American Bar Association

Basic facts
Location:| Chicago, Illinois
Type:| 501(c)(6)
Top official:| Jack L. Rives, Executive Director
Year founded:| 1878
Website:| Official website

The American Bar Association (ABA) is a nationwide voluntary professional association of attorneys. Its headquarters are in Chicago, Illinois, and it maintains an office in Washington, D.C.[1] The ABA is a 501(c)(6) tax-exempt business league.[2]

The ABA provides resources for legal professionals, accredits law schools, establishes a code of ethics, and publishes both scholarly and professional materials.[1] The ABA also advocates for legislation and policy. According to the ABA website, the association's advocacy priorities include access to legal services, immigration reform, independence of the judiciary, international rule of law, national security, and civil liberties.[3]

## Contents

* 1 Mission
* 2 Background
* 3 Work
* 3.1 Member services
* 3.2 Publications
* 3.3 Professional Standards
* 3.3.1 Ethical standards for lawyers and judges
* 3.3.2 Accreditation of law schools
* 3.3.2.1 Accreditation process
* 3.4 The ABA and the federal government
* 3.4.1 Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary
* 3.4.2 Amicus brief activity
* 3.5 Governmental Advocacy and Lobbying
* 3.5.1 Judicial selection advocacy
* 3.5.2 Government sector lobbying
* 4 Opposition
* 4.1 Criticism of the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rating system
* 4.2 Criticism of Rule 8.4
* 5 Finances
* 6 Affiliated organizations
* 7 Governing bodies and leaders
* 8 Recent news
* 9 See also
* 10 External links
* 11 Footnotes

## Mission[edit]

According to its website, the mission of the American Bar Association is "to serve equally our members, our profession and the public by defending liberty and delivering justice as the national representative of the legal profession."[4]

## Background[edit]

The American Bar Association was founded on August 21, 1878, by a group of 75 lawyers. The ABA is a voluntary bar association of lawyers and law students which is not specific to any jurisdiction in the United States.[5]

According to the ABA website, the association has ties to several events within American history. The following are examples of the ABA's ties to history.[6]

* In 1913 William Howard Taft served as the president of the American Bar Association between his time as President of the United States and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

* In 1915 Elihu Root became president of the ABA. Root had previously served as Secretary of War, Secretary of State, and a U.S. senator. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for his diplomatic work after World War I.

* In 1960 the ABA published a study recommending the drafting and eventual passage of the 25th amendment to the United States Constitution, which established a line of succession for the presidency.

## Work[edit]

### Member services[edit]

As of October 2016, the American Bar Association had 400,000 members.[1] Membership is open to U.S. licensed lawyers, non U.S. licensed lawyers, law students, university students, paralegals, law librarians, economists, and others.[7] Services available to members include job services, such as a program to partner young lawyers with those who do not traditionally have access to legal representation, continuing education, and events like annual meetings, forums, and conferences.[8]

### Publications[edit]

The American Bar Association annually publishes approximately 100 law-related books and approximately 60 periodicals. Most of the periodicals are tailored towards specific parts of the law, such as human rights, law practice, and criminal justice. Periodicals include journals, magazines, and newsletters. Full lists of periodicals can be found here.[9]

### Professional Standards[edit]

#### Ethical standards for lawyers and judges[edit]

In 1983, the ABA adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct; these rules have been adopted by the District of Columbia and all states except California. The current rules evolved from the Model Code of Professional Responsibility, adopted in 1969, and the earlier 1908 Canons of Professional Ethics.[10] The ABA also has a code of conduct for the judiciary; a list of its cannons can be found here.

#### Accreditation of law schools[edit]

The accrediting body of the American Bar Association is the Council and the Accreditation Committee of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. The council is recognized by the United States Department of Education as the official accrediting body and is considered to be a separate organization from the ABA.

The council is composed of 21 ABA members, of which no more than 10 can be deans or faculty of law schools. The rest of the council is composed of judges, practicing attorneys, one law student, and no less than three public members.[11]

##### Accreditation process[edit]

All law schools seeking accreditation must be in operation for at least one year prior to submitting their application. Schools wishing to apply are encouraged to reach out to the American Bar Association to receive information on the Standards for Approval of Law Schools, the Rules of Procedure and the accreditation process. Once the school has applied, the first step is a site evaluation that begins with a questionnaire that sets a base understanding for a site evaluation team. After the evaluation team visits the school, they construct a fact-finding report that is presented to the Accreditation Committee. The Accreditation Committee will then assess the information gathered and report it to the full council, which isn't bound by the Accreditation Committee's findings and recommendations. The council decide if provisional accreditation will be granted.

The transition from provisional to full accreditation usually takes places between three and five years after the initial provisional accreditation. During this time, there will be more on-site visits which will be taken into account when deciding whether or not to award full accreditation. Fully accredited schools must complete annual questionnaires. Three years after accreditation the school is reviewed. Following that, the school is reviewed every seven years. If during these evaluations a school is found to be non-compliant with the standards they will be required to fix the dependency by a certain date or face further action. For a more in-depth look at the accreditation process, see the American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar: The Law Accreditation Process.[12][13]

### The ABA and the federal government[edit]

#### Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary[edit]

On the Ballot Episode 197: The ABA’s historical role in vetting federal judges

The committee is made up of 15 members: two from the Ninth Circuit, one from each of the other federal circuits, and the chair of the Committee. The members are appointed by the president of the ABA to staggered three-year terms. Members of the committee can serve no more than two terms. They are selected to represent a wide variety of backgrounds.[14]

The ABA has rules in place to help protect the impartiality and independence of the committee. No member may be a part of the government structure of the ABA, they are not allowed to seek or accept a federal nomination, and they must disclose if that they were a member of the committee if they ever appear before a judge they evaluated.[14]

Members of the Committee on the Federal Judiciary can rate a nominee one of three ways: Not Qualified, Qualified or Well Qualified. The evaluation process is performed by a committee member from the same circuit from which the candidate is nominated. The evaluator then prepares a report from a Personal Data Questionnaire (collected by the United States Department of Justice), extensive readings of the candidate's legal writings, confidential interviews of those the candidate has worked with and a personal interview. The report is presented to the Chair of the Committee who verifies if it is complete. If the White House wishes for the Committee to offer a rating on the candidate all of the evaluation materials will be packaged and presented to the Committee for a vote and rating. After each member goes over the materials they issue their vote on the nominee. Each member votes, with the tiebreaker vote going to the Chair of the Committee. The three ratings can also be accompanied by a Majority (eight to nine votes), Substantial Majority (ten to thirteen votes) or Unanimous designation. The rating from the majority of the panel is presented as the committee's official rating. A description of the three possible ratings can be found on page six of the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary: What it is and How it works.[14]

Most presidents have consulted with the American Bar Association on judicial nominee prospects since 1953. Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump are the only presidents who are known to bypass consultation with the ABA prior to submitting judicial nominees to the Senate.[14][15]

In 2021, ABA president Patricia Lee Refo said that the Biden administration informed the group that it would not consult with them on federal judicial nominees prior to submitting nominations to the U.S. Senate.[16][17]

#### Amicus brief activity[edit]

The ABA standing committee reviews all amicus curiae briefs filed on behalf of the ABA.[18]

The following are the U.S. Supreme Court cases for which ABA has filed amicus briefs from 2010 to 2016, according to the ABA website.[19]

Amicus briefs filed by ABA in the U.S. Supreme Court, 2010-2016

2010

* Textron, Inc. and subsidiaries v. United States
* Christian League Society Chapter of University of California, Hastings College of the Law v. Leo P. Martinez, et al.
* Carlos Rashad Gould v. United States
* Kevin Abbott v. United States
* Peter H. Beer, U.W. Clemon, Terry J. Halter, Jr., Thomas F. Hogan, Richard A. Paez, Laurence H. Silberman, and A. Wallace Tashima v. United States
* Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A.
* Gov. A. Schwarzenegger et al. v. M. Plata and R. Coleman, et al.
* J.D.B. v. State of North Carolina
* Troy Barbour v. State of Louisiana

2011

* Michael E. Turner v. Rebecca L. Rogers, et al.
* White & Case LLP v. United States
* Albert W. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of The County of Burlington et al.
* Blaine Lafler v. Anthony Cooper and State of Missouri v. Galin Edward Frye
* Laurence Golan et al. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States et al.
* Luis Mariano Martinez v. Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections
* Juan Smith v. Burl Cain, Warden
* Steve A. Filarsky v. Nicholas B. Delia

2012

* Evan Miller v. State of Alabama and Kentrell Jackson v. Ray Hobbs
* State of Arizona et al. v. United States
* Esther Kiobel on behlaf of her late husband Dr. Barnhiem Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
* Ryan v. Gonzales and Tibbals v. Carter
* Supap Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
* John Ferguson v. Kenneth S. Tucker

2013

* Shelby County, Alabama v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
* United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor, In Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.
* Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. Myriad Genetics, et al.
* Kerri L. Kaley and Brian P. Kaley v. United States
* John Ferguson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
* Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Peter H. Arkinson, Trustee
* Freddie Lee Hall v. Florida

2014

* Paul A. Howell v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
* Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
* Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
* Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al.
* Wellness International Network Ltd., et al. v. Richard Sharif
* Lanell Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar

2015

* April DeBoer et al. v. Rychard Snyder
* Luis v. United States
* Montgomery v. State of Louisiana
* Loden v. Fisher
* Abigail Noel Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, et al.
* Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

2016

* Gray v. Zook
* Moore v. Texas

### Governmental Advocacy and Lobbying[edit]

The Governmental Advocacy Office (GAO) of the American Bar Association is responsible for promoting the interest of the bar before various government entities. The GAO acted only at the federal level until 1986 when it expanded its efforts to include state legislatures.[20]

According to the ABA website, it's advocacy priorities are:[21]

* Access to legal services
* Criminal justice system improvements and protection of rights
* Eliminating discrimination and protecting civil liberties
* Healthcare law and tort reform
* Immigration
* Independence of the judiciary
* Independence of the legal profession
* Promoting the international rule of law

In 2016, the ABA spent $535,000 in lobbying.[22] The ABA has lobbied for or against 80 bills before the 114th congress, as of October 15, 2016.[23] These bills covered issues related to finance, guns, foreign relations, health, immigration, law enforcement and crime, budget and appropriations, civil liberties, copyright, patent and trademark, defense, education, Medicare and Medicaid, taxes, trade, veterans affairs, family, labor, antitrust, and the workplace.

#### Judicial selection advocacy[edit]

The American Bar Association is an advocate for merit based judicial selection. The ABA's Judicial Selection: The Process of Choosing Judges expresses that the key to an independent judiciary is to remove partisan influence on judges. They also believe that elections inherently create ethical dilemmas for judges if they ever have to hear a case that election donors are involved in.[24]

#### Government sector lobbying[edit]

Main article: National government sector lobbying

The American Bar Association submits federal lobbying reports. Local governments, like Peoria County, Illinois, pay membership dues to the association.[22][25]

## Opposition[edit]

### Criticism of the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rating system[edit]

The American Bar Association's rating system has been called into question, with critics alleging that it is biased against minorities and women. In a study by University of Rochester professor Maya Sen, she breaks down the ratings of the ABA into demographic groups and looks at judicial performance in relation to those ratings. She concludes that a lower rating by the ABA does not have a bearing on the quality of a judge's overall performance but does have a noticeable effect on the ability of a nominee to be confirmed to a federal judgeship.[26][27] The Federalist Society has written about the possible bias of the ABA, noting that nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States by Republican presidents have drawn more criticism than those made by Democratic presidents.[28]

Critics of the ABA's rating system often point to two judges, Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook, who received lower ratings than similar counterparts. These two judges, nominated by President Ronald Reagan, received Majority Qualified, Minority Not Qualified by the ABA, yet Posner and Easterbrook are two well cited federal judges.[29][30]

### Criticism of Rule 8.4[edit]

In October 2016, Ronald D. Rotunda of the Heritage Foundation voiced objections to the ABA Rules of Professional Conduct rule 8.4(g), believing that the ABA could not maintain a its claimed commitment to diversity while rule 8.4 punished what Rotunda called "diversity of thought."[31]

The rule states that it is “professional misconduct” to engage in discrimination based on “race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.”[32] According to the explanatory comments that are attached to the rule, discrimination can take the form of "harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others." Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct may result in disciplinary action. [33]

Rotunda argues that this rule inhibits free speech, saying, "The ABA rule bans...speech that is divorced from any action. The new list includes gender identity, marital status, and socioeconomic status. It also includes social activities at which no coworkers are present. Even a solo practitioner could face discipline because something that he said at a law-related function offended someone employed by another law firm.'"[31]

Along with his objection on the grounds of free speech, Rotunda also voices concern that when taken in combination with another ABA provision to increase participation of traditionally underrepresented groups like women and those who identify as LGBT in Continuing Legal Education panels, the ABA actually encourages and participates in "reverse discrimination." By "reverse discrimination," Rotunda means that while the ABA discriminates through what he sees as preferential treatment of individuals based solely on racial, gender or sexual identity, others face disciplinary actions for discriminating based upon the same criteria. He writes, "Rule 8.4(g) specifically approves of reverse discrimination: It is not about forbidding discrimination based on sex or marital status; it is about punishing those who say or do things that do not support the ABA’s particular views."[31]

## Finances[edit]

ABA revenues totaled $149,226,613 in fiscal year 2016, of which membership fees comprised the largest share ($71,231,854), followed by $27,303,658 from meeting fees, $14,562,543 from other programs, and $7,664,877 from contributions, gifts, or grants. The group's expenditures consisted of $81,369,782 on salaries, compensation, and benefits; $1,189,557 on grants to domestic organizations and state agencies; and $77,022,761 on miscellaneous expenses, including $1,217,538 on lobbying.[34]

The following is a breakdown of the American Bar Association's finances for fiscal years 2012-2014:[35][36][37]

Annual assets and expenses for the American Bar Association, 2012-2014

Fiscal Year  | Total Assets  | Total Revenue  | Total Expenses
2014 | $323,522,431 | $151,735,300 | $159,154,688
2013 | $356,575,456 | $166,581,100 | $142,867,706
2012 | $329,776,848 | $140,700,608 | $137,940,641

## Affiliated organizations[edit]

According to the ABA's fiscal year 2014 IRS Form 990, it is affiliated with the following organizations:

* ABA Fund for Justice and Education, 501(c)(3)
* American Bar Endowment, 501(c)(3)
* American Bar Foundation, 501(c)(3)
* National Judicial College, 501(c)(3)
* The World Justice Project, 501(c)(3)
* ABA Retirement Funds, C corporation
* American Bar Insurance

## Governing bodies and leaders[edit]

The governing structure of the American Bar Association is composed of a House of Delegates, a Board of Governors, a president, a president-elect, a chair of the House of Delegates, a secretary and a treasurer.

The House of Delegates is a group of 560 members who are the policy-making body of the ABA. A breakdown of the House of Delegates can be found here.

The following individuals are the elected officers of the 38-member Board of Governors as of October 2016.[38]

* Linda A. Klein, President
* Hilarie Bass, President-Elect
* Deborah Enix-Ross, House of Delegates
* Mary T. Torres, Secretary
* G. Nicholas Casey, Jr. Treasurer

The Board of Governors also includes 18 district representatives, 13 members-at-large, two young lawyers, a judicial representative, six section representatives, two women members-at-large, two minority members-at-large and one law student member-at-large. Every six years the Board of Governors consists of 40 members, as there are a secretary-elect and treasurer-elect in those years.[39]

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms American Bar Association. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

American Bar Association - Google News

## See also[edit]

* Supreme Court of the United States
* Judicial independence and accountability
* United States Constitution
* 501(c)(6)

## External links[edit]

* American Bar Association homepage
* American Bar Association Facebook
* American Bar Association Twitter

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 American Bar Association, "About the American Bar Association," accessed October 13, 2016
2. ↑ Guidestar, "American Bar Association, IRS Form 990, 2015," accessed October 13, 2016
3. ↑ American Bar Association, "Priorities and Policy," accessed October 13, 2016
4. ↑ American Bar Association, "ABA Mission and Goals," accessed October 13, 2016
5. ↑ American Bar Association, "ABA Mission and Goals," accessed March 5, 2014
6. ↑ American Bar Association, "ABA Timeline," accessed October 13, 2016
7. ↑ American Bar Association, "Membership FAQs," accessed October 14, 2016
8. ↑ American Bar Association, "Your ABA Membership Guide," accessed October 14, 2016
9. ↑ American Bar Association, "Publications," accessed March 21, 2014
10. ↑ American Bar Association, "Model Rules of Professional Conduct," accessed March 20, 2014
11. ↑ American Bar Association, "The Law School Accreditation Process," accessed March 7, 2014
12. ↑ NCBEX, "Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements," accessed March 5, 2014
13. ↑ The State Bar of California, "Rules Regarding Admission to Practice Law," accessed October 15, 2016
14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 American Bar Association, "Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary," accessed March 21, 2014
15. ↑ U.S. News & World Report, "Senate OKs Two Lawyers ABA Says Are ‘Not Qualified’," November 9, 2017
16. ↑ The New York Times, "Biden Won’t Restore Bar Association’s Role in Vetting Judges," February 5, 2021
17. ↑ The Washington Post, "Biden moves quickly to make his mark on federal courts after Trump’s record judicial nominations," February 3, 2021
18. ↑ American Bar Association, "Amicus Curiae Briefs," accessed September 28, 2016
19. ↑ American Bar Association, "Amicus Curiae Briefs, 1998-Present," accessed September 28, 2016,
20. ↑ American Bar Association, "Advocacy," accessed October 15, 2016
21. ↑ American Bar Association, "Governmental and Legislative Work," accessed October 15, 2016
22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Open Secrets, "American Bar Assn Summary," accessed October 15, 2016
23. ↑ Open Secrets, "American Bar Assn Bills," accessed October 15, 2016
24. ↑ American Bar Association, "Judicial Selection: The Process of Choosing Judges," accessed March 28, 2014
25. ↑ Sunshine Review, "Peoria County lobbying contracts and membership dues," accessed October 15, 2016
26. ↑ Washington Post, "Has the American Bar Association kept our judges white and male?" February 28, 2013
27. ↑ Harvard.edu, "How Judicial Qualiﬁcation Ratings May Disadvantage Minority and Female Candidates," accessed March 28, 2014
28. ↑ Federalist Society, "ABA Watch: The ABA's Role in Evaluating Supreme Court Nominees," August 2005
29. ↑ New York Times, "Pulling Rank," January 25, 2006
30. ↑ The Daily Beast, "How I Write: Richard Posner," November 7, 2013
31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 The Heritage Foundation, "The ABA Decision to Control What Lawyers Say: Supporting 'Diversity' But Not Diversity of Thought," accessed October 14, 2016
32. ↑ American Bar Association, "Rule 8.4," accessed October 14, 2016
33. ↑ American Bar Association, "Comment on Rule 8.4," accessed October 4, 2016
34. ↑ ABA, "Form 990 Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax," 2015
35. ↑ Guidestar, "American Bar Association, IRS Form 990, 2012, accessed October 14, 2016
36. ↑ Guidestar, "American Bar Association, IRS Form 990, 2013," accessed October 14, 2016
37. ↑ Guidestar, "American Bar Association, IRS Form 990, 2014," accessed October 14, 2016
38. ↑ American Bar Association, "Board of Governors," accessed October 13, 2016
39. ↑ American Bar Association, "Board of Governors General Information," accessed March 21, 2014

v • e

Influencers

Main|

What is an influencer? Contact the Ballotpedia team