Below is my column in The Hill on the decline of the American Bar Association and the move in various states to find alternatives to the ABA in bar admissions and legal education. The dwindling membership and influence of the ABA is a familiar tale for many in academia and the media.
Here is the column:
This week, the Federal Trade Commission issued a little-noticed letter to the Texas Supreme Court that could have a significant impact on the legal profession. The state justices are exploring a radical change in bar admissions, seeking alternatives to the American Bar Association.
In their letter, FTC officials indicated that they view the ABA as an effective monopoly in bar admissions. The potential state change itself may be less important than how the ABA itself has changed in bringing about these growing calls for separation from the roughly 150-year-old organization.
In the fall, the Texas Supreme Court issued a tentative opinion that declared that the ABA “should no longer have the final say on whether a law school’s graduates are eligible to sit for the Texas bar exam and become licensed to practice law.”
After the court invited public comment, two FTC officials, Clarke Edwards and Daniel Guarnera, signaled support for potentially moving away from ABA accreditation in a nine-page letter. They not only objected to the possible monopoly but also to the “rigid and costly requirements” imposed by law schools that often reinforce an “elitist model of legal education.”
Whether the ABA constitutes a true monopoly can be (and likely will be) hotly contested. What is less debatable is the value of some competition or alternatives to the ABA. The organization is a textbook example of how the lack of competition can instill not just a sense of institutional impunity but arrogance.
For decades, the ABA has moved steadily to the left, taking on a greater level of advocacy and activism as an organization. When it was founded on August 21, 1878, in Saratoga Springs, New York, the 75 lawyers from 20 states (and the District of Columbia) were seeking an organization to create a national system of standards for “the advancement of the science of jurisprudence, the promotion of the administration of justice.” The profession at the time was a largely ad hoc and informal collection of state rules and apprentice-based systems.
The ABA brilliantly filled that void and helped professionalize lawyering through bar and educational standards. The dominance of the ABA was due to the fact that it filled that needed and uncontroversial role. As a result, some estimate that as many as half of the nation’s lawyers were members in 1979.
However, in the last few decades, the ABA followed the same trend as higher education and the media, as activists on the left took over key positions and used the organization to advance their own social, political, and legal viewpoints. Neutrality was tossed aside in favor of advocacy.
The shift at the ABA is illustrated in the long debate over abortion. For decades, abortion (and the constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade) has sharply divided not just the public but the bar as well. But in 1990, activists succeeded in getting the association’s House of Delegates to adopt a pro-abortion resolution that said that the right was protected under the Constitution (a view adopted but later rejected by the Supreme Court).
Many were shocked that the ABA would simply take a side on an issue that divided many legal scholars, lawyers, and judges. Another vote was taken and the members decided by a vote of 200 to 188 that the issue was “extremely divisive” and that the ABA should not take an organizational position.
But it did not matter to the activists that the group itself was divided down the middle. They came back and adopted a pro-abortion position again in 1992. This time, the vote was 276 to 168.
So, with almost 40 percent of the delegates asking the ABA to respect opposing views on a divisive matter of constitutional interpretation, the ABA simply muscled through the vote.
What followed was the opening of the floodgates for activists to get the ABA to declare on an array of divisive issues on the side of liberal interpretations and agendas. Not surprisingly, lawyers left the organization in droves.
Today, there are roughly 1.3 million lawyers in the United States. Even if the ABA represented just half of that number, it would have 650,000 members. However, by 2015, it had fallen to 400,000. Last year it fell to 227,000 members, or just 17 percent of the bar.
Notably, the American Medical Association — which also has been accused of becoming increasingly political — has experienced the same drop from a high of representing 75 percent of the nation’s doctors to just 15 percent in recent years.
With the ABA representing less than two out of every 10 lawyers, it is still treated as the inviolate and indisputable voice of the profession.
The exodus from the ABA has left a liberal echo chamber that is similar to the one in higher education. The purging of conservatives and libertarians in academia has left many departments without a single Republican or conservative.
A Georgetown study recently found that only nine percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools.
There is a symbiotic relationship between the ABA and law schools, as they feed off each other—giving each other awards and speaking opportunities. However, both are becoming largely irrelevant to the public at large.
The truly tragic fact is that it does not matter. As ABA leadership has presided over the decline of their institution, they are still personally rewarded for using it to amplify political values. They are thriving as their organization dies.
While these officials and academics would attract little attention in filings with the Supreme Court as individuals, they can generate endless headlines from an enabling media by declaring their views as the position of “America’s lawyers.” Those media outlets rarely note that ABA now represents less than 20 percent of all lawyers.
Critics have objected that such filings show that the ABA’s interpretation of its mission is so “expansive and malleable … to cover just about anything.”
For example, the ABA filed on behalf of its members to declare that the Constitution demands that male transgender students should be able to use female bathrooms. In an amicus brief filed in 2017, the ABA stated that “[d]iversity and inclusion are essential to public confidence in the bench and bar.” It further asserted that if transgender students “are excluded from bathrooms that align with their gender identities,” they “are less likely to pursue a legal education, depriving the bar of voices capable of speaking on behalf of those marginalized for their gender.”
What percentage of lawyers do you think would support that claim?
The answer, again, is that it does not matter.
The ABA is likely to continue on this path. The costs are being borne by the organization not by its officers. The question is why states and universities should continue to treat the ABA as if it represented a significant percentage of lawyers in the U.S., let alone the values of a majority of such lawyers.
The ABA has long relied on the myth maintained by political and media allies that it is still the voice of American lawyers. A little competition would be a great help, not just to the profession but also to the ABA itself. It may yet be possible for this institution to return to its roots as a neutral body focused on professional standards.
I hope so. I miss the ABA.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
The declining numbers of members of not only the ABA but the AMA is quite telling how when leftists get in power, people leave. It is only common sense.
UpstateFarmer,
Doctors are being squeezed by insurance companies and venture capital groups. They need to form groups to spread the risk and lower their medical insurance costs and the costs to chase health insurance companies for reimbursement, but this means forming a medical practice group which is an easier target for venture capital to purchase the rights to control, leading to a squeeze for cash flow at the expense of patient care.
The AMA hasn’t got enough funding to fight the insurance companies and the venture capital groups in the Legislature to stop the predatory behavior that sees Americans paying up to twice as much for medical care, but having lower quality of life and lower life expectancy as countries that separate medical practice from financial plundering.
I can see why support would dwindle when the organization has no ability to protect their members.
This is largely the result of Right wing capitalists abusing the vulnerability of ill people to buy yachts and golf courses and dinner with top law-making officials.
Doctors are being squeezed by insurance companies and venture capital groups… This is largely the result of Right wing capitalists abusing the vulnerability of ill people to buy yachts and golf courses and dinner with top law-making officials.
Weird way to present the glorious Affordable Care Act i.e. Obamacare. Obamacare, that has not for a single day been affordable for Americans buying health insurance since it’s day of inception.
This Obama fellow commie Democrat couldn’t successfully get through throwing this Obama BullSchiff as a supposed intellectual observer while suppressing the tell that he’s a Far Beyond Far Left communist
democrat with an obsessive hatred of “right wing capitalists”.
Supposedly, it wasn’t Obama communists who punished doctors and health insurance companies (who are doing so well that there are only a few left willing to participate in Obamacare for what is now their annual percentage of profit). And most importantly, punishing the patients that were promised “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor; if you like your health insurance company you can keep your health insurance company”.
Yeah, it wasn’t the commie Beyond Far Left Obama Democrats that crushed doctors, health insurers, and patients themselves with the costs of Obamacare. No, we must believe it was the evil “Right Wing Capitalists” who pushed Obamacare into law – despite not a single Republican voting for Obamacare.
Y’know… Democrat commies wouldn’t have to waste so much time lying to defend Obamacare by attempting to rewite history if Obamacare was anything other than the disastrous destruction of what was our somewhat free-market health care system (already having trouble with the heavy intervening hand of government picking winners and losers).
One of the notable things done by AG Pam Bondi– that received SPARSE news/media coverage (I wonder why) was her notification to ABA earlier this year that essentially removed its status as an arbiter of judicial nominees, instead reducing its status to one of many and various “activist” “commenters.”
She first noted that “[t]he ABA’s steadfast refusal to fix the bias in its ratings process, despite criticism from Congress, the Administration, and the academy, is disquieting.” She then went on to advise that, “while the ABA is free to comment on judicial nominations along with other activist organizations,” …Specifically, the Office of Legal Policy will no longer direct nominees to provide waivers allowing the ABA access to nonpublic information, including bar records. Nominees will also not respond to questionnaires prepared by the ABA and will not sit for interviews with the ABA.”
https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1402156/dl?inline
Lin,
Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
Lin, Bondi is in no position to judge the ABA, considering her serious and questionable actions, including lying to a judge in the Comey case. Bondi tried to weasel her wa into justifying Lindsey Halligan’s incompetence and outright foolish decisions. In fact, most DOJ professionals have been raising concerns about Bondi’s poor management of the department, the increasing politicization, and the appointment of complete amateurs to handle cases that experienced professionals know are lost causes is telling.
“weasel.” Another word George picked up from the blog yesterday, as I ran a scan and found it in three comments. Georgie just doesn’t have an original thought in his head.
Hello X:
Actually, George, —Bondi is in a much, much, much, much, much much better position than little ole you
(or I, for that matter) “to judge the ABA.”
Please note that in its responsive correspondence to Bondi, the ABA neither stated nor implied that she “was in no position” to so declare, or that she had no power or authority to do so.
Instead, it spent much time pushing back with patsy words, addressing Bondi’s move as “surprising” and “disappointing.” Its verbose response, (common when there is no dispositive position to take),—spend the next several pages reminding Bondi of all the goood things it does. Why don’t you take a look at her letter and ABA response for reading comprehension and context.
thanks anyway, George.
spent not spend. sorry
Bondi is in no position to judge the ABA, considering her serious and questionable actions, including lying to a judge in the Comey case.
George X tries the desperate lie that AG Bondie lied to a judge in the Comey case. In George X’s world of serial lying to the audience here, Obama Attorney Generals Loretta Lynch and Sally Yates didn’t lie to Judge Boasberg in his FISA courts, nor did Obama’s FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller who also joined the crowd of Obama felons repeatedly lying to Judge Boasberg.
Nope, in George X’s world, they spoke the direct, full truth. But Bondi…. oh, please take George’s word, he knows none of Obama’s felons liked in court – but Bondi did!
George X, your deliberate, planned daily pathetic, pathological lying doesn’t even manage to meet the standard of weaseling.
You are a cheap fake human being.
Nothing like eliminating transparency to get the dark deeds done. Having watched the Republicans softball questions to candidates, it’s a surprise they bother with hearings. Might as well ask “What is your favorite ice cream flavor?” for all the good it does.
The bulk of the Republican nominations are from the activist Federalist Society, which aims to replace Legislator oversight and Executive action with a simple “here they are, approve them” model.
“The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 by a group of students from Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, and the University of Chicago Law School with the aim of challenging liberal or left-wing ideology within elite American law schools and universities.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society
They are absolutely activist and don’t care about the consequences as long as their side wins.
We can tell that this is the case because, if they do believe in Alexander Hamilton writing:
“It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature … The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.”
ibid.
they would have worked to overturn Qualified Immunity – a legal fiction originated from the bench.
While the origins of the Federalist Society would seem to be humble, look at where the funding comes from and who leads it.
Note too this bit:
Montgomery called the Federalist Society “a remarkably successful example of what political scientists call a ‘political epistemic community’,” echoing Amanda Hollis-Brusky, who described the Federalist Society as “an interconnected network of experts with policy-relevant knowledge who share certain beliefs and work to actively transmit and translate those beliefs into policy.”[5]: 10–11 Hollis-Brusky wrote that the Federalist Society “has evolved into the de facto gatekeeper for right-of-center lawyers aspiring to government jobs and federal judgeships under Republican presidents.”
ibid.
This is the hallmark of a communist approach to law. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need, as a way to infiltrate the American justice system. It has become billionaires stacking the deck against the lower and middle class.
Having watched the Republicans softball questions to candidates, it’s a surprise they bother with hearings.
Having watched you attempt this repeatedly, I’m not surprised at this piece of projecting you’re attempting here as the legal analyst for Biden’s Birthing Boyz. Particularly after we’ve watched not just Democrats in Congress softballing questions for the likes of Questioning Judge Jackson who they were happen to believe actually couldn’t define what a woman was even after a peek down into her panties. But also the entire Democrat-Mainstream Media Propaganda Complex softball presidential campaign questions of wannabe presidents and vice presidents like Biden and his VP DEI Hire, Harris.
Well son… you just keep rolling with that type of projection. Let’s see how many changes of mind you can pull off here where the audience isn’t that of The View, who would gobble every word of it up without question.
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where an emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else.
This is an internal defense mechanism which allows that mentally ill person to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt by seeing it instead as as the thoughts and actions of another person who they despise and hate.
“This is the hallmark of a communist approach to law. From each according to their ability . . .” “It has become billionaires . . .”
Socialists always embrace such obvious contradictions.
The ACLU is far worse. I was a member and quit long ago due to their absurd legal positions.
The ABA, the ACLU, the Anti-Defamation League, School Committees, City Councils. the AMA, the CDC, the Med Schools, the Law Schools, the J Schools, even engineering schools are all being ruined from within by radical leftists that never, never, never stop until they win.
I never joined the ABA mainly because I am not a joiner when it comes to associations or any clubs that seem to seek power for the few over the many. It is bow tie wearing weak-kneed people that crave control after having none for their entire lives.
As for X, he/she is the type of person that joins a group, such as our fabulous commenting crew here at this site, with the objective of controlling it even if it means sabotaging it and ruining it. It is weakness crying out in contrarian arguments in order to stand out. Oh yeas, X, you sure do stand out. GEORGE COSTANZE.
Hullbobby, I see you still fail to grasp the concept of an opposing view, criticism of Turley is fair game. Even Lin, I hope, has understood the point of commenting on Turley’s articles and why it’s fair game to post an opposing view or criticism.
When you say, “sabotaging” and “ruining” it you mean having to post a counter argument that others might find annoying or disagree with then it’s just an exercise of free speech. You seem to be annoyed by the fact that others can have an opposing view or contradict Turley.
X—Until we see you on television, testifying before Congress, representing major public figures and entities in litigation, sought out and serving as an expert in various professional forums, publishing multiple books, teaching as an award-winning scholar at a prestigious law school, and maintaining an international professional blog, —you will remain our contrarian, jealous little twit, ready to bite the blog that feeds your need for attention.
None of that nonsense has any bearing on the fact that Turley is still fair game when it comes to criticism, mockery, and presenting an opposing view.
None of that nonsense has any bearing on the fact that Turley is still fair game when it comes to criticism, mockery, and presenting an opposing view.
Your daily parade of serial lies, denying, and deflection is indeed your personal self-gratification game. But doesn’t make the grade for anyone to allow you the slightest bit of credibility here.
What is it with you George X? You’re here to satisfy some weird masochistic sexual need?
‘Cause you aren’t normal, son – even by the already low standards for Democrat Biden voters.
There were experts at the Salem Witch trials. Plenty of prestige. Same happened with the McCarthy.
There is plenty of confirmation bias here.
George/X, why would you bring LIN up? And only LIn, despite multiple people who have torn apart your silly jealousy.
Because I can. Everyone is fair game here and that includes me. Did you not know that?
What have you offered besides petty insults?
naw, ’tis because Lin is stuck in your craw, already narrow and tight with resentment, grudge, and jealousy. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What have you offered besides petty insults?
Lin and all the Anonymous here who commented and debated with no mention of you. All those posts when you weren’t the focus of attention with your desperate need to be noticed being mocked as lies and personal jealousy and hatred?
Where have you offered anything other than petty insults towards your host Professor Turley in practically every post, while you launch into another tirade of lies, denial and deflection?
Things.That.Never.Happened.
Hullbobby, I see you still fail to grasp the concept of an opposing view, criticism of Turley is fair game.
Lin, nor anybody else here, has any problem recognizing that your “opposing view” is serial lying, denying and deflecting to go along with your daily BBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TURLEY!!!! You aren’t even a semi-credible contrarian.
We grasp that you are a lying clown: what we DON’T know is why you still come here every day? Doing so while knowing you and your lies are going to get slapped to the ground to the mocking backround of everybody watching you get what you richly deserve.
HullBobby,
Just scroll past. The only time anything written by the slow and dumb one is when Lin, John Say, etc. eviscerates him.
ROFL! Eviserates. Sure Upstatefarmer, sure.
Comparing the ABA to the AMA caught my eye. Years ago, the AMA had real power as it would blackmail their members. Being excommunicated from the AMA meant the physician would be shunned by his peers and not permitted access to a hospital insured by AMA endorsed policies. A string of antitrust trials clipped their wings but it continued to be a mechanism of control by the elite members to this day. Lots O money made by a few.
We are in a race to dismantle the controls the American left and its CCP big brother have placed on our institutions for maximum resilience to the inevitable final, [combined domestic and foreign] violent phase of their strategy to take down the United States.
As to the damage they have done to the minds of our younger generations, Lenin is reported to have said “Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever” — our school teachers and college professors had more than 8 years to work at that, and, sadly, they did a pretty bang-up job. It is not clear to what extent we can remediate this damage, as Charlie Kirk had been attempting to do, versus measures of marginalization to limit the harm that they might do.
A monopoly with a minority of would-be credentialed people as members. It certainly seems odd that monopoly should be the sole, aka monopoly, source for advice or recommendations. Maybe for organizations offering advice or recommendations we should add a mandatory Biased adjective to the organization.
The ABA is nothing more than leftwing fascist apologists and defenders. It hates free speech. It hates dissent. It hates opposing viewpoints. It is as “fair” and “unbiased” as the North Korean Parliament.
When this 1969 J.D. quit the ABA in the very early 1990s because of its pro-abortion actions, I had no idea how dreadful the organization would continue to be – moving on to interject the organization into other divisive issues.
Can anyone tell me what the relationship between the ABA and the Bar Exam?
I can’t, but I have another question. Why should not anyone be able to sit for a bar exam? If a person can pass it, does it really matter how that person acquired the knowledge? As Turley pointed out, it used to be an apprenticeship process, with people “reading law” until they could pass the exam.
Who do you think sets the exam standards? The National Conference of Bar Examiners sets standards for state Bar examinations. Oh, look, another National association based on professionals and experts.
“Why should not anyone be able to sit for a bar exam?”
More fundamentally, why should an individual be compelled to sit for a government-mandated exam?
The government’s power to license is the power to control, to loot, and to destroy.
So you would trust that your doctor or surgeon is capable of doing what he claims he’s doing because he says so, or because they passed stringent testing and education mandated by the government or state association?
“So you would . . .”
Nice straw man.
Per usual, you’re full of fallacies this morning.
For those *not* intellectually dishonest: There are objective criteria for determining expertise, in any field. And none of them have anything to do with the government or someone’s “say so.”
Who determines the objective criteria? Someone must, right? I certainly don’t have the expertise to determine if a person claiming to be a skilled physician. So, someone with the necessary expertise must be counted on to act as gatekeeper. Is that not a reasonable position?
“I certainly don’t have the expertise to determine if a person claiming to be a skilled physician.”
You don’t have the ability to check a provider’s history? (And that’s just one of the objective criteria available to any semi-ambitious layman.) How do you decide whether to hire a particular mechanic or plumber?
“. . . someone with the necessary expertise must be counted . . .”
If you don’t know how to determine whether a physician is an expert, how do you determine that that “someone” is an expert?
Or is your default: If the government says it, I believe it?
“You don’t have the ability to check a provider’s history?”
Ask your doctor for copies of all his patient records, what they observed, what they did, what the outcomes were. See what happens.
The government licenses plumbers and electricians because if a person with a licence gets someone killed then the license can be taken away and they can no longer be a licensed worker. No license, no insurance, no bond company. They can still work, but then the consumer can ask to see proof of insurance and proof of bond and if there isn’t any, then the consumer can take the risk knowing there is a reason they are not licensed, insured, or bonded.
“Ask your doctor for . . .”
You can’t be so dense as to believe that that is the only way to investigate a doctor’s performance.
“No license, no insurance, no bond company.”
That’s a lie. (Imagine that.)
Sam, you questioned the legitimacy of state-mandated licensing requirements.
I gave you an example showing why it is important. You trust Doctors and surgeons because state medical boards have licensed them to certify that they know what they are doing safely and have the knowledge required to make complicated medical decisions. Or would you prefer just any bloke claiming to be a doctor to be enough to assure you?
You trust Doctors and surgeons because state medical boards have licensed them to certify that they know what they are doing safely and have the knowledge required to make complicated medical decisions.
A government that licenses doctors who will tell the American public that boys can become girls and get pregnant, that a non-sealing medical procedures mask will stop you from catching an airborne disease… this is the mark of the quality of government assurances that these are medical professionals you can trust your life with.
“There are objective criteria for determining expertise, in any field.”
In fact, there are not and never have been. There have been subjective tests by those who think what they are testing for are tests of expertise.
“In fact . . .”
So I guess that makes you an expert on expertise — whose expertise cannot be proven because the tests are merely subjective.
Thanks for refuting your own argument.
Rabble:
Qualifications for Representative: Must be a minimum of 25 years of age.
Must be a citizen for 7 years.
Must be a resident of the state represented at the time of election.
Qualifications for Senate: Must be a minimum of 30 years of age.
Must be a citizen for 9 years.
Must be a resident of the state represented at the time of election.
President:
Be a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Be at least 35 years old.
Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years.
Huh, I don’t see any education required in that.
I have no doubt the ABA activists award passing bar grades to anyone of the trans persuasion OR of the right color. Kamala and many others of her ilk come to mind. Lawyers, but dumb as knobs.
Kamala in fact failed the bar exam the first time she took it.
I bet she failed the second time too—they just let her through. From her copious word salad statements, one must conclude that she is unable to formulate coherent thoughts and arguments, which is evidence that she is cognitively challenged, to the point where there is no way she passed a rigorous bar exam. They either let her through, or gave her a DEI version of the test.
It certainly would be interesting, if not entertaining, to read her written responses to the essay questions required on each of her bar exam attempts.
It would be interesting to see the papers and exams from Trump’s schooling.
The bar examination graders aren’t given the name of the test taker. There is a serial number attached to the responses. All the tests are identical; the test takers are given a serial number to track their results. A great deal of effort goes into preventing anyone grading the tests from knowing who is taking the test. Not the school they went to, not the grades they got, not who their daddy or mommy is and certainly not anything with that racist dog whistle you keep blowing. Maybe that’s not right. A dog whistle is one where average people wouldn’t notice; you bang a racist gong.
My experience has been that law students who had public office ambitions were quite likely to fail the exam. I had several in my law school class and most of them failed the bar exam. If my recollection is correct it was 5 of the 7 failed at least once in a state where 70% of all test takers passed.
In part because there is little point to not going through the education system to get there. Law practice is based on a large number of precedents in terms of how cases are evaluated, prepared, and presented. This regularity allows for reasonable review up through the court system. Under the apprentice system the pass rate is very low. Those who grade the bar exam are beset with having to not only read the responses, but also justify their objections, which then the bar exam responses are passed to other parties to see, on a blind evaluation without access to the initial objection, if they have a similar objection.
It becomes a problem of getting enough lawyers to review the results of the exams and do the work to produce justifications.
A wider net may gather a few more lawyers into the profession, but at the expense of a tremendous increase in the rejections and the effort to justify those rejections. It is probably a case where the effort to go from the present 30-40% pass rate to add even 1% more from the “reading law” group would double the effort in grading the exams. Kim Kardashian is at the 4th attempt and has taken the “reading law” path, for example. Most law school grads make it by the second try.
Mind that the bar exam is a low hurdle compared to the actual practice of law. It is mainly testing if the applicant can read the material, understand the material, and create a response that reflects their understanding in a way that another lawyer sees evidence of that understanding. Law school is mainly focused on that.
There is also the ethics exam.
The ABA has two primary functions. The first is to try ensuring lawyers are competently performing the work involved. It’s a bad look if lawyers end up getting their clients into legal trouble. The second is to limit the number of lawyers. While seemingly self-serving, clients have more confidence in lawyers when lawyers aren’t a dime a dozen. They don’t necessarily want a lawyer who arrives in a rumpled suit driving a rusted out beater and lives in his mom’s basement as that is all they can afford on what they can charge. They have an image to maintain.
Turley implies advocacy by the ADA for some positions, I say “drumming up business” as most professional organizations are formed to do. Protect the brand from decay, protect the income of the members, seek new avenues of business. Nothing more American than that.
The ABA accredits law schools. In most states, only graduates of ABA-accredited schools can take the bar exam.
California has several alternative routes, including its own accreditation body. Or you can go to an unaccredited school. Or apprentice to a lawyer. Kim Kardashian is doing one of these things.
They aren’t pro-abortion. That’s a bad faith claim.
I never joined the AMA as even by the 1970’s it had no real power. It could issue position statements but it had no real power over who was licensed and who was not. That particular function had already been taken over by state licensing boards that were official organs of each individual state. Subspecialty Boards had exams for specialization but that really had no impact on licensure. Actually your local hospital had more of an impact than the medical society. The true power was the State Board determining licensure and the Hospital determining if your training and credentials allowed you to perform certain surgeries and procedures in that hospital. And that was true 40-50 years ago. The medical societies were a meet and greet with an open bar and occasionally a lecture.
I am surprised the Bar associations retained such power for so long.
The Texas State Board for medical licenses was quite active for the last 35-40 years + in determining what was and was not ethical medicine and they had state power with teeth to reign in wayward doctors with publications of their action, with names , every quarter. They could be quite tough.
The AMA also has lobbyists. Fewer members means less effective lobbying and more abdication of medical decisions to venture capitalists and insurance companies who lobby the heck out of the US Congressional and state legislators.
Some of the exodus in the ABA and AMA can be contributed to their demonstrable anti-Constitutional advocacy as it related to COVID Lockdowns and mandated “vaccine”. It was clear to many that the call by both these organizations for the drum beat of both Medical and Legal campaign to restrict and punish those that did not follow the Fauci Doctrine……..
The primary reason Turley criticizes the American Bar Association (ABA) is that it has historically been critical of conservative lawyers who have demonstrated significant incompetence and unethical behavior, particularly those appointed during the Trump administration. The ABA has maintained its strict standards for over 150 years, enforcing ethical practices and professionalism within the legal community.
Professor Turley is undoubtedly aware of the numerous instances of unqualified and poorly trained lawyers hired by the Trump administration, who have made a mockery of the legal profession. A recent example is Lindsey Halligan, an insurance attorney with no criminal prosecution experience, who was appointed to pursue cases against James Comey, the former FBI director, and Attorney General Letitia James, who failed spectacularly. The ABA would have excoriated her lack of relevant experience and her disorganized approach. The ABA would undoubtedly have criticized her handling of these cases as incompetent.
It remains noteworthy that Professor Turley continues to overlook the widespread incompetence among the Trump administration’s legal team and the record number of grand jury proceedings resulting in no-bill indictments. I would imagine he might also feel some embarrassment about these failures. Yet, he seems to focus instead on criticizing lawyers on the political left to divert attention from the gross incompetence and ethical lapses exhibited by the Trump-appointed legal “professionals.”
More stupid stuff:
“The primary reason Turley criticizes the American Bar Association (ABA) is that it has historically been critical of conservative lawyers…” Did Turley write that? Nope.
“The ABA would have excoriated her lack of relevant experience and her disorganized approach…” But they didn’t did they? Tell us why?
What does Trump’s alleged failed legal team have to do with the ABA? If they were liberals they would have succeeded? Maybe if you were on team Trump you would have succeeded?
What does Trump’s alleged failed legal team have to do with the ABA? If they were liberals they would have succeeded? Maybe if you were on team Trump you would have succeeded?“
Alleged? No. Trump’s legal team has displayed gross incompetence and unethical practices. Turley wants to ignore the more serious problems the Trump administration is facing with its lawyers by casting doubt on the ABA and its strict standards.
He’s essentially doing his “conservative purge” schtick on the ABA as he does with Universities and Colleges.
“ The ABA would have excoriated her lack of relevant experience and her disorganized approach…” But they didn’t, did they? Tell us why?”
Most likely because it’s too early. There’s been no official complaint, or she may not be a member. That does not mean they may have noticed. It’s guaranteed every lawyer in the country is aware of that spectacular failure by now.
Were they liberal they would have picked better battles rather than being forced up hills to die on.
“The primary reason Turley criticizes . . .”
Your mind-reading skills are fantastic.
As is your talent for smearing, based on your mad speculations about a person’s “actual” motivations.
No mind reading is necessary. Just simple reading comprehension and context based on Professor Turley’s views. It’s not hard.
It’s clear X didn’t even read the article.
I would even argue that much X’s ignorant ranting bolsters JT’s argument rather than undercutting it (as its clear he is convinced he’s doing).
Look who is mind reading now….LOL!
Look who is mind reading now….LOL!
x has a same template for all its comments, trump this, trump that, most irrelevant, always claiming supernatural interpretive skills. The next x comment is the same as the previous, trump this, trump that, repeated ad nauseum.
Reading comprehension skills are nothing supernatural about having reading comprehension skills. It’s apparently difficult for someone like you.
Comprehension skills… true. But you just lie.
Xray: Did Lindsey Halligan really “fail spectacularly” or was it just her appointment that failed? We don’t know whether she would have failed had she been allowed to continue her prosecution.
She failed spectacularly. She was the ONLY one to sign both indictments and present the evidence to the grand jury. The true professionals, all refused to join in on her prosecution of these cases.
Every comptent laywer knew she would have failed if her appointment was left alone. The evidence against Comey and James was so bad that the latest attempt to indict ended up with a no-bill from yet ANOTHER grand jury by a different lawyer. It’s THAT bad.
Anti-Trump NY and DC courts may be to blame eh?
Wait a minute. James signed a document where she attested that the Virginia home for which she had applied for a mortgage was to be used as her primary residence in order for her to obtain a lower mortgage rate than if that home was planned to be used as a second home or as rental property. She did so with full knowledge that as New York State Attorney General she was required to live in, and be a citizen of, New York State. She then rented the Virginia home to a relative. This, by definition, is mortgage fraud. It would seem that any prosecutor with a pulse, of any skill level, would have been able to get a conviction here. And, BTW, if the loan was federally insured, doesn’t that make its investigation for potential mortgage fraud the responsibility of the FBI?
That is not the complete submission. The complete submission says that IF it is not to be a primary residence to complete an additional form. As far as has been released, Ms. James completed and submitted that additional form along with her application.
I was a competent lawyer. I don’t know that the prosecutions would have failed.
Tell us you’re a Communist without telling us that you’re a Communist.
TDS is strong in this one.
Many of the grand jurys you site were convened in Washington DC or the city of New York where Trump or any conservative would not get a fair constitutional hearing.
As a 38 year member of the bar, I feel the functions of any Bar Association should be: set standards for lawyers (ethical rules), accredit law schools and offer education programs for all lawyers (both sides of the v, whether criminal or civil). Nothing else. Over 25 years ago I dropped my ABA membership as they have strayed from that mission. However, have kept local bar memberships as they are neutral and primarily focus of educational programs and local bench/bar relations
“. . . accredit law schools . . .”
The nub of the problem is this:
The ABA is able to spread and enforce its propaganda by *both* its power to accredit, and by the fact that many state governments compel individuals to graduate from an ABA-accredited law school. (In Virginia and CA there is no such mandate.)
Drop that state government requirement, and the ABA becomes merely a suggestion box.
There are national associations for nearly everything: builders associations, HOAs, machinists, engineers, architects, AMA, etc., etc. They are all created to ensure consistency in standards and practices. They also serve as advocates for the trades they represent and act as lobbying groups before Congress, offering expertise and advice. They are composed of professionals with years of experience. The ABA exists because it has effectively influenced the setting of standards that experienced professionals agree on. Conservatives are only complaining because many conservative lawyers, those favored by Trump and the far right, have recently been unethical or incompetent. When the ABA deems a lawyer unqualified or “sus,” as the younger generation might say, it’s based on 150 years of standards that even traditional conservative lawyers followed before the current batch of extreme right lawyers.
Keep in mind that the Federalist Society is the conservative version of the ABA. The provide and vet exclusively conservative lawyers to Republican administrations. They even provide judges for consideration.
Federalist society huh? Sure sure … just like the ABA. A news site has control of the judiciary appointments.
But, funny, FS has no members. no fees, no annual position papers right, yet they control all judicial appointments under Trump?
And you read that where, on their site?
Good one. X is fuming.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the Federalist Society do have membership and do charge their members a fee.
https://fedsoc.org/membership
However, they do not charge as much as the American Bar Association does.
https://archive.is/2xyNk
I would had linked to the ABA’s original article but ironically, you have to be a paying member of the ABA just to view the page. 😂 The original article can be found here:
“New dues rates for ABA members announced” – American Bar Association
“There are national associations for nearly everything . . .”
Nice begging the question.
Sam,
So, the slow and dumb one asserts, “There are national associations for nearly everything . . .”
Would there be an “Association of Leftist Looser Trolls With Terminal TDS Who Would Serve Society and Humanity Better if They Took The Tide Pod Challenge Five Times in a Row?”
That is not what “begging the question” means.
“That is not . . .”
Do tell.
The ABA has “standards”? Then how can you explain why it hasn’t censured or disqualified Mark Elias? I guess if they didn’t have double standards they would have no standards at all.
The simple existence of professional organizations is not the issue. The respective power of the various orgs is,
Certainly any power can be abused, but the standards for accreditation are objective. The fact that law schools such as U Chicago or Pepperdine are accredited suggests that a conservative leaning isn’t used to deny accreditation. Can you name me one law school that has been denied on the basis of legal philosophy? If such exists I’d be happy to know.
Much like when I see a conservative on the old version media 30 times in a week complaining about how conservatives are having their right to free speech taken away from them, they would rather ignore that conservatism is simply less popular in higher education and desire to jam it down the throats of otherwise liberal students. Since that would not work, the ideal alternative is an ideological cleansing of campuses to remove the impure thoughts that accompany liberalism.
I left the ABA in 1984 and never looked back. Nothing they say or do would surprise me.
So now whig98 comes out of the closet as a lawyer. Really? Fooled us.
Funny how 95% of the commenters here claim to be lawyers. Yet their comments read like that of a 15 y/o Karen.
You really do need to try harder.
Oh, where’s the Latin quote today?
Your comments are always juvenile.
You’re a pompous arse.
C- for the poor effort
C- grade is still defined as average. Still waiting on today’s Latin quote.
I blame grade inflation
So says the fake lawyer. You’re simply too stupid; your comments reek of adolescence.
Still waiting for the Latin quote of the day.
Just for you
Olim trollus
Whig98,
Good one!
That is the sad truth. More likely failed laywers or just sub-par.
“Nothing they say or do would surprise me.”
On the one hand that implies that whig98 would accept even the most offensive statements at face value attributed to the ABA. “The ABA supports the deep frying of infants” and whig98 would say, “Sure, those ABA seems just the types to do that.”
On the other hand, the truth is they won’t say anything that is surprising as consistency in law is paramount so it is a truism that “Nothing they say or do would surprise me.”
Heard that you went to University of Chicago. True? Went to MIT and UChicago. Thanks for your articles. Best wishes and you and your family a blessed Christmas holiday. Alfred
Professor Turley, you nailed this one. The biggest of the problems in American institutions is political bias, together with professional incompetence. As for the MSM, and before that the newspapers, we see that people can and do tolerate a certain amount of bias, provided they can filter it out independently. But when the bias becomes constant and overwhelming, they will abandon the agency if only as a form of self-defense. Thus, the ABA and MSM, and Universities. All have taken bias too far, except for a minority of loyalists. The sad fact is that once abandoned, agencies do not self-repair, or for that matter, even understand the reasons. Look at PBS, which went totally leftist in response to charges of left-leaning bias.
Professor Turley says he misses the ABA. I voluntarily joined the ABA as a green practitioner in 1972, thinking that it was the “professional” and right thing to do. Recognizing its drift to the left long before its unprincipled stance on abortion, I left the ABA in 1980. I have never looked back.
I joined in the 1960s because it was a highly respected organization and it sponsored dozens of valuable seminars and conferences. I also resigned in the 1980s because it had become political and irrelevant. Today it is simply another far-Left radical voice to be ignored.
For example, the ABA filed on behalf of its members to declare that the Constitution demands that male transgender students should be able to use female bathrooms. In an amicus brief filed in 2017, the ABA stated that “[d]iversity and inclusion are essential to public confidence in the bench and bar.”
___________________________
A great way to shoot yourself in the foot.
Only the crazies want to put men in women’s bathroom and the public has shown them their disapproval.
What is a woman?
Wait. The public has shown the crazies their disapproval? Who are the crazies? And why would Turley want to shot himself in the foot?
Shoot.
I’m shot!
Thank you for shedding light on this situation. It takes courage to criticize such a powerful organization. With so many of these institutions, it feels as if dinosaurs were ruling the world from beyond the grave. The AMA, ABA, indeed the FDA and CDC , FBI and CIA, NATO, the EU, the entire Ivy League, all have made themselves obsolete yet they continue to reign supreme.
Two other organizations i.e. Professional Engineers and the American Medical Association should also be done away with.
They should be allowed to exist, they just shouldn’t have ANY authority over anyone – sort of like a fan club.