The ABA rejects efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession; American Bar Association (ABA), March 3, 2025

American Bar Association (ABA) ; The ABA rejects efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession

"Three weeks ago, the American Bar Association spoke to you about values that guide us. We called upon every lawyer to insist that the government adhere to four major principles of law that have guided our country for over 200 years: Defending Judges and Courts, Acknowledging the Role of the Courts, Adhering to the Rule of Law, and Respecting the Separation of Powers and the three co-equal branches of government with distinct duties and responsibilities. These principles have been bedrocks of American democracy. The ABA does not shrink from standing in support of each of them.

Since that time, government actions evidence a clear and disconcerting pattern. If a court issues a decision this administration does not agree with, the judge is targeted. If a lawyer represents parties in a dispute with the administration, or if a lawyer represents parties the administration does not like, lawyers are targeted. We issued statements standing up for these four key principles, and a government official targeted us by instructing some of its lawyers not to attend ABA meetings or participate as speakers. These actions highlight escalating governmental efforts to interfere with fair and impartial courts, the right to counsel and due process, and the freedoms of speech and association in our country.

Consider the facts about our courts:

High-ranking government officials (appointed and elected) have made repeated calls for the impeachment of judges who issue opinions with which the government does not agree. There have been calls to impeach “corrupt judges” with no effort to produce evidence of the so called “corruption.” These have been directed only at judges who have ruled against the government position.

There have now been statements by officials criticizing judges for not following the will of the people. Judges swear oaths to follow the law, not public opinion polling or political chatter or what someone contends is the will of the people. The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in his 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, “[w]ithin the past year we have also seen the need for state and federal bar associations to come to the defense of a federal district judge whose decisions in a high-profile case prompted an elected official to call for her impeachment. Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.”

We may disagree with interpretation of case law, but it is unacceptable to personally target judges just because we disagree with their ruling. We cannot have a judicial system where the government seeks to remove judges simply because they do not rule as the government desires. Considering the increasing physical threats to judges, these are clearly efforts to intimidate judges and our courts.

The courts are a co-equal branch of our government, and they must be treated that way. We call upon the government and our elected officials to cease making these statements. Government officials know they can appeal decisions they do not like. That is the appropriate way to disagree with a decision of a court.

Despite these efforts to intimidate, our courts are doing their job of reviewing disputes and applying the law. The ABA will defend our courts because we support the rule of law. We encourage every lawyer to do the same and demand these attacks on our judiciary stop immediately.

The efforts to intimidate have now expanded to include the legal profession. Consider the facts:

An executive order has targeted legal and medical organizations because of their DEI advocacy. Just a few days ago, a high-ranking government official indicated that law firms that represent parties against the government should be identified even though this information is already public.

Justice Department lawyers and assistant U.S. attorneys have been the subject of personal attacks, intimidation, firings and demotions for simply fulfilling their professional responsibilities. It is especially disturbing because the government has espoused publicly that it will not weaponize or politicize the Justice Department. The actions against Department of Justice employees belie these assertions.

Now the government has decided to punish a prominent Washington, D.C., law firm because it represents a party that the administration does not like. There are also reports that actions may be taken against more law firms. Clients have the right to have access to their lawyer without interference by the government. Lawyers must be free to represent clients and perform their ethical duty without fear of retribution. These government actions deny clients access to justice and betray our fundamental values.

We support the rights of people to advance their interests in courts of law when they have been wronged. We reject the notion that the government can punish lawyers who represent certain clients or punish judges who rule certain ways. We cannot accept government actions that seek to tip the scales of justice in this manner.

We speak today on behalf of the legal profession and its members who seek to live by the oath each took upon admission to the bar. This is not something we do lightly nor is it the first time we have spoken in opposition to actions against an administration, regardless of political party.  We sued or opposed policy proposals of the last few administrations when they failed to adhere to the rule of law or interfered with access to justice, and we are doing the same with the current administration. We are nonpartisan. We stand for the rule of law. We stand for the vital role of our courts and the essential job that lawyers do every day throughout our country. We have stood on this ground for many years.

We reject efforts to undermine the courts and the profession. We will not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not. Words and actions matter. And the intimidating words and actions we have heard must end. They are designed to cow our country’s judges, our country’s courts and our legal profession. Consistent with the chief justice’s report, these efforts cannot be sanctioned or normalized.

There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession, including lawyers who serve in elected positions, to speak out against intimidation. We acknowledge that there are risks to standing up and addressing these important issues. But if the ABA and lawyers do not speak, who will speak for the organized bar? Who will speak for the judiciary? Who will protect our system of justice? If we don’t speak now, when will we speak?

The American Bar Association has chosen to stand and speak. Now is the time for all of us to speak with one voice. We invite you to stand with us.

– William R. Bay, president of the American Bar Association"

The ABA supports the rule of law; American Bar Association (ABA), February 10, 2025

 American Bar Association (ABA) ; The ABA supports the rule of law

"It has been three weeks since Inauguration Day. Most Americans recognize that newly elected leaders bring change. That is expected. But most Americans also expect that changes will take place in accordance with the rule of law and in an orderly manner that respects the lives of affected individuals and the work they have been asked to perform.  

Instead, we see wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself, such as attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship, the dismantling of USAID and the attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity.

We have seen attempts at wholesale dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress without seeking the required congressional approval to change the law. There are efforts to dismiss employees with little regard for the law and protections they merit, and social media announcements that disparage and appear to be motivated by a desire to inflame without any stated factual basis. This is chaotic. It may appeal to a few. But it is wrong. And most Americans recognize it is wrong. It is also contrary to the rule of law. 

The American Bar Association supports the rule of law. That means holding governments, including our own, accountable under law. We stand for a legal process that is orderly and fair. We have consistently urged the administrations of both parties to adhere to the rule of law. We stand in that familiar place again today. And we do not stand alone. Our courts stand for the rule of law as well.

Just last week, in rejecting citizenship challenges, the U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said that the rule of law is, according to this administration, something to navigate around or simply ignore. “Nevertheless,” he said, “in this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow.” He is correct. The rule of law is a bright beacon for our country.

In the last 21 days, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed alleging that the administration’s actions violate the rule of law and are contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States. The list grows longer every day. 

These actions have forced affected parties to seek relief in the courts, which stand as a bulwark against these violations. We support our courts who are treating these cases with the urgency they require. Americans know there is a right way and a wrong way to proceed. What is being done is not the right way to pursue the change that is sought in our system of government.   

These actions do not make America stronger. They make us weaker. Many Americans are rightly concerned about how leaders who are elected, confirmed or appointed are proceeding to make changes. The goals of eliminating departments and entire functions do not justify the means when the means are not in accordance with the law. Americans expect better. Even among those who want change, no one wants their neighbor or their family to be treated this way. Yet that is exactly what is happening.   

These actions have real-world consequences. Recently hired employees fear they will lose their jobs because of some matter they were assigned to in the Justice Department or some training they attended in their agency. USAID employees assigned to build programs that benefit foreign countries are being doxed, harassed with name-calling and receiving conflicting information about their employment status. These stories should concern all Americans because they are our family members, neighbors and friends. No American can be proud of a government that carries out change in this way. Neither can these actions be rationalized by discussion of past grievances or appeals to efficiency. Everything can be more efficient, but adherence to the rule of law is paramount. We must be cognizant of the harm being done by these methods. 

Moreover, refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress under the euphemism of a pause is a violation of the rule of law and suggests that the executive branch can overrule the other two co-equal branches of government. This is contrary to the constitutional framework and not the way our democracy works. The money appropriated by Congress must be spent in accordance with what Congress has said. It cannot be changed or paused because a newly elected administration desires it. Our elected representatives know this. The lawyers of this country know this. It must stop.

There is much that Americans disagree on, but all of us expect our government to follow the rule of law, protect due process and treat individuals in a way that we would treat others in our homes and workplaces. The ABA does not oppose any administration. Instead, we remain steadfast in our support for the rule of law.  

We call upon our elected representatives to stand with us and to insist upon adherence to the rule of law and the legal processes and procedures that ensure orderly change. The administration cannot choose which law it will follow or ignore. These are not partisan or political issues. These are rule of law and process issues. We cannot afford to remain silent. We must stand up for the values we hold dear. The ABA will do its part and act to protect the rule of law.

We urge every attorney to join us and insist that our government, a government of the people, follow the law. It is part of the oath we took when we became lawyers. Whatever your political party or your views, change must be made in the right way. Americans expect no less.

– William R. Bay, president of the American Bar Association"

Second Internet of Things National Institute; American Bar Association, Washington, DC, May 10-11, 2017

Second Internet of Things National Institute

"A game-changer has emerged for businesses, policymakers, and lawyers, and it's called the "Internet of Things" (IoT). It's one of the most transformative and fast-paced technology developments in recent years. Billions of vehicles, buildings, process control devices, wearables, medical devices, drones, consumer/business products, mobile phones, tablets, and other "smart" objects are wirelessly connecting to, and communicating with, each other - and raising unprecedented legal and liability issues.

Recognized as a top new law practice area, and with global spending projected to hit $1.7 trillion by 2020, IoT will require businesses, policymakers, and lawyers (M&A, IP, competition, litigation, health law, IT/outsourcing, and privacy/cybersecurity) to identify and address the escalating legal risks of doing business in a connected world. Join us in Washington, D.C., on May 10 - 11, 2017, for our second IoT National Institute, which will feature:

Overviews and demos of the powerful technology driving the legal and liability issues

Practical guidance and the latest insights on the product liability, mass tort, big data, privacy, data security, intellectual property, cloud, and regulatory issues raised by IoT

Dynamic new additions: a mock trial, a tabletop exercise, a corporate counsel roundtable, and niche issue mini-updates.

Two full days of CLE credit (including ethics credit), plus two breakfasts, two lunches (with keynote speakers), and a cocktail reception.

Our distinguished faculty includes prominent legal and technical experts and thought-leaders from companies, government entities, universities, think-tanks, advocacy organizations, and private practice. Organized by the American Bar Association's Section of Science & Technology Law, the IoT National Institute offers an unparalleled learning and networking opportunity. With billions of devices and trillions of dollars in spending, IoT is a rapidly growing market that everyone wants to get in on."

Book Debate Raises Questions of Self-Censorship by Foreign Groups in China; New York Times, 4/27/16

Edward Wong, New York Times; Book Debate Raises Questions of Self-Censorship by Foreign Groups in China:

"Robert T. Rupp, associate executive director of the bar association’s business unit, which oversees publishing, gave a statement to Foreign Policy that said the decision not to publish Mr. Teng’s book was made for “economic reasons, based on market research and sales forecasting.”

Mr. Teng said he did not believe that. What the bar association had done, he said, was emblematic of a larger problem in China. “Many N.G.O.s self-censor in order not to make the Chinese government angry, so they can continue their work in China,” he said.

The bar association came under criticism last year by some China experts and legal scholars for not taking a stronger stand against a harsh crackdown by the Chinese authorities on hundreds of human rights lawyers and their associates.

The accusations by Mr. Teng have inspired an even greater outcry. The Wall Street Journal published an editorial with the headline “American Self-Censorship Association.” The co-chairmen of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Representative Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, wrote a letter to the bar association demanding that it tell them whether it had rescinded the book offer because of perceived or real threats to its China programs."

31st Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference; American Bar Association (ABA), Bethesda, Maryland, April 6-8, 2016

American Bar Association (ABA); 31st Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference:

"The 31st Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference from the American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law is recognized as the world's premier IP conference.

These three packed days of learning enable you to earn a year's worth of CLE credit from expert sessions presented by the leaders in every area of the profession. We offer what you need to know along with multiple opportunities to mingle with those who should be part of your network."