New book details Nazi purge of Jewish lawyers in Berlin
A new book released by ABA Publishing captures how Nazi Germany systematically undermined fair and just law through humiliation, degradation and legislation, which led to the expulsion of Jewish lawyers and jurists from the legal profession from 1933-38.
"Lawyers Without Rights: The Fate of Jewish Lawyers in Berlin after 1933" chronicles what can happen when the just rule of law is replaced by an arbitrary rule by law that sweeps aside the rights and dignity of selected populations.
First published in German two decades ago and updated in 2007, the book includes three significant additions - forewords from U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer; Benjamin B. Ferencz, at 99 years old the sole surviving prosecutor from the Nuremberg trials; and Ronald D. Abramson, a Jewish lawyer and philanthropist whose family foundation, the Anne and Ronald Abramson Family Foundation, provided underwriting for the book.
The English translation is an expansion of a joint project between the ABA and the Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer (German Federal Bar). Since 2012, the two bar associations have sponsored the exhibit, Lawyers Without Rights: Jewish Lawyers in Germany under the Third Reich, a project of the ABA Center for Human Rights. The book covers the series of German occupational bans and the fate of more than 1,600 lawyers in Berlin who could no longer practice law after 1938 because of their Jewish ancestry. It was released to coincide with the 80th anniversary of Kristallnacht, when Nazis torched synagogues, vandalized Jewish homes, schools and businesses and killed close to 100 Jews on Nov. 9 and 10, 1938.
"The story of these lawyers in Berlin and all of Germany is more than a historical footnote; it is a wake-up call that a system of justice free of improper political considerations remains fragile and should never be taken for granted," ABA President Bob Carlson said. "When lawyers, the judicial system and the just rule of law are undermined, when the abuses go unchecked and are permitted to flourish, only great tragedy can follow."
ABA issues new guidance on lawyer obligations after a cyber breach or attack
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility released today Formal Opinion 483 that reaffirms the duty that lawyers have to notify clients of a data breach and details reasonable steps for them to take to meet obligations set forth by ABA model rules.
The opinion underscores the importance for lawyers to both plan beforehand for an electronic breach or cyberattack and to understand how model rules come into play when an incident is either detected or suspected. Specifically, these ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct might apply to such an incident:
• Model Rule 1.1 (competence), which requires lawyers to develop sufficient competence in technology to meet their obligations under the rules after a breach.
• Model Rule 1.15 (safekeeping property), which requires lawyers to protect trust accounts, documents and property the lawyer is holding for clients or third parties.
• Model Rule 1.4 (communication), which requires lawyers to take reasonable steps to communicate with clients after an incident.
• Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality), which covers issues dealing with confidentiality of the client-lawyer relationship.
• Model Rule 5.1 (lawyer oversight), which addresses the added responsibilities of a managing partner or supervisory lawyer.
• Model Rule 5.3 (nonlawyer oversight), which addresses the responsibilities of those in supervisory capacities who are nonlawyers.
“When a breach of protected client information is either suspected or detected, Rule 1.1 requires that the lawyer act reasonably and promptly to stop the breach and mitigate damage resulting from the breach,” Formal Opinion 483 says.
It continues, “How a lawyer does so in any particular circumstance is beyond the scope of this opinion. As a matter of preparation and best practices, however, lawyers should consider proactively developing an incident response plan with specific plans and procedures for responding to a data breach. The decision whether to adopt a plan, the content of any plan and actions taken to train and prepare for implementation of the plan should be made before a lawyer is swept up in an actual breach.”
