsuit against a Pillsbury, or Latham & Watkins, or Schain Burney, or any of the other national law firms for illegally practicing law in my state.
As far as I know, California is the only state that has actually prosecuted out-of-state attorneys for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. For example, an attorney here made the mistake of sending an eviction notice for her local client to tenants of property he owned in California. The California prosecutors went after her, and on the basis of that our Supreme Court then disbarred her. And for something our local state bar would not even pay the slightest attention to if it were done in reverse.
If we need a legal opinion regarding enforceability of a document under a certain State's laws, we'll hire local counsel. However, I can't see a State winning the legal argument that any document governed by the laws of Arizona, or whatever, must be reviewed by Arizona counsel.
The firms play the game of doing all the work out of state and then escrowing the transaction out of the state to claim they are not practicing law here. They actually have couriers of a local title company fly to the closing in Chicago, or wherever, and then fly back here just to record.
We don't even bother going that far. For real estate transactions, we have no issues with using a title company in the property jurisdiction as the escrow agent.
Unfortunately, there is no way that my state is going to bring a lawsuit against a Pillsbury, or Latham & Watkins, or Schain Burney, or any of the other national law firms for illegally practicing law in my state.
Because the large firms aren't practicing law in those States, under any reasonable interpretation of such laws.
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.