The ideas expressed in City Club forums are those of the speakers and not of the City Club of Cleveland.

Idea stream public media or their sponsors.

Production and distribution of City Club forums and ideas.

Stream.

Public media are made possible by PNC and the United Black.

Fond of Greater Cleveland incorporated.

Good afternoon and welcome to the City Club of Cleveland, where we are devoted to conversations of consequence that help democracy thrive.

It's Tuesday, July 8th, and I'm Chris Schmidt, CEO of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association.

Today, I'm honored to introduce our speaker, American Bar Association President Bill Bey.

The American Bar Association was founded in 1878 and has come a long way since those 75 lawyers gathered in upstate New York to establish a national practice standard for our profession.

The ABA now represents more than 400,000 members globally, and stands as the largest voluntary legal association in the world.

We believe that the ABA last visited Cleveland in about 2002, and we are so thankful that they accepted our invitation to return to join us at this important period in our nation's history.

Under Bill's unfaltering leadership during the past year, the ABA has been steadfast in their support for an independent judiciary.

The rights of lawyers and firms to represent clients of their choosing, the rights of those firms to hire attorneys of their choosing without fear of political repercussions and the fundamental right of everyone within our borders to their day in court.

The phrase I've heard Bill say the most over the past year is there's never a wrong time to stand up for what is right.

I couldn't agree more.

The CMA is very proud that we were one of the first metro bars in the country to speak up for the rule of law, and for the rights of lawyers and of clients.

We are also proud that we remain at the forefront of these conversations regionally and nationally.

Our focus is never right versus left.

It's always right versus wrong.

During these trying times for our profession, we are grateful for the consistent partnership and leadership of the ABA as we work together on these critical issues.

Bill is a partner at Thompson Coburn in Saint Louis.

In addition to his distinguished work in complex business litigation, Bill has truly lived a life of service at the local, state and national levels in bar associations and community organizations of all sizes.

Today, Bill will discuss how American lawyers and organizations like the American Bar Association are standing up for the core legal principles that have served our country since 19 1776, 19 well 1976 two, but mostly 1776.

Following Bill's opening remarks, United States District Court Judge and CMA member Dan Polster will moderate a conversation with Bill.

Before we open the floor for questions, if you'd like to text a question for our speaker, please text it to (330)541-5794.

Again (330)541-5794, and the city club staff will try to work it into the program.

Now, members and friends of the City Club of Cleveland, please join me in welcoming the Honorable Dan Polster and ABA president Bill de Vega.

All right.

So thank you again for.

Last.

Last warning I got was watch the step after you're done.

So be careful.

Hopefully I will not go down.

Well thank you.

It's great to be here in the city of Cleveland and the city club of Cleveland.

I took a big tour last night.

It was great.

Downtown looked great.

I thought, and we were over at the, arcade.

So it was it was really wonderful.

This club really has a great legacy, 112 year history.

I looked on the board outside with both the photos and I love campaign buttons.

Those suits are great.

It's really a great special place where ideas can be discussed, discussed and presented.

I saw it's rightfully referred to as the America's citadel of free speech.

And I saw the pictures outside.

The people have spoken.

It's impressive.

And it's a great honor to be here with you.

And as.

Yes, as somebody said, you should join if you're not a member.

Okay.

It is important that institutions like this not just survive, but thrive.

That's what's really important.

And they only and they only thrive when when we agreed to be members and participate.

So thank you to the City Club's leadership and staff for all you do to provide a forum for the discussion.

So we're going to have to today and a place where even if we disagree, we can disagree in a better way, because that's too lacking all the time in our public discourse.

Thank you.

Especially the judge Polster.

For your long time public service, our judicial system is the envy of the world.

The job of judges is vital to our democracy and the freedoms we enjoy.

Judges resolve disputes solely on the basis of facts and applicable law.

They are the front door for our justice system and the rule of law.

So now, let begin by thanking you, Judge Poster, for all you do to preserve and promote the rule of law in the United States.

Let me also thank the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association president Nick Marcello, past president Matt Besser, you heard from CEO, Chris Schmidt and chief of staff Molly Ferris.

They've kind of shepherd me around.

Cleveland has been very good.

Even got my favorite drink of choice, which was Diet Pepsi.

It's really been great.

And I mentioned to them, not all bars are created equal.

Cleveland metropolitan bars, the special bar association.

If you're not part of that, you ought to consider being part of that.

It does great work for its members, and it does great work in terms of leadership.

And that's really important.

Well, let me begin with the obvious.

This is not the year I anticipated when I was chosen to serve as ABA president.

I told people I was hoping to really channel my inner Sandra Bullock and win the Miss Congeniality award.

That really, that opportunity has passed me this up.

This year has been quite a bit different.

I suspect 2025 is not the year any of us envisioned.

It's not news that people are criticizing lawyers and courts, but the current assaults are pervasive.

They're relentless, and the destructive in America, they're unprecedented.

So, no, this is not the year I expected.

But the truth is, it's the year we have.

I want to say, well, I never imagined the US we would see attacks on the rule of law, judges, law firms, the profession, the apparent disregard of due process, and all this from our own govern The frequency and intensity shows no sign of lessening.

It is more than I can ever recall.

You read the stories in the news.

There is so much it is sometimes hard to grasp.

I want to say a few words about what we believe is a clear pattern of attacks and threats, and to tell you what the American Bar Association is doing.

There's a certain irony that I speak to you about what so many say are political issues.

Let me say emphatically, these are not political issues.

And if they were, I'd be the wrong choice to be here.

Talk to you about this.

Never been a Republican.

Never been a Democrat member of either party.

My last direct contribution was to Dick Gephardt, which in a younger audience would say, who's that?

Dick was a wonderful partner in my firm in the 60s.

Before I was there.

And, but I stand today before you as talk about rule of law issues, not political issues, issues that have guided our profession since the beginning and beyond the beginning, the beginning of our republic.

I do it as ABA president, but also as a regular litigation lawyer.

Practices in Saint Louis.

So let me talk just a little bit about that.

Today in the rule of law area, in terms of attacks, government officials have questioned whether the due process is necessary, whether they will follow the Constitution or court orders.

You've heard it, some said, and recently in another hearing in Congress just three weeks ago, with our courts, we see intimidation in four forms calls to impeach a judge who does not rule the way the administration wants, including by the president of the United States, the posting of a wanted poster, a wanted poster in the halls of Congress by one of the members of Congress with pictures of judges who are who the representative believes should be impeached.

Those those who have had articles already filed against him, and those he wants articles filed against him that's going on in Congress.

There are reports from many credible media outlets of pizzas being sent to judges and their adult children anonymously or in the names of a sender.

That conjures past incidents of violence against judges.

The message is clear we know where you live, but we know where your adult children live.

These are clear attempts to intimidate judges.

And then finally, the fourth thing is there's the use of many of social media to demonize judges, demonize judges who have been approved by the Senate to serve for their lifetime.

It's shameful.

It is shameful what's going on?

It's shameful.

We must call it out for what it is.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote about this in a report on the federal judiciary at the end of 2024, before any of this began, he wrote.

Attempt to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.

Those are his words, not mine, is a direct call to every lawyer and every firm, and every bar association is part of an oath that every lawyer took to maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers is our job to help our communities understand the rule of courts, the separation of powers, the three co-equal branches of government.

And that's what the ABA is doing.

But the attacks aren't confined to the judiciary.

Lawyers and law firms are being attacked for the legal work they have done, or the clients they've represented.

The motive is not in doubt.

It's pretty clear it's stated in the executive orders or in social media.

Post.

Every lawyer in the country knows this conduct is wrong.

Every state Supreme Court, all 50 have said that a lawyer's representation of a client does not does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities.

The issue is not how law firms have responded.

The question is why the administration pursues a strategy that is contrary to the code of ethics.

In every one of our 50 states, these are attacks on everyone's right to the legal representation of their choice.

We must never, never, never accept such behavior as normal.

So how bar associations reacted like the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, like the ABA, like others?

Well, bar associations throughout the United States and the world, including the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, the Columbus Bar Association, the Cincinnati Bar Association, the Toledo Bar Association, they've all spoken in defense of the rule of law and condemned these actions.

The collective membership of these bars numbers in the millions.

I am proud that bar associations are not afraid to speak, and I am proud of the work they do to make lawyers better and to serve their communities.

It is a growing coalition of the willing, but the ABA bar associations, medical associations and law firms are also targets because of their support of diversity.

One of the ABA's core principles is to eliminate bias in our courts and profession and enhance diversity.

We are not retreating from that.

The bias is real and we have to confront our Supreme Court, which is a red state in Missouri, created a task force on racial justice and ethnic justice post-merger.

So those were difficult days in Saint Louis.

We just finished an 11 year study of our criminal courts and found bias in some places.

And so we studied where it comes from, and now we're dealing with how do we fix this?

Isn't that what we want in the world?

Don't we have to study these things to know, so that we can then address them and correct them?

I've yet to hear of any judge, anywhere of any stripe, who does not believe that our courts should treat everyone fairly and impartially.

So does the ABA, and we're going to have the courage to continue to say so and call for studies to remedy these situations.

We also hear the administration support or talk about should we do you want excellence or do you want diversity?

This is a false choice.

Excellence thrives on diversity and demands diversity.

We cannot let other people control the narrative.

We must be out there talking about it.

We must continue to stay on message and ensure that we're nonpartisan.

We do not stand opposed to any administration.

We stand instead for the bedrock principles that have undergirded our profession for 250 years.

There are risks to what we're doing because of we had the courage to speak up in support of these principles.

We've been attacked.

The executive branch has defunded ABA programs that made the legal system accessible to all and promoted the justice system.

These have been funded, in some cases over 50 years, by administrations of both parties.

But despite the attacks, the ABA is fighting back.

We're seeking relief in the courts for what we believe are wrongful actions by the executive branches.

We have three cases about our operations and are defending another one.

We recently prevailed in one case about the work in the domestic and sexual violence space.

Stay tuned.

Earlier this month and earlier this month, actually in June, we did something different.

We filed suit on behalf of all of our members against the U.S. government.

We're asking the court to declare unconstitutional the administration's ongoing unlawful policy of intimidation against lawyers and law firms, and doing join the administration from enforcing the policy.

You may wonder why the ABA has taken this action at this moment.

The answer is simple the legal profession is under attack in ways we've never seen before.

The integrity of our justice system cannot be preserved through silence.

You can read the allegations.

There's 90 pages.

I won't go over them.

Today.

The lawsuit challenges the government's law firm intimidation policy because the message from the government has been very clear take on the wrong client or sue the government, and a lawyer and a law firm may suffer the consequences.

That's what's happened.

And that's what they want you to believe is going to happen.

We are asking the courts to affirm something that's never been in doubt in our country, that the government cannot penalize lawyers for representing unpopular clients or causes.

It's not just a professional standard.

It's a constitutional safeguard.

This isn't a Partizan issue, and it isn't the ordinary friction between law and politics.

There's something more corrosive going on.

Lawyers are being targeted for doing their jobs.

We wish the lawsuit wasn't necessary, but every day we don't act is another day that erosion continues in our profession.

The ABA did not bring the lawsuit lightly, but we bring it with resolve.

The rule of law does not defend itself.

Lawyers do.

And when those lawyers are under threat, defending them becomes more than professional duty, becomes a defense of the promise that justice in America is available to everybody, not just the powerful, not just the politically favored.

There may never be a perfect time to do something difficult, but sometimes history draws a line.

A moment arrives, and what you do next is more important than what comes before.

This is that moment.

What has been the consequences of our actions?

Well, we've spoken a number of elected officials have responded by avoiding the substance of the issues.

You know, the playbook, denigrate the institution.

They like to do two things.

The first is name calling, and the second is they complain about something the ABA did or didn't do over the last 40 years.

Much of that narrative is false.

For example, we've spoken out 15 times in the last eight years about criticism of judges.

Frankly, if I spoke every time someone leveled unfair criticism and personal attacks on judges, I'd be up here many times a day.

In the last 12 months alone, elected and appointed officials of both parties have claimed a judicial coup last year.

Last fall, it was a Democrat and the ABA spoke.

This year it's a Republicans.

It does not matter who has said it.

Republicans, Democrats, independents.

It was and is wrong.

And we said so.

But let me be very clear on this point.

It would not matter if we'd never spoken.

There's never a wrong time to do what is right.

And and parents, those who are parents out there, know this all too well.

My my wife and I raise three kids.

There were many nights we agonized about the day.

You know, you didn't handle that situation right.

You should have spoken up.

You should have done this.

And but whatever we did one day didn't mean we forfeited the right to do the right thing and speak the next day.

Instead, like every parent, we decided that the next day presented a new opportunity to do what's right for our family.

For our professional family.

Today is that day is the next day.

We must stand for what is right.

No more threats against lawyers, no more threats against judges, no more threats against law firms, bar associations, no more disregard for the rule of law and due process.

I don't know.

I don't know what the future will hold.

There is likely more days, more difficult days, more threats and attacks.

But there is one thing you can count on.

The ABA will continue to stand and speak and act, not because we're against in the administration, but because we believe in standing up for the principles that have undergird our country for 250 years.

We must fight for what we believe in.

It is not a fight we want, but it is land on our doorstep and we will meet the challenge.

There's a reason the American Bar Association and state and local bar associations exist.

One of those reasons is to lead the profession in times like these, when we must fight for the rule of law, fight for our judicial system, fight for the values of fairness and diversity in our profession.

Now is the time for our profession to speak with one voice.

Crisis management is always important, but crisis leadership is what's paramount.

And that's what you're going to see from the ABA and from bar associations.

I believe there is power when we stand together.

We need everyone to rally to the cause.

We need to enlarge the coalition of the willing because the next day is is now for the profession.

But lastly, this is also the most important time for a profession that I can recall.

The rule of law is more important than our differences.

What your political party is, what your philosophy is, where you live, Saint Louis, Cleveland or wherever else are what you do.

We are asking everywhere people to stand with us, join us and support us with their voice, their time, their resources.

The fight to preserve something precious is too important to stay silent.

And we will not stay silent.

We need people.

We need everybody in this room to tell your neighbors.

People you see at the grocery store, at Costco or Sam's, the ball game where you go to school with you, where you go with your kids, schools where you worship.

Tell them why the rule of law matters.

Why do process matters?

Encourage them to contribute to organizations that are defending the rule of law.

We have resources that can assist you.

We acknowledge there are risks to standing up and addressing these important issues.

But if the ABA and the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association and so many others do not stand up and speak, who will speak for our profession, who will speak for our courts, who will seek to protect our system of justice?

And if we don't do it now, when will we do it?

This is our moment to do what is right, even in the face of difficult circumstances and risk.

I believe this can be our finest hour as a profession.

It is our opportunity to tell people why the rule of law matters, why our profession matters, what lawyers do, the role we play.

I think it's essential we stand together and stand with unwavering commitment for what we believe in and what has served our country for 250 years.

Thank you for the chance to speak with you.

I'm looking forward to questions.

I got through the step.

Good job.

Well, thank you.

Thank you very much, Bill, for those inspiring words.

I just want to maybe pick up follow up on a couple of things you mentioned.

Regarding the pizza deliveries, I think, I doubt if too many people in the audience are aware of this.

I personally have not received one, but I know fellow judges who have received anonymous pizzas delivered to their homes or to the homes of their children.

I've been a federal judge for 27 years.

I don't know every federal judge.

I know a lot of them.

There isn't a federal judge in the country who can be pressured, bullied, intimidated.

But we're human, and threats to ourselves and threats to our children are going to we're going to feel it.

You can't ignore it.

And these anonymous pizzas, some of them have been, posted from Daniel.

And that is a direct reference to Daniel Anderl, who was the 20 year old son of my colleague Esther Sallis in New Jersey.

And when some disgruntled lawyer went to kill her, her son Daniel entered open the door and was unfortunately killed.

And so these are express references and threats of bodily harm.

So, and there's a limit to what judges can do ourselves.

So what can what is the ABA doing and what do you think lawyers and ordinary citizens can do to counteract that?

Well, one of the things is because we need we need help.

Yeah, we need people to know the pattern.

I mean, we need people to know the facts about what's happening.

You know, we have it's a sacrifice to be a judge.

Here you go.

You go through a lot of screening in the Senate.

It's not fun, okay?

And and you become a judge and you sign on to make hard decisions.

We don't always have to agree with every decision a judge makes.

We don't always have to like the judge, for gosh sakes, but we have to treat them with respect.

No judge signed on for this.

No judge signed on for this.

And and there's a direct call from the Chief Justice, John Roberts.

We have to speak up and say this is wrong.

When we hear it.

We just have to say, stop, not smile and say, oh, old Joe's doing it again.

We say, no, it's wrong.

It's absolutely wrong.

This this is shameful.

It is shameful that our administration has not spoken up where you haven't seen the press conference, where they're saying they're doing them, the nationwide manhunt for these these people, we're seeing nothing about it.

We're seeing nothing about it.

Instead, we get comments from the chief of staff of the attorney general, the deputy chief of staff of the white House, about rogue district judges and how we're going to set them straight.

And and we need to get rid of them.

This can't be the country we live in.

And if lawyers don't speak up, the judges cannot speak up.

But if there's I, I just I'm always amazed when the lawyer says, well, Bill, I don't necessarily agree with her.

You said, really?

What part did you agree?

You think we should harm judges?

You think we should get rid of judges when they get made one bad decision?

This can't be the country we live in.

I mean, I can't I can't reach people who don't that say that, courts don't exist to do the will of the people.

Courts swear an oath to do to apply the law to facts.

And and this has to be our finest hours lawyers.

And it's communities.

These are people doing the best job they can.

Yes, they may not always get it right, but that's okay.

That's why you have appeals.

That's and and and I get that.

But we've entrusted them with the sacred trust both state and federal judges is to be to to decide disputes among people.

That's a tough job.

It's a tough job.

I, I can't imagine and I've talked to judges talk about how hard it is to sentence people and make these decisions on the situation you have.

And it's, and we have to support people to do their best.

It's it's okay.

It's okay to criticize, say, I don't like the case.

I don't like the decision.

That's okay.

What?

This is way beyond that.

It's not even close.

Thank you.

One of the points my fine wife, who's sitting in the front, has said is that the level of civic literacy in our country is deplorably low, and that may be one of the things that is contributing to this.

What can our profession and the ABA in particular, do to increase the levels of civic literacy?

Yeah, I mean, you've seen the numbers that they're all over the lot and they're always bad and they seem to be getting worse all the time.

We have to totally rethink what we're doing in civic literacy.

We've we've adopted a position that we count on what you learned in eighth grade.

And people say, well, Bill, it's so good.

You're saying great things.

It's what I learned in eighth grade.

So I'm not saying it's not important.

Is it important what we do there?

But we can't just as a professional society say that's you.

Eighth grade is the same now as it was when you and I.

It's not to say we had said if my wife were here, she'd say, that's exactly right.

You're missing the point.

But we have to do a better job from top to bottom.

The National Center for State Courts, which is all the the chief justice of 50 state courts, are talking about.

We have to rethink our entire approach so that what we did was wrong.

We just have to have the right solution and the right approach for these times.

We're going to have to get together with civic leaders, not just it's not just a lawyer thing.

It's not just the judges.

It's a civic and community thing.

What what can we do to to to to change this process?

Because the other thing that's going on is the coarseness of the language is unbelievable.

You know, I doubt we're going to put that genie back in the bottle and the coarseness from this administration from others is really bad.

It's been getting worse for years.

I'm not, you know, just blaming it all on one.

But because we're going to have to deal with that and our grandkids are going to have to deal with that.

We must now get together and take immediate action to change.

When there's got to be an adult education piece.

It can't all be about eighth grade.

And we're going to change what we're talking about.

Civics is like, you talk civics and people's eyes glaze over.

We have to frame it in different ways.

And you see you see what's happened because of what's here.

Okay?

There's no hue and cry.

You know, my friends say, well, Bill, I get why you're you're concerned you're president of the ABA or people say, well, you're a judge.

You know, of course you guys are concerned.

No, it's more than that.

The ends doesn't justify the means here.

And means are important.

Who we are as a people is defined by how we do things.

Yes, we have hard decisions to make in government.

I don't doubt that they've got hard decisions.

But how we do those and do them according to the rule of law and with some mercy and compassion and grace.

Yes.

And even with hard decisions.

Yes.

But we have to do all those things.

Thank you.

I've been thinking that down the road, each of us is going to be asked, what did we do in 2025?

And if our only answer is what we were just hanging out, that's not going to cut it.

I'm staying on task, staying on my job, not retiring.

We've heard what you're doing.

A lot of my friends have been coming up to me and saying, all right, fine, but what can I do personally, if I care about the rule of law, what can I do?

And there may be people here, people listening in who are asking themselves that question.

What suggestions do you have?

Well, I think it's I mean, number one, we got to be not I mean, join organizations and give dollars to those organizations standing for the rule of law.

There's lots of maybe is one, but there's many in your community, in other communities.

Number two is the most important thing, maybe being done by the guy in the back row, going to talking to somebody as a neighbor or somebody at Costco about why this matters.

Okay, that may be the most important thing.

Do the right thing in front of you.

You know, there are nights when I'm sitting at, you know, midnight.

You know, it's been a hard day and you're talking about you have a parade of horribles come through.

You know what?

How am I going to say what I want to say?

And am I going to do it in the right way and at the right time?

And you you worry about the effect on the American Bar Association effect on our employees.

Are there going to be more attacks or we have to lay people off?

You worry about worry on your firm, worry about your tax on your family, all those things.

And at some point, without being religious, in times, you have to tell God, okay, you take care of those things.

I got to do what's in front of me.

And, and that's why you wake up in the morning and say, hey, I'm going to do the right thing.

That day.

I'm going to do the right thing and small things.

It's great to be in spot where I'm at giving speeches, and everybody says it's great, but the small things really matter.

If enough people do, the small things, that changes the world.

Thank you.

I think I've got a few more, but I think, there are a lot of people, I'm sure, who have some good questions and, again, I'm Dan Polster, United States district judge for the Northern District of Ohio and the moderator for today's conversation.

I'm joined by American Bar Association President William or Bill Bailey, and we've been discussing the rule of law, the importance of judicial independence, the threats to lawyers and judges, and what each of us can do to counter that.

So we welcome questions from everyone city club members, guests, as well as those joining via our live stream at City club.org.

A reminder to keep your questions short and to the point.

I know all of us could make speeches, but that's not what we're here.

We had our speech speaker and actually ask a question so we can get to as many questions as possible.

If you would like to ask a question, please text it to 33054157943305415794, and city club staff will try to work it into the program.

And of course we've got micropho Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

Thank you for being here.

And of course, Judge Polster is a an active member of our community, and we're very fortunate for that one thing I think that may not be clear to the non-lawyers who are present and who may be listening on the radio, is why exactly judges cannot speak out against the violence that has been directed towards them.

Unless you go for that, you know that too.

All too well, better than I do.

Well, that's a profound question.

We speak through our opinions, and we're really not supposed to be going out and making speeches, writing letters to the editor.

Although I did write a short piece, Chris Schmidt, solicited me there.

There was, the recent ABA, a CMA Journal on rule of law, judicial independence.

So I did write something, and I talked about that.

So, but.

The problem is we start making speeches.

Someone's going to say, and that case comes up.

Well, so-and-so's biased or you've prejudged this case because of what you wrote in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, or we heard you on the radio or TV and, that's a huge problem.

So while many of us have been speaking or writing in general about threats to others, we all have to.

We have to be very careful.

We can't be in any way partizan or political or perceived that way.

So that's the problem.

And we really need others, what I call champions of justice.

To do that for us.

I judges can write about the rule of law and talk about the rule of law, which which we do.

I mean, obviously they can't talk about their opinions because that's why they wrote an opinion and their own opinion.

You can read what they think.

It's right there.

And then on these other the attacks, it's just we the it's when there are unfair criticisms, it's okay to be critical of the decision.

Okay.

It's perfectly fine but unfair criticism.

But judges the kinds of things that are going on.

Somebody has to speak under our code of judicial responsibility and our code of professional.

And so that falls to lawyers.

And if there's any doubt, again, go back and read Judge Roberts, Justice Roberts's report.

It's I mean, if you're in doubt about what to do and whether you're on the fence about to do that, provide you all the cover you need, he says.

It's our responsibility that you need cover, but if you want it, it's right there, he says.

This is our responsibility.

I mean, that should galvanize our profession, galvanize lawyers, galvanize our community.

And of course, it's just enormous saying, why?

Why should people be threatened with save if for just doing their job?

Why should people be threatened if they if they've given an opinion or something?

But that's the world we live in and we've got to deal with it and and be outspoken.

Thank you.

Sir, I have a two part question about the ethics of attorneys who maybe have not been so forthright in protecting the rule of law.

On one hand, we have major law firms who have entered into settlement agreements with the Trump administration that basically kowtow to what the Trump administration wanted.

It seems to me that they have put themselves in a permanent conflict of interest, that they could not represent a client that may want to sue the Trump administration for any reason, because that may affect their settlement.

The second question I have is for those government lawyers who either themselves are quite happy to just follow orders and repeat lies to courts, or who are supervising lawyers and are disciplining lawyers who go into court and refuse to lie to courts.

What should our profession be doing for those attorneys who have created these conflicts of interest?

These biases have violated our rules of professional responsibility.

Well, thanks for the easy question.

It's, I'm not I'm not a I'm not the uninvited.

Yes.

Exactly.

Right.

Yeah.

Nice.

I was hoping for, you know, one of my favorite movie of the year.

But, yeah, ethics is.

I mean, I'm not in tuned in with every ethics piece, and everyone turns on facts, but let's talk about the law firms.

I don't I understand I understand why law firms say they have done certain things.

Why for have filed suit and won those cases so far at district court level, and why others have settled.

I my view is that's I mean, I talked to some media outlets.

That's not the that's not the story.

The story ought to be.

Why why is administration doing this?

I don't know the facts of why everyone rationalize.

I'd like to think that if I were sitting at firm, we'd come out differently.

But don't don't underestimate that.

Every firm is a monolithic opinion, okay?

There's lots of different opinions within law firms.

I think the key from a profession is we need to focus on why is this happening and what are we going to do about it.

There's and when I use the phrase a coalition of the willing because that's what's really critical, I'm not going to browbeat anybody.

I'm not going to be critical of who doesn't want to come here.

But I have to stand up for what's right and then say, this is and and we have to stand for what's right and, and have those who are willing.

Now, the thing with the Justice Department, a whole different issue.

It's a little bit like it reminds me of an Indiana Jones film.

You know, the heroes are always in peril in minute 48, but it's a two hour movie.

Okay?

There's a lot more to be played out.

The stories we're reading about Justice Department, I am, I am, yeah, appalled by many of those things that I read about.

Okay, I don't know what the facts are, but I read the news accounts and think this is not the way.

This is not our way.

Our Justice Department has acted in the past.

And, and that's but that's the world we have to live in.

But there's a lot more story yet to be told on those facts.

I know that's not satisfactory at this point.

The bar association, I know a lot of people think the bar association's license lawyers, they don't, other state bar, not state bar groups.

State groups do that.

And so people write sometimes to say ABA, we shouldn't we should take the license of so-and-so.

Number one.

We can't do it.

And number two, that's just not our function.

Our function is differently there.

But we are very keen on what the ethical rules are.

And so just because we don't see a satisfactory answer right now, the story is not over yet.

Okay, there's still more to come.

And you may have I could well, I was a very proud, attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice for 22 years before I became a judge.

And I joined the department of Justice right after Watergate.

And I remember some of my law school classmates say, Dan, what the heck?

Why would you want to go to the Department of Justice?

We just had two attorneys general in a row go to prison back to back.

It was Mitchell and Kleindienst.

And I said, well, that was then.

This is now.

In my opinion, if you are an attorney for the Department of Justice, you are not the president's lawyer or the attorney general's lawyer.

Your client is the country.

And you took an oath to uphold the law and the Constitution.

And yes, you have a boss and you should follow directives, but, you do not do anything that's illegal or unethical, and that's your obligation.

And if you are given an order or a directive that you think is illegal or unethical, you resist if you can.

And at the end of the day, if you have to resign, you resign.

There are a lot of very fine men and women who have resigned in the last few months and read about them in the paper.

But that's each, each, each government employee has to decide for him or herself, where the line is.

But there were absolutely as a line, in my opinion.

And we have to have we had resources to try to help and try to help people like this.

Keep in mind that, I mean, even even in private practice, even when you're in front of a judge, I can't just come in and say, you know, hey, the law favors me when I know there's ten cases that don't.

Right?

Okay.

I've got an ethical obligation to be honest with the court.

And if the facts I can't say all the facts are this way and lie to the court, you can't do that.

And I think that's, you know, I think the public doesn't always understand that.

No, it's not sometimes pleasant to come in and say, judge, you know, I got a lot of these cases.

I think these eight don't really apply for this reason, but I think these are these three.

But you have to be honest, because at at night you have to go home and, and do what's right yourself.

And that's why you're seeing some resignations in the Justice Department.

You're seeing these other actions.

They're hard.

Hard cases, hard decisions to be made.

That's why part of the when we can talk about all the wonderful goals we have, the human drama here is, is significant.

People are really being hurt by what's happening.

I mean, I hear the stories from my from my family about people they know that have been affected by these actions.

You know, we as a country, we have to step back.

Sure, change is inevitable.

Changes need to be made.

Of course, I get all that.

But to think about the human toll, we need to be focused on that and make sure that we do things in the right way.

With.

Again, I know it's old fashioned mercy and some compassion and some grace.

Okay.

And all too often that's really lacking right now, it's just totally lacking.

That's not going to solve the whole problem.

But it's important to always remember.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

First, I'd like to thank the ABA for last year passing resolution 601 in support of the Equal Rights Amendment.

So my question to you is what is the ABA doing or willing to do to continue pushing for the implementation of the Equal Rights Amendment, since it can be used in so many cases, like do I and that sort of thing?

Yeah.

We're I mean, we have lots of policies we're pushing.

I mean, that we passed.

And so interesting that the president only speaks when there's policy.

So it's it's some sense it's it's not like me speaking I when the, when we have a group of 550 people that get together, they're representatives from the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar, the Ohio State Bar and state local boards throughout the country.

And when the number gets to 276, that becomes the policy.

The AP and the president can speak.

So we have a lot of different issues.

Areas one abortion, lots of things, any that are fairly controversial.

This year we're speaking really it's about four things with about the rule of law by taxing judges, attacks on the profession and diversity.

Those are the things that are key.

I mean, what we're doing in those other areas, we're not doing so much from a presidential perspective because I think the our demands we do these things and our board believes this is these things are doing that we speak also on those things through social media and other channels.

So it doesn't always make everybody happy that we're not focused primarily on these other issues.

But right now, it seems like the moment demands we stay focused on the four.

Because we spent a lot of time looking back when this happened.

What do we stand for?

What's the most important thing we need to talk about?

It doesn't mean we're retreating from the others.

It means for the moment, this is the most important thing.

Thank you.

Yes, Colleen.

Good afternoon.

I'm calling Carter, executive director of the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland and proud member of the ABA Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Injured and Defense.

I'd love you.

Thank you for your leadership.

And one of the areas of leadership long standing of the ABA is with regard to funding for legal aid.

And as you know, the president has proposed zeroing out funding for the Legal Services Corporation.

Can you talk about the connection between that and rule of law and the ABA's work in that area?

Yeah, I mean, he's proposed I close out funding of 21 million.

And so it's I mean, I forgot what the numbers should be.

It's 400, 600 billion, which is still woefully short of what legal services asked for, which is 2.1 billion.

It remains to be seen how it will work out in the budget.

The fight isn't over yet.

I mean, the bills passed, but that is not a budget bill.

That's just a guideline for this.

And so we're going to have to redouble our efforts for legal services.

I mean, if we don't have legal services, the rule of law is going to suffer.

I mean, this is a foundational part of of rule of law in America that we can't have justice just be afforded to those who are politically, favored and powerful.

We just can't.

Or the fact you have money means you you get protection.

You don't.

We?

I thought we were past that in the last 50 years.

Obviously we're not.

We'll yet see.

I'm not I'm not willing.

We're not giving up the fight on the Senate and the House, because that's where the budget's going to be.

We'll be talking with the Legal Services Corporation and come up with a strategy.

We need to be thoughtful.

We need to be strategic, and we need to do the did the best we can, because this is a part of our society that's most vulnerable.

If that goes away, is that if that safety net goes away, we are we are fundamentally changing not only our system of justice, but our access to courts.

And and we, you know, it's, it's not a country that that it's not a, it's not a thing I want to see in our country.

It's not what I want to have.

And so that's why we got to fight for these things.

I mean, it's it's a little bit I thought I'd never a year ago if you had told me a year ago we were going to be talking about this, I'd say you're out of your mind.

You know, I was, and I might have said, gee, I'm not sure we're all up to this, but I think we are up to this.

I think we are up to the challenge.

I think the crisis brings people together.

It brings out the best in people.

I've seen it in ABA among, you know, the things that divided us and we fought about and all kinds of inside baseball things, you know, those are by the side.

You know, we know what's at stake.

Our staff risen to the occasion.

I think people will rise to the occasion.

I mean, I choose hope as opposed to the, the the the vengeance and the the the terrible things being said.

I choose hope, but we have to work at it.

Okay.

And this is and Legal Services is a critical, critical component.

Yes.

Hello.

My name is Kayla.

I'm an intern at the KBA.

If civic leaders literacy is declining in public trust and the legal system is fading, how do we, as young individuals entering the legal field rebuild that trust?

And then how do we ensure the profession is even ready to listen?

Our ideas tell me the last part again.

How do we ensure the profession is ready to listen to our ideas?

Well, I think, it's interesting you talked about listening.

I think the most important thing I learned is that, I mean, 20 years ago and I went through leadership training in Saint Louis, and I had a leadership, you know, civic leaders, you know, it was you needed to have the answers.

You know, I don't have the answers anymore.

Leadership is not about having answers.

It's about listening.

And I think who you listen to is real critical.

Part of our problem in the world today is people just listen to the people that are in their neighborhood, or the presidents of whatever party listen to their supporters.

Instead of getting out and talking to people that are not like them.

I think it's so critical that we listen to younger lawyers.

I mean, people, a lot of times they talk about, well, younger lawyers, they're the future of the profession.

That's wrong.

They're not the future of the person.

They're the now with the profession.

I mean, the world is run by 30 and 50 year olds, for God's sakes.

I mean, what do we do going to be able to, at 65, really stop?

I mean, we have to listen to people and be willing to change our perspective based on listening to people and, and that's that's why this is so important to come out here.

I, I enjoy coming to places where I can listen and hear people.

It it you you provide me too.

I mean, it's a vehicle to think out loud and to think about.

And that's why I love living in Missouri.

I mean, it's, it's it's got many great things, but it's a red state.

There's plenty of people that, that like, what's being done.

But I want to listen to them.

I want to hear them.

I want to talk with them.

That makes that makes us better, makes me better to deal with the issues that are at hand.

Yes.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Audrey Roney, and I'm a senior at Saint Joseph Academy.

And my question is similar to the one that was just asked.

I was wondering what advice you would give to students who are interested in studying the rule of law or possibly going to law school, who may be discouraged by what they are seeing on like social media in our current government.

Well, it's it's there's plenty to discourage us.

I mean, you know, I'm not going to say but again, it's a choosing hope.

It's choosing what's there.

You you know, there are opportunities no crisis doesn't prevent doesn't present an opportunity to to be different and to do better.

You know, my generation done everything right.

The fact.

Better music probably, I think.

But, you know, it's just me.

But 60s was great music, Taylor Swift.

Very good, I get it.

But but I mean, but putting that aside, I but I think there's it's, Yeah, I think we can't, we can't be discouraged and just throw up our hands and say, oh my God, the world is falling apart.

It's terrible.

You don't I mean, I go back to adventure film.

You don't see the adventure.

Indiana Jones doesn't give up when when things are going south, he gets out there.

I mean, it's a little bit like.

And let me go another movie analogy.

Then I'll drop off.

It's a little bit like Apollo 13, which I think is like the greatest travel lawyer movie ever made, which I know people are going to say, you're out of your mind.

What do we bring this guy to the club?

But it's there's a scene where everything is going wrong, and they're talking about what they're going to do, and they say they don't have enough oxygen and we don't.

And we that's going to bounce off the atmosphere.

And we can't power up the batteries and the heat shields damage.

And they're just going on.

And the room is a blaze of noise.

And Ed Harris walks in.

Who's the commander?

And says, hey everybody, calm down.

Let's wake everybody up.

Let's work the problem.

That's what we have to do.

We have to work the problem.

We don't have to give up.

Don't be down.

Yeah, I'm down.

I'm discouraged.

But I think hope is a choice.

And doing the right thing the next day is a choice.

They work the problem.

That's what we have to work.

I don't know what all the answers are.

The person in the back may have the best answer.

Okay, the answers still are out here, So this is a text question.

Got any thoughts on politicization of the Supreme Court?

You like to share?

That one I'm not going to answer.

So nice.

Nice.

He's going to pull the judge.

Carter.

Okay.

Yeah.

I mean, I think we're in, you know, obviously the media focuses on the politicization of the judges.

I, I, you know, I listen, I think the judges there face the what they say.

They're trying to do the right thing.

They're trying to obey the law.

They're not pulling.

I think they are not beholden to whoever's appointed.

I think they're trying to do the right thing.

These are a lot of hard decisions, a lot of hard decisions.

And I think they're trying to do the right thing.

Do I agree with everything they've said?

No.

Do I agree with every decision they made?

No.

But I do think they're trying their best to do it, and.

And you're not going to hear me call for impeaching the Supreme Court judges, even if every decision goes against what I think should be done.

And I think we've got to continue to, to, to, to support our judges.

I think it's part of it's not just the district judges, Court of appeals and Supreme Court judges.

Yeah.

Reserving the right to say it's I don't agree with the decision.

I think it's wrong.

I mean, I've read a bunch of decisions, probably more than I wanted to, you know, and, and, but and sometimes we've got to put aside I think the notion that we read in the media clips of what the cases say, and, you know, and sometimes it's better to go back and read the whole case, read the whole case, read the footnotes, read the dissents.

It's you get a different flavor than what the media portrays.

They're trying to do it in a paragraph.

I think that would help us, to be less politicized.

And what's their, having said that, I mean, I don't know how we're, you know, the we continue to hear from the media whether you're a, it's a, you're a, a Clinton appointee or a Bush appointee or Obama or.

Yeah.

If I could just add one thing that would help is if the media would stop leading with the the first sentence is you're a Clinton appointee, you're a Bush appointee, you're an Obama appointee.

As if that president is telling me, Dan Polster, how to decide this case.

Hello.

Our next question is a text question.

It says, I know this audience is mostly lawyers, and much of the conversation has centered on protecting attorneys, judges and firms.

But stepping back, what are some other ways you see the rule of law being thrown, whether through a tax or due process, academic freedom or other institutions that uphold democratic norms, other institutions being attacked or.

Yes, yes, yeah.

I mean, I just came from talking to higher education lawyers.

I mean, they just finished the school year.

They're exhausted.

This has been an exhausting year.

The stories they talking about students being just disappearing overnight, being detained by authorities, they're they need our support.

They need our help.

Okay.

They they're, whether you agree or disagree about whether they're doing other things, they need the support and encouragement of all of us.

What's going on?

The rule of law matters.

We've done a lot of work with with unaccompanied minors at the border who seek asylum.

Asked by the State Department to do this, mind you, and and you go down there, you can't be unaffected by people that are in detention centers waiting simply to have a hearing in front of an immigration judge as to whether they have a legitimate asylum claim or not.

It's heartbreaking.

Okay.

That's on us.

That's on us.

We we have to do better.

And so you talk about the rule of law.

It's just doesn't affect us lawyers.

It affects real people that we know in our communities.

I mean, when they when they got rid of USAID, I talked to of a person who is, you know, a young mom who was working in Nashville, three kids, and she goes to Morocco once a once a year.

Otherwise she's working at she working at home on youth programs.

Just gone in the moment.

Okay.

Gone in a moment or or the new person coming to the judge, Department of Justice under the honors program and just gone after a year.

Just let go.

Just let go now.

Because that's what I just I started there.

Yeah.

And and their life's dream and gone.

We need to count.

It's not just all about lawyers.

It's about our neighbors and our friends and and and until we tell that story and and convince people that.

So we're not going to see change.

We're not going to see change in what's happening.

There's going to be tougher days ahead.

But I, there's a reason why we're here talking and trying to be encouraging.

Don't leave without being encouraged.

Don't leave without saying, hey, I got to do something more.

The smallest thing you do, it can be more important than what either of us do.

Okay?

And that's honest to goodness.

True.

Don't don't, Don't despair.

Those things.

Thank you very much, judge Polster and Bill Bay, for joining us today at the City Club.

Forums like this one are made possible through the generous support of individuals like you.

You can learn more about how to become a guardian of free speech at the City Club.

Dot org.

The Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association is a longtime proud partner of the City Club, and we'd like to thank Dan, Cynthia and the rest of the city Club team for their partnership and hosting today's event.

The City Club would like to welcome guests at tables hosted by the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, Cleveland State University College of Law, the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, and Friends of Tom's.

It's this Friday, July 11th.

The City Clubs welcomes Tim Heaphy, the lead investigator, in both January 6th and Charlottesville.

He will discuss his book, harbingers and the forces that seek to divide our nation and how we can protect democracy in the years ahead.

You can learn more about our upcoming forums at City club.org.

That brings us to the end of today's forum.

Thank you again to ABA president Bill Bay, Judge Dan Polster, and members and friends of the City Club.

I'm Chris Schmidt from the NBA.

This forum is now adjourned.

information on upcoming speakers or for podcasts of the City Club, go to City club.org.

The ideas expressed in City Club forums are those of the speakers.

And not of the City Club of Cleveland.

Idea stream Public Media or their sponsors.

Production and distribution of City Club forums and Idea stream.

Public media are made possible by PNC and the United Black Fond of Greater Cleveland incorporated.