- 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
- Lawsuits between prediction markets and states now spans nearly half of U.S.
- Supreme Court reform gathers momentum
- Narrow Mail-in Voting Ruling by Supreme Court Doesn’t Address Constitutionality of Trump’s Executive Order
- ABA joins NASS and to mobilize lawyers as poll workers for midterm elections
- Daily Briefs
headlines National
- Legal writers can benefit from a Zen writing approach and some Hemingway—and so can their readers
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Why the next competitive advantage in the AI era is partnership, not just technology
- Things I wish my spouse had told me before they died
- Troutman Pepper Locke associate files discrimination lawsuit against firm
- Jay-Z’s extortion suit against lawyer in withdrawn rape case faces skepticism from judge




