On the afternoon of Thursday, June 16th, the Connecticut Bar Association (CBA) sent an email to all of its membership, signed by the CBA President, Vice-President, and President-elect. The email, available here, warns all members of the CBA that they better not say, anywhere, in any form or forum, that Donald Trump’s trial, which, as you know, resulted in him being convicted of 34 felonies, was a “‘sham,’ a ‘hoax,’ [or] ‘rigged,'”, or that “our justice system is ‘corrupt and rigged,'” or that “the judge was ‘corrupt’ [or] ‘highly unethical.'” The email also stated that CBA members need to speak up in support of the Trump verdict because “[t]o remain silent renders us complicit in that effort,” i.e. the “effort” to damage the judiciary.
Law Professor Jonathan Turley captures the essence of what is wrong about this. From his post in Zero Hedge:
The message from the bar leadership is chilling for those lawyers who view cases like the one in Manhattan as a raw political prosecution. While the letter does not outright state that such criticism will be considered unethical conduct, it states that the criticism has “no place in the public discourse” and calls on members to speak publicly in support of the integrity of these legal proceedings.The statement begins by warning members that “words matter” but then leaves the ramifications for bar members dangling on how it might matter to them. They simply note that some comments will be viewed as “cross[ing] the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric.”According to the Connecticut Bar, it is now considered reckless and unprofessional to make analogies to show trials or to question the integrity of the legal system or the judges in such cases.For example, criticizing Judge Juan Merchan for refusing to recuse from the case is considered beyond the pale. Many lawyers believe that his political contributions to Biden and his daughter’s major role as a Democratic fundraiser and activist should have prompted Merchan to remove himself (and any appearance of a conflict). I have been more critical of his rulings, which I believe were both biased and wrong.Yet, the Bar is warning lawyers that such comments can cross the line.
The ramifications for Connecticut attorneys are obvious – even having an investigation commenced by state authorities into something they post or speak about would be a disaster for any practicing attorney. For example, Professor Jacobson and other attorneys at the Equal Protection Project, routinely appear “pro hac vice,” or as a temporary member of the court just for the case they are involved in, and to be so admitted you must swear, for example, that there are no “disciplinary proceedings presently pending against you.” If the Connecticut Bar Association refers a Connecticut attorney to the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee for an investigation for any reason, their work would likely be significantly impacted.
And there are others who have aired reckless comments concerning our judiciary system, which the CBA hasn’t mentioned, as Turley points out:
Of course, the concern over rage rhetoric runs across our political spectrum. While rarely criticized in the media, we have seen an escalation of reckless rhetoric from the left. For example, Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz declared that “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified.”My concern is not with the plea for lawyers to take care that their comments do not encourage such “aggressive tactics.” The problem is the suggestion that lawyers are acting somehow unprofessionally in denouncing what many view as a two-tier system of justice and the politicalization of our legal system.Like many, I believe that the Manhattan case was a flagrant example of such weaponization of the legal system and should be denounced by all lawyers. It is a return, in my view, to the type of political prosecution once common in this country.For those lawyers who view such prosecutions as political, they are speaking out in defense of what they believe is the essence of blind justice in America. What is “reckless” to the Connecticut Bar is righteous to others. Notably, the Bar officials did not write to denounce attacks on figures like Bill Barr or claims that the Justice Department was rigging justice during the Trump years.
This is the real essence of the problem with the CBA email: what if there was real bias in Trump’s or any other trial, do lawyers not have a duty to speak out against that?? Is judicial bias not a real thing? Has it not happened before in our judicial system? And how can it be corrected if lawyers don’t speak out against it?
Turley continues on the CBA’s failure to condemn leftist reckless rhetoric concerning the judicial system:
Likewise, the letter focuses on critics of the Trump prosecutions and not the continued attacks on conservative jurists like Justice Samuel Alito. It has never published warnings about those calling conservative justices profanities, attacking their religion, or labeling them “partisan hacks” or other even “insurrectionist sympathizers.” Liberal activists have been calling for stopping conservative jurists “by any means necessary.”In Connecticut, Sen. Richard Blumenthal has warned conservative justices to rule correctly or face “seismic changes.” That did not appear to worry the bar. Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also declared in front of the Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”
Crickets chirping from the CBA about these extremely reckless and partisan attacks by lawyers, one of whom (Blumenthal) is admitted to practice in Connecticut.
And, the same day the CBA released its email to its members, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy appeared on Jake Tapper’s show and said this:
So saying that the U.S. Supreme Court is “brazenly corrupt” and “brazenly political” and that Justice Clarence Thomas is accepting “payoffs” is perfectly fine, but criticizing a judge in Trump’s case who allegedly donated to Joe Biden and whose daughter is a Democrat political operative is not.
As one person stated recently on Twitter, and we are paraphrasing, the way to convince someone that Trump’s trial was unbiased is not to tell them to shut up about it.
As Turley puts it:
Ironically, the letter only reinforced the view of a legal system that is maintaining a political orthodoxy and agenda. These officials declare that it is now unprofessional or reckless for lawyers to draw historical comparisons to show trials or to question the motives or ethics underlying these cases. They warn lawyers not to “sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong.” Yet, many believe that there is an alarming threat to our legal system and that distrust is warranted in light of prosecution like the one in Manhattan.
And by the way, the CBA is a tax-exempt entity, and as a “501(c)(6) organization” is “prohibited from engaging in political activity, or attempts to influence an election of a candidate.” Hmmmm.
We’ll keep you updated as this story progresses, but here are some Twitter posts about the CBA email (Note: we found zero Twitter posts in favor of the CBA email):
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY