NCLA Encourages en Banc Third Circuit to End Viewpoint-Based Discrimination
Zachary Greenberg v. Jeremy M. Lehocky, et al. Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2023
Rule 8.4(g) of Pennsylvania’s Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys establishes an unconstitutional speech code for lawyers, exposing them to discipline—including sanctions that threaten their livelihoods—if they knowingly communicate in a manner “constituting harassment or discrimination” in the practice.
This overreaching rule not only infringes on the First Amendment rights of lawyers but also sets a dangerous precedent for viewpoint-based discrimination in the legal profession. The National Center for Law and Policy (NCLA) is urging the en Banc Third Circuit to put an end to this unjust practice, which has far-reaching implications for the legal community.
By restricting the speech of attorneys based on the content of their communication, Rule 8.4(g) undermines the principles of free expression and due process that are fundamental to our legal system. Lawyers should not be censored or punished for expressing viewpoints that may be unpopular or controversial but are protected by the Constitution.
It is essential that the Third Circuit recognize the inherent dangers of viewpoint-based discrimination in the legal profession and take a stand against this unconstitutional speech code. The NCLA is committed to defending the rights of lawyers to speak freely and represent their clients without fear of reprisal or censorship.
Impact on Individuals:
As an individual, the enforcement of Rule 8.4(g) could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression for lawyers, limiting their ability to zealously advocate for their clients and engage in robust debate on legal issues. The threat of sanctions for expressing certain viewpoints could discourage attorneys from taking on controversial cases or speaking out on important societal issues.
Impact on the World:
On a broader scale, the repercussions of allowing viewpoint-based discrimination in the legal profession could erode public trust in the legal system and undermine the rule of law. If lawyers are not free to express diverse perspectives and advocate for justice without fear of retribution, our democracy is at risk of losing a critical safeguard against tyranny and injustice.
Conclusion:
The NCLA’s efforts to challenge Rule 8.4(g) are a crucial step in upholding the principles of free speech and equality under the law. It is imperative that the en Banc Third Circuit acts decisively to end viewpoint-based discrimination in the legal profession and protect the fundamental rights of attorneys and their clients. By defending the right to speak freely, we are safeguarding the integrity of our legal system and ensuring that justice prevails for all.
