Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Arizona Bar Assoc. mulls gay equality pledge
12.22.2008 4:58pm EST
(Tucson, Arizona) A conservative legal group is calling on lawyers to oppose a proposed revision to the Arizona Bar Association oath of office that pledges equal representation to LGBT clients.
The Alliance Defense Fund calls the proposal “unconstitutional.”The proposed revision to the oath states: “I will not permit considerations of gender, race, religion, age, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, or social standing to influence my duty of care.”
It must still be approved by the bar association.
The ADF, which is based in Arizona and regularly opposes LGBT rights in courts across the country, said it is particularly concerned about the inclusion of “sexual orientation” in the revised oath.
In a letter to bar association president Edward Novak, the ADF and other conservative lawyers said that “the proposed provision is unnecessary, exceedingly ambiguous, and unconstitutional.”
“We are concerned most particularly that the proposed provision’s vagueness violates due-process and free-speech guarantees and that its application infringes First Amendment rights by compelling conduct and expression in conflict with an attorney’s philosophical or religious beliefs as well as his other professional responsibilities.”
The letter, signed by more than 30 conservative attorneys in the state, said that lawyers who refuse to take the oath or violate it could have their licenses revoked.
“[T]he proposed provision, unlike any other part of the Arizona Bar Oath or Ethics Rules, may be interpreted to force an attorney to undertake particular representation.”
The letter calls on Novak to abandon the revision and warns that if it passes it would be challenged in court.
The ADF never misses an opportunity to extend their hate. Imagine if they put all that energy to some good use!
The ADF are a bunch of patehtic whining pigs.
There should be an “opt out” provision and the names of those who “opt out” of the oath should be made publicly available. That allows the bigots to be bigots and the rest of us able to avoid them. After all, who would want some born-again bigot representing you if you just happen to belong to a group which they don’t like.
I also imagine that an “opt out” provision may help to weed out those bigots who may think about going into public law professions such as “Legal Aid”; Public District Attorneys Offices, and other legal departments in government. Obviously, if they cannot represent ALL of the people, then they are not qualified for positions of public trust.
As far as private practice is concerned, just let it also be a matter of public record how they stand against equal justice and let it be well publicized.
~ Bud Evans
http://rainfish2000.blogspot.com
What this brings out, by the way, is that you always need to closely question any lawyer you’re considering hiring to ensure he won’t screw you because he’s a homophobe. Trust me; it happens way too often.
It’s about time legal groups started addressing the speech codes inherent in their codes of ethical conduct based on fraud. I’m patiently waiting for the medical groups to announce in that direction as well.
As disgusted as it makes me, I have to side with the ADF on this one.
It is the job of a lawyer to represent the best interests of their clients. How can they be expected to do so if they have a strong religious or moral objection to those same best interests? Lawyers should be permitted to refuse to take a case because they have a reasonable objection to the subject matter of the case that would inhibit their ability to fully represent their client’s interests.
Sorry, but if I go to court to defend my rights as a homosexual, I want to know that the lawyer I have defending me is standing at my side because he believes in my cause, or at the very least that he doesn’t have a religious or moral objection to winning my case.
I don’t want a lawyer representing me who doesn’t believe they can give me anything less and 110% when fighting my case.
This revised oath would make it an obligation for them to represent me even if they personally want me to lose. It would open the door to countless appeals on the grounds of inadequate/incompetent counsel and would jeopardise due process by denying LGBT people access to lawyers who will adequately and fairly represent them.
In short, if my lawyer is a bigoted asshole who won’t do his best to win my case, I don’t want him at my side, and I certainly don’t want him there because some oath prohibits him from being honest with me and stepping aside.
RJLigier,
In other words, just like the Bush administration wants, allow the medical profession to openly violate their oath to do no harm by refusing treatment to the gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders as if they were not fully human to satisfy their religious beliefs.
When it come to medical ethics, the human being in front of Doctor or RN so and so, regardless of his or her own beliefs has absolute human rights to not die or get desperately ill just because you don’t like her or his sexual orientation or gender identity.
That means, put your beliefs in the back of your brain and engage your moral and ethical obligation and your sense of decency and compassion, if you have any, and get on with the job at hand and do it so the patient isn’t more scsred by your lack of kindness than she or he is already by the medical situation itself.
What the Bush administration was proposing by way allowing medical people to refuse to treat people, makes a mockery of the oath these medical people take to do no harm and is a violation of human rights to ccmpassionate care.
Of course, compassion is something you hard-hearted conservatives know nothing about.
So the evil of ADF is slowly being eradicated!
“In other words, just like the Bush administration wants, allow the medical profession to openly violate their oath to do no harm by refusing treatment to the gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders as if they were not fully human to satisfy their religious beliefs.”
If a lawyer is morally opposed to gay rights, he has no business taking a case where he would have to advocate on behalf of the gay community. Not only should he be free to decline to take the case, he has a moral obligation to decline so that the “client” can find the best possible representation.
Doctors and other medical professionals don’t have that luxury. There’s is an obligation to treat patients, to relieve suffering, to help no matter who requires that help.
In short – a medical professional has an obligation to provide care regardless of who the patient is or what care they need. A lawyer has an obligation to represent their clients to the best of their abilities. The difference? A person becomes a patient to a doctor the moment the doctor walks into the room. A person does not become a client to a lawyer until he agrees to take their case. And his right to refuse to take a case should be protected, regardless of his reasons for refusing.
Why do the various LGBTIQ groups put not out a list of which lawyers (AND LAW FIRMS) are pro-LGBTIQ and will do their best to support and represent us? I have had a really difficult time over the years finding a good pro-LGBTIQ lawyer. I have had to use word of mouth, but it is difficult to find one even that way. Can we not create a Good Gay Servicing Seal of Approval and allow the lawyers and their firms to use it like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval?
The local pink and lavender directories seldom have (many) professional people listed, and that has been where I have lived in the states of California, Ohio, Kentucky West Virginia and Florida.
Somehow, we need to find those professionals that will graciously and appropriately service our community.
I am not sure an oath as menitoned in the article is constitutional. And I surely do not want a half-hearted professional representing me or working on my body.
I am already suspect of the Hispanic Catholic dentist which gave me the worst and most painful root canal and crown I have ever had.
The non-supporting professionals have a way of quietly being mean and hurtful, and then seldom apologize for their inappropriate behavior.
I believe I will have to ask them directly if they will do something inappropriate if they know me and my partner are gay. And I do have to reveal that I have insurance through my partner as well, so it can be no real secret.
This is another example of why we must all be careful where we spend our money and who’s services we hire. Investigate every business’ history on GLBT issues and only give your money to those who are “friendly”.
CJ
Tucson
Isaac, applying your logic to other groups, would you be in favor of allowing lawyers to not represent racial minorities if they are bigoted towards them, or not represent women if they are sexists, or non-Christians if that goes against their religious beliefs?
I see your argument up to a point, but discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has to be treated on the same plane as any other form of discrimination.
“Isaac, applying your logic to other groups, would you be in favor of allowing lawyers to not represent racial minorities if they are bigoted towards them, or not represent women if they are sexists, or non-Christians if that goes against their religious beliefs?”
Yes, absolutely.
Lawyers charge a shitload of money. For many of them, that money is sufficient to compel them to do their best for you whether they personally believe in your cause or not. For some, however, their moral or religious views can mean that they are opposed to winning the case.
Look at it this way – would you expect a gay lawyer to stand up in court and argue to deny homosexuals basic human rights? If you can compel a lawyer who is opposed to gay equality to stand up and argue FOR gay rights, you have to be able to compel a gay lawyer to do the exact opposite.
In an ideal world lawyers should be able to put their personal feelings aside and represent their clients to the best of their abilities. However, this isn’t an ideal world and human beings are flawed. That means, sadly, we have to accept that our prejudices and beliefs can get in the way.
This oath may SEEM to be in the best interests of the gay community, and I appreciate the sentiment behind it, but in practice it will only serve to prevent members of the LGBT community from finding advocates who will adequately fight for their rights.
@ RJ LIGIER:
You have made repeated sweeping allegations of “fraud” against the legal and medical communities. Please forgive me. I’m old, and a little slow, after two CVAs. Please explain the fraud involved, and the manner in which it is being perpetrated. Are you saying that doctors and lawyers SHOULD be allowed to discriminate at will? THAT would be a TERRIBLE thing, particularly in small towns and rural areas with very limited legal and medical personnel.
Raymond H. “Rusty” Burgoon-Clark
San Diego CA USA
Is there a critical shortage of lawyers in the United States?
Let the dumb ones have their licenses revoked.