For Your Consideration.

Sonoran Alliance broke the story  that the Arizona Bar is proposing to change the Oath of Admission to forbid new attorneys from letting  "considerations" of "sexual orientation" influence their duty of care. 

“I will not permit considerations of gender, race, religion, age, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, or social standing to influence my duty of care.”

A Who's Who of the Arizona legal community has responded with this letter. 

For the reasons expressed herein, we believe 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.

Comments

[Name:]

Well, it sort of puts "old" attorneys at an advantage if the new ones are restricted from some practices. Straight (sorry about the pun) up equal protection case.

[todd]

I think it would be more correct to say Sonoran Alliance distorted the story. The change in the oath of admissions it not the addition of sexual orientation, the change is the addition of the entire paragraph. However, this is not at all how it is presented by Sonoran Alliance. In fact "Pat" wrote the story as if the only change was the addition of "sexual orientation." This is not true and shows the intellectual dishonesty of "Pat". Why are lawyers arguing they should allow the race or religion of a client they have accepted to affect their service?

One thing I am curious about, when people argue against allowing sexual orientation to be used to discriminate against someone I wonder how they would react to a gay or lesbian employer who refused to hire heterosexuals. Maybe Jack Harper should work on a citizens initiative for that since he seems to like to spend his time on all sorts of pretend problems.

[Jay]

Todd, it's only "pretend problem" to those who have been privileged enough to face no discrimination in their affairs.

[todd]

Jay just to clarify I was not saying anti-gay discrimination is a pretend problem, I was referring to something in another thread.

[Lance E]

A Who's Who? With the exception of Tim Casey, Clint Bolick and Steve Twist, none of these folks are going to be in any Who's Who and their Bar Numbers would indicate that about 40% are junior associates.

[Do as I say]

Additionally, the three Lance E mentioned are first and foremost social conservatives whose dogma supersedes any credibility as objective members of the legal community.