Serving the Membership

The A.B.A. stays on its traditional course

Like many another professional organization, the American Bar Association has a popular image of being more concerned about serving its membership than the public interest. At its 105th annual meeting last week in Atlanta, the A.B.A. did little to dispel that perception. Its principal act was to adopt a new code of ethics that, among other things, generally bars attorneys from disclosing prospective criminal conduct by their clients unless it is "likely to result in imminent death or substantial bodily harm."

The new code, which will serve as a model for states, has been in the works since the A.B.A. created a commission in 1977 to draft revised standards. The effort soon struck a reef of controversy over the confidentiality issue. The commission had recommended that attorneys be permitted to disclose certain contemplated illegal actions of clients, such as offering fraudulent stock or planning a bribe. The proposal was voted down at the association's midyear meeting last February. Reformers within the tradition-bound A.B.A. had to take half-a-loaf satisfaction from a compromise last week that would allow attorneys to withdraw if their clients are using them in unlawful schemes; they may also announce their resignation from the case. Said Yale Law Professor Geoffrey Hazard, who helped draft the code: "For practical purposes, that's a signal that something is seriously wrong."

In another self-protecting action, the A.B.A. decided to fight legislation that would give the Federal Trade Commission more power to regulate lawyers, a responsibility now held by state courts and state bar associations. "In that agency in Washington stands a hot, sweaty, dirty, two-ton gorilla with a bad case of halitosis," trumpeted Texas Delegate Frank Jones Jr. "They're asking you to dance with it. I'm saying, don't do it." His colleagues took his message, if not his metaphor. They opposed more FTC oversight by an overwhelming voice vote.

Stirrings of change, however, were perceptible in A.B.A. votes on two social questions:

> Should the A.B.A. endorse an extension of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that the law would cover membership in private clubs that derive "a substantial portion of income from business sources"? Supporters of the proposal noted that much legal business is transacted in clubs that routinely exclude women or members of minority groups. A nay vote, argued Dennis Archer of Detroit, "would be an A.B.A.-sanctioned blackball against some of your colleagues." The delegates backed the proposal, 183 to 152, although there was no official recommendation that lawyers as individuals should resign membership in discriminatory clubs.

> Should the A.B.A. support federal, state and local legislation to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals in employment, housing and public accommodations? Lobbying for the gay rights resolution was Robert Bauman, the ultra-conservative Maryland Congressman who lost his seat in the 1980 election after he was arrested for propositioning a 16-year-old youth. Bauman, who publicly admitted his homosexuality for the first time last week, did not renew his membership in the A.B.A. several years ago because "it was getting too liberal for me." The organization was not yet liberal enough to back gay rights. The delegates defeated the proposal by a surprisingly close tally of 158 to 134.

The A.B.A.'s conservative course is unlikely to shift in the near future. In any case, new President Wallace Riley of Detroit would like to de-emphasize issues, at least for the year he holds office. His top priority is increasing the group's membership, which at 300,000 includes only half the attorneys in the U.S. This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.