American Bar Association Statement on Threats Against the Judiciary

Following the lead of the Hon. Paul W. Grimm (ret.), OpEd: Legal Profession Must ‘Speak Out’ Against Unfair Attacks (duke.edu)(Oct. 24, 2023), I wrote that The Judiciary is Under Attack.  Lawyers Need to Defend It (Oct. 24, 2023), and Threats Against the Colorado Supreme Court Must Be Called Out (Dec. 23, 2023).

I was critical of the American Bar Association for failing to speak out.  I Hear Crickets From the American Bar Association About Threats Against Colorado Justices  (Jan. 7, 2024).

I also wrote about protective measures in Maryland and by the Maryland State Bar Association.  Maryland Bills to Protect Judges and Their Children (Feb. 23, 2024).

It was great to receive an email on April 8, 2024, from ABA President Mary Smith.  President Smith wrote in part:

Our courts and judges are under attack. Serious threats against federal judges have doubled since 2021, with 457 serious threats targeting federal judges across the country in 2023. National leaders and private citizens are making false statements and scurrilous accusations against judges for partisan, personal gain. These attacks are no idle matter. Often, they involve threats of physical harm or death — not only to the judges but also to their families and staff.

Threats against the very individuals we have appointed or elected to administer our judicial system and the rule of law are not only wrong, they also threaten the fabric of our democracy — judicial independence and the rule of law.  All lawyers are bound by ethical rules based on the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. These rules prohibit lawyers from making false statements about the qualifications or integrity of a judge. Based on these rules, and to maintain the fair and independent administration of justice, lawyers also are encouraged to defend judges and courts that are unjustly criticized.

President Smith added:

As lawyers, it is also incumbent on us to teach our fellow Americans how to take appropriate actions should they disagree with court opinions. For example, people involved in litigation who are unhappy with a court’s decision can file an appeal to a higher court for review by a different impartial decision maker. Members of the public who are dissatisfied with a court’s decision can organize a community meeting, write to newspapers and websites, petition Congress or their state legislature to change laws, support a citizens’ initiative or undertake the simple act of voting.

These are extraordinary times. As lawyers and as guardians of the third branch of government, we have a unique duty to lead our nation in the protection of judges, the rule of law and American democracy. The time has come to rededicate ourselves to our obligations.

Kudos to President Smith and the ABA.