ILNews

ABA to welcome new president, discuss possible new policy at annual meeting

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The American Bar Association will consider a range of policy topics including technology privacy, “gay panic” defense and judicial disqualification during its 2013 annual meeting in San Francisco.

The association’s policymaking body, the ABA House of Delegates, will meet Aug. 12 and 13 to vote on a number of resolutions and to install New York attorney James Silkenat as the new ABA president.

More than 20 resolutions are on the agenda. The topics the House of Delegates review include:

•    Attorney-client privilege: Resolution adopts principles that should be applied in determining the availability of attorney-clients privilege for law firm consultations with in-house counsel.

•    Cybersecurity: Resolution condemns unauthorized, illegal intrusions by foreign governments, organizations and individuals into the computer networks of lawyers and law firms and urges governmental bodies to examine, and if necessary, amend or supplement, existing law to promote deterrence and provide appropriate sanctions.

•    Technology privacy: Resolution urges Congress to amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to reflect the technological and societal changes that have occurred since the original passage of the law.

•    “Gay panic” defense: Resolution urges every level of government to take legislative action to curtail the availability and effectiveness of the “gay panic” and “trans panic” defenses. These defenses seek to partially or completely excuse crimes on the grounds that the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity is to blame for the defendant’s violent reaction.

•    Judicial disqualification: Resolution urges states and territories to review their judicial disqualification procedures to assure the fair and impartial administration of justice, to conduct such reviews periodically and to create minimum standards for judicial disqualifications.

Resolutions must be approved by the House of Delegates before they become the policy of the ABA.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT