CrimLaw

---

Why Almost No One I Know is a Member of the ABA:

(1) The ABA is has already endorsed homosexual adoption. Now, it will vote on adoption by a homosexual couple. Does anyone doubt what the result will be? This, of course, is a precursor to endorsement of homosexual marriage. Hmmm . . . Faced with a choice between the Church and the ABA I suspect my choice would be pretty obvious.

(2) The ABA is seriously contemplating rules to require lawyers to turn on their clients. Ethics, in general, require you to tell authorities if your client is going to break the law in the future. But part of this appears to be set up so that if "trigger" events occur a lawyer is required to report his client. That sounds suspiciously like saying "if you find out your client falsified a report last year you must report it even if nothing illegal is going on now or is contemplated."

For a while I joined the ABA - free membership - and gained absolutely nothing but a monthly magazine. It is notorious for taking moral positions which freeze out anyone who might be remotely conservative¹ and, as evidenced by (2), isn't exactly sticking up for us. Both are pretty massive failures for an organization which wants to represent all the U.S. lawyers.



¹ Of course, the question you must ask yourself is why an organization which is supposed to represent the interests of all lawyers would enter the realm of pushing any moral position - much less one which is clearly contrary to the beliefs of at least a significant minority of lawyers.

~