“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”[i]

“Let me explain; no, there is too much. Let me sum up.”[ii]

I started writing this about six weeks after the ABA’s Midyear meeting, and I’ve gone back and forth about what to discuss, so I’m starting off with Shakespeare and William Goldman, am going to veer into Hasidic Judaism, take a detour through history, and crash through blockbuster cinema before taking the off-ramp with Michael Jackson and hopefully end up making sense. About the only thing I’m sure of at this point is that no one reading this (including myself) is desperately hoping for a travelogue about an early-February trip to Phoenix. The weather was fantastic, the food was good, self-driving cars kind of freak me out, and the House of Delegates meeting was mostly uneventful.

As has become the recent norm, there was not much debate on most Resolutions considered by the House of Delegates. There are some within the House of Delegates who have bemoaned this to me; however, in my view, the debates have primarily moved from the floor of the House of Delegates to emails and the conference center hallways before the meeting commences. I have come to really appreciate and look forward to those hallway discussions because of the opportunity they give to spend more than just a few minutes hearing one point of view at a time; instead, genuine give-and-take discussions are able to take place. Many different points of view are able to be considered, which allows for improvement and strengthening of weak Resolutions, and softening or adjustments to controversial Resolutions.

Of course, there was one notable exception this meeting—a Resolution put forward by the Young Lawyers Division that urged “all legal employers to adopt policies and practices that provide attorneys with at least one consecutive week of fully uninterrupted time off per year during which they are relieved of work-related communications and responsibilities.”[iii] This was the second consecutive meeting this Resolution has been brought forward;[iv] however, this time, it had been revised to eliminate specific language requiring 40 hours of billable time credit for employees who took that “unplug” time off.[v] The entire debate on this Resolution lasted nearly an hour, the majority of which we seemed to spend on our feet as the too-close votes were manually counted for both the Resolution itself and one of the two proposed amendments. The audible groan that echoed through the room when the second amendment was proposed was far-and-away the most entertaining part of the debate.

Now, by saying that, I want to be clear I am not commenting on the merits of this Resolution. I did vote to oppose its adoption[vi] as I feel vacation or leave policies should implicitly come with this type of understanding; in other words, if I’m using it, only contact me in case of a real emergency, and any time I spend on that emergency should be credited back to me. However, I’m also of the mindset that once a decision has been made, I will set aside my resistance and support it. In many ways, my feelings reflect those of a main character’s father in “The Chosen” by Chaim Potok: while he actively discouraged the establishment of the State of Israel after World War II; once the decision was made, he cast aside his opposition and threw his support behind it.[vii] In the same fashion, now that this is the policy, I support the ideal it professes.

While Jewish beliefs surrounding the establishment of Israel in the 1940’s and the work of the House of Delegates do not seem, at first glance, to be congruent, there are some similarities (even if they only exist in my own mind): while we may disagree on the approach to a certain topic or what should be done, once a decision has been made, we should be able to unite behind it and move forward; if we disagree with the decision or direction, we should work towards a change in a way that continues to show our commitment to the ideals of the profession.

Unfortunately, I have found that all-too many people in today’s world only see the end result: “The American Bar Association passed a Resolution on such-and-such topic.” Many of those Resolutions from the ABA have been quite passionately argued in favor of topics that many in Idaho may feel go against our general beliefs as a State. But because those Resolutions have passed, the work of the ABA has been discounted or discredited. For example, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission issued a statement not long after the ABA’s Midyear Meeting which said, in part: “The ABA’s long history of leftist advocacy and its recent attacks on the Trump-Vance Administration’s governing agenda, however, have made this relationship untenable.”[viii] I get it, I understand.

But what those attacking the ABA seemingly fail to understand or consider by only looking at the end result are the many equally passionate arguments by the other side, or the hallway discussions where the passion and conviction of both sides are on display. They also miss seeing the willingness of both sides to compromise, the attempts to work together despite their ideological differences, or the true underlying desire by all involved to make things better now than they were before. To me, that reactionary attitude is disheartening. There is a lot of turmoil in the legal world right now, and the last thing this profession needs is to be torn apart from within.

As of the date I’m writing this, there have been multiple Executive Orders targeting law firms—including firms that have an active presence here in Idaho;[ix] multiple calls for impeachment of judicial officers because of disagreements with certain rulings;[x] and calls for Court Orders to be outright ignored.[xi] Whether you may personally agree or disagree with these actions, they are something that we, as a legal profession should not idly stand by and watch happen. Our great nation was founded on the ideals that “all men are created equal” and entitled to “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”[xii] We threw off the yoke of the English because we, as a people, felt that our concerns and frustrations were being ignored.[xiii]

I have lived in countries that were yoked for years under brutal dictatorships, namely Romania and Moldova. People I know in those countries have personally relayed stories of family or friends who went out to get bread and never came home, and lived in an apartment overlooking a building that I can only describe as a megalomaniac’s monument to himself.[xiv] But what has remained with me, beyond the mental pictures of buildings riddled with bullet holes from the 1989 Revolution, is how the people described feeling powerless and helpless to make any changes to their own lives; essentially, how they were “more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”[xv]

I want to be clear I am not addressing all of this as something coming just from one side of the political spectrum,[xvi] nor as a solely recent development—there have been calls for judicial reform ever since the formation of our great nation.[xvii] But the impact of social media and our ever-present global news on these conversations has allowed extremist opinions on all sides to take on an increasingly greater role.[xviii] More and more, extremist views and opinions from both sides are being given greater attention and emphasis. But there are proper procedures for disagreement with a judicial decision—immediate calls for impeachment or assassination of judges are not it.[xix] Similarly, throwing the weight of the government against one law firm (or five) simply because it represented political opponents at one time or hired someone involved with an investigation strikes me as going against the ideal of “Liberty” espoused in the Declaration of Independence.[xx]

I am proud to be a member of the ABA because it has been active in this area for years, during Democratic and Republican administrations alike, and it continues to be active now.[xxi] And it’s not alone.[xxii] If we as lawyers truly believe in the Rule of Law, that disputes are better settled in the Courts than with violence, or that undermining the judiciary will only lead to chaos, then we need to stand together and say, “We can’t be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests . . . We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight!”[xxiii] But let us remember to keep the fights where they belong—the Courts, and to conduct them in a “civilized manner.”[xxiv] Instead of searching for ways to divide and weaken our profession from within, “liking” or reposting things that only serve to drive us apart, I would simply ask that we all look for ways that we can lift each other up within the legal community and support the rule of law.

I will close with something Michael Jackson said that sums up what I’m trying to say much better than my poor words ever could: “Make [the world] a better place.”[xxv] I am working on that daily and it’s what I would encourage you all to do as well. As always, “I’m waiting”[xxvi] and always open to a discussion on any of these topics, the odds of the Red Sox making the playoffs this year, or the ABA itself.

R. Jonathan Shirts graduated from the University of Idaho College of Law in 2018 and is currently the Staff Attorney for the Hon. Randy Grove of the Third District. He has also worked as the Staff Attorney for Hon. Nancy Baskin and Hon. George Southworth. He enjoys good books and spending time outdoors with his wife, daughter, and two sons.

[i] William Shakespeare, The Second Part of Henry the Sixth, Act IV, Scene 2.

[ii] The Princess Bride (Act III Communications, 1987).

[iii] https://www.americanbar.org/content/aba-cms-dotorg/en/news/reporter_resources/midyear-meeting-2025/house-of-delegates-resolutions/505/.

[iv] https://www.americanbar.org/content/aba-cms-dotorg/en/news/reporter_resources/annual-meeting-2024/house-of-delegates-resolutions/521/.

[v] The links above would allow you to compare the content from both Resolutions, if you were interested.

[vi] I also abstained, for the first time, from voting on a Resolution due to my employment within the judiciary.

[vii] See, generally, Chaim Potok, “The Chosen” Chapter 15 (1967).

[viii] FTC Chairman Ferguson Announces New Policy Regarding American Bar Association”, Federal Trade Commission (Feb. 14, 2025), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/02/ftc-chairman-ferguson-announces-new-policy-regarding-american-bar-association.

[ix] These firms include Covington & Burling (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/suspension-of-security-clearances-and-evaluation-of-government-contracts/), Perkins Coie (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/), Paul Weiss (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-paul-weiss/), Jenner & Block (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-jenner-block/), and WilmerHale (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-wilmerhale/).

[x] See, e.g., Lisa Mascaro, Republicans eye actions against the courts and judges as Trump rails against rulings, Associated Press (Mar. 25, 2025) https://apnews.com/article/trump-judge-boasberg-musk-impeachment-1019459fc9517231204b814fd6f36127.

[xi] See, e.g., Lindsay Whitehurst, Judge finds Trump administration hasn’t fully followed his order to unfreeze federal spending, Associated Press (Feb. 10, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/funding-freeze-trump-federal-grants-loans-judge-ec9bf2700c41ec0ba4085d375599d295.

[xii] Declaration of Independence para. 2 (U.S. 1776).

[xiii] See, generally, Declaration of Independence.

[xiv] This building is officially called the “Palace of the Parliament” (Palatul Parlamentului) or more colloquially, “the House of the People” (Casa Poproului), and occupies a site in Romania’s capital occupying about 2.7 square miles. See Palace of the Parliament, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_the_Parliament. Construction displaced over 40,000 people, destroyed numerous monasteries, churches, and a hospital, and was constructed through the labor of soldiers and forced labor. Id.

[xv] Declaration of Independence para. 2.

[xvi] See, e.g., Crystal Hill, Biden Joins Chorus of Democrats Calling for Reform in the US Supreme Court, Associated Press (July 29, 2024), https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/biden-joins-chorus-of-democrats-calling-for-reform-in-the-us-supreme-court/.

[xvii] See, e.g., https://www.fjc.gov/history/exhibits/snapshots-federal-judicial-history-1790-1990; and https://www.fjc.gov/history/legislation/landmark-legislation-judiciary-act-1801. These two pages will show how, from the very beginning, there has been a constant struggle between the Judiciary and the other two branches of government.

[xviii] See, e.g., Jill Colvin, Vance and Musk question the authority of the courts as Trump’s agenda faces legal pushback, Associated Press (Feb. 9, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/trump-judiciary-musk-separation-of-powers-balance-checks-069c169ea1ddf6eea76f502d544c4c16.

[xix] See, e.g., Amy Howe, Chief justice rebukes Trump’s call for judicial impeachment, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 18, 2025, 3:01 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/chief-justice-rebukes-trumps-call-for-judicial-impeachment/

[xx] See Note viii, supra.

[xxi] See William R. Bay, Bar organizations stand together for the rule of law, American Bar Association (Mar. 31, 2025), https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/03/bar-organizations-stand-for-rule-of-law/.

[xxii] Id.

[xxiii] Independence Day (20th Century Studios 1996).

[xxiv] The Princess Bride (Act III Communications, 1987).

[xxv] Michael Jackson, Dangerous (Epic Records 1992).

[xxvi] The Princess Bride (Act III Communications, 1987).