One of the candidates is Diane Seltzer, an employment attorney who operates her own small firm. "My priority is making sure that the rule of law is upheld, that we feel that we are safe to do our jobs and that we can go forward every day representing the clients we choose."
It's not hard to decipher what Ms. Seltzer is talking about here. Beginning in March of this year, President Trump signed memorandums and orders that have targeted or mentioned seven firms: Covington & Burling; Jenner & Block; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (Paul Weiss); Perkins Coie; Susman Godfrey (Susman); Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (WilmerHale); and Elias Law Group. Four of the targeted firms -- Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Susman -- have sued the Trump Administration in response. On May 2, a Federal District Court Judge granted the Perkins Coie firm summary judgment on its case, blocking the Executive Order that sought to block that firm's ability to represent its clients.
In the May 2 Order Judge Beryl A. Howell noted, "[u]sing the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with 'tolerance, not coercion.' . . . The Supreme Court has long made clear that 'no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics . . . or other matters of opinion.' Simply put, government officials 'cannot . . . use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.'"
It is not overstating things to say that the Trump Administration is waging war on the fundamental doctrine that lawyers should be free to represent clients who need their services. As Judge Howell recognized, "[t]he importance of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system's fair and impartial administration of justice has been recognized in this country since its founding era." She also quoted the U.S. Supreme Court, which has held, [a]bsent their crucial independence, lawyers would "become nothing more than parrots of the views of whatever group wields governmental power at the moment."
All of this is to say that bar associations across the country should be speaking out on the administration's actions and condemning them in the strongest terms they can. What could be more important for a lawyers' organization to be doing?
But Ms. Seltzer's opponent, Brad Bondi, disagrees. According to Mr. Bondi, the Bar Association should remain "apolitical" and avoid "political debates." It is no coincidence that Mr. Bondi is the brother of Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is integral to the administration's assault on the legal profession. He apparently is unable to muster a substantive defense for what his sister and the administration is doing, so his position is to advocate for ignoring it.
But aside from Mr. Bondi's motivation, he is just wrong. First, it is not a political debate here. It is an existential matter of our profession's existence. I suppose if I were held up by an armed robber, Mr. Bondi would advise that I not resist, so as not to wade into a political debate over the Second Amendment. Second, is Mr. Bondi seriously suggesting that a Bar Association silently sit back and watch the administration willfully violate the Constitution? I mean, I guess he is, but this is not the time to just sit on the sidelines.
This is part of the Cincinnati Bar Association's statement on the rule of law: "[T]he judiciary must be respected as the impartial arbiter of the law, charged with resolving disputes lawfully, peacefully, and finally. Clients and lawyers must have the freedom to choose each other, and the role of the lawyer must be protected to represent their clients ethically and zealously no matter the issue or opponent. Even as our constitutional principles have been refined over time, they have been accepted as the bedrock of our system of government for more than 200 years. We stand firm in our duty to defend the Constitution, the courts, lawyers, and the rule of law for all members of our community."
If Brad Bondi thinks this statement is in any way inappropriate, he should not only resign from the D.C. Bar Association, but he should also find another profession. Preferably something that doesn't require a spine.