- Posted August 15, 2014
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Letter to the Editor
To the Editor:
The State Bar's response to the Report of the Michigan Supreme Court Task Force on the Role of the State Bar of Michigan does a good job in responding to what fairly can be said is a disproportionate risk aversion approach to complying with the limitations imposed on the State Bar by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990). In its recommendations, the Task Force failed to consider Professor Robert Sedler's comments on the Report:
" . . . lawyers are directly engaged in the administration of justice, and they are in a unique position to make policy recommendations to improve the administration of justice. To the extent that the State Bar refrains from making policy recommendations and from advocating changes relating to the administration of justice, the public is being deprived of the unique perspective that lawyers are able to convey."
Running scared seldom advances the public interest.
Avern Cohn
Judge, U.S. District Court
Published: Fri, Aug 15, 2014
headlines Detroit
- Two Sixth Circuit judges share insights on effective dialogue across difference
- Nessel sues ‘prediction market’ company, alleges violation of gaming laws
- Trial courts granted $1 million to help individuals regain driving privileges
- Financial disclosures required at outset of divorce proceedings
- Daily Briefs
headlines National
- Online shoppers find deals on the Temu app, but states say the trade-off is personal data
- Florida Bar reverses itself, says it is not investigating Lindsey Halligan
- Attorney indicted for trying to kill her husband of more than 25 years
- American Bar Association cites members’ needs in law firm intimidation hearing
- OpenAI sued for practicing law without a license
- Lindsey Halligan being investigated by the Florida Bar




