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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT