Res ipsa loquitur, no?
In April, the American Alliance for Equal Rights led by Edward Blum, the scourge of affirmative action and “good discrimination” policies, filed a complaint in an Illinois federal court alleging that the American Bar Association’s 25-year-old Legal Opportunity Scholarship discriminates against white applicants. Since their skin color renders them unable to apply, this contention seems beyond debate. The question is whether, as a trade association, the ABA has a right to discriminate.
The Alliance said it is representing an unnamed white male law school applicant who says that he would apply for the $15,000 Legal Opportunity Scholarship were he not prevented from doing so because he is the “wrong” race. The ABA awards between 20 and 25 such scholarships annually to incoming law students, according to its website, which is excerpted above.
I should have covered this in April: sorry. [Believe me, if I could find a way to work on the blog full-time without ending up living on cat food and in a shack by the docks, I would.] Anyway, this kind of thing is why I do not pay dues to the ABA, and why I am suspicious of any lawyer who does. It is an interesting case. I assumed that Blum would lose if the case proceeded, and that his main objective was to shame the ABA into opening up the race-based scholarships to all. But the ABA has no shame. And I knew that.
The American Bar Association responded to Blum’s suit this week, arguing that a scholarship program designed to boost diversity among law students is protected free speech. The 25-year-old Legal Opportunity Scholarship, the largest lawyer association in the nation asserts, is protected under the First Amendment. In its motion to dismiss the ABA also claimed that plaintiff American Alliance for Equal Rights lacks standing to sue.
To quote Michael Clayton (George Clooney), “See, that’s not the way to go here.” The complaint’s introduction makes it clear why:
If any group should oppose racial discrimination in the legal profession, it’s the American Bar Association. Counting nearly a quarter of lawyers as members, the ABA is supposed to broadly represent the interests of the legal profession. And it drafts the model rules of professional conduct, including the one barring lawyers from “discrimination on the basis of race.” ABA Model R. of Prof’l Conduct 8.4(g). That rule “embodies” the principle that racial discrimination “‘undermines’” the principle that “‘all people are created equal,’” “‘especially [w]hen the person who engages in this misconduct is an officer of the court.’” ABA Formal Op. 493 (July 15, 2020). As the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit recently stressed, that principle “contains no carveout for ‘diversity’” initiatives that “turn on the consideration of impermissible characteristics like … race.” Order re: Judicial Complaint No. 11-25-90043 (Mar. 20, 2025), perma.cc G5CH-93UN.
But instead of opposing racial discrimination, the ABA practices it. One prominent example is its Legal Opportunity Scholarship Fund. Run by the ABA’s “Di-ersity, Equity, and Inclusion Center,” this scholarship awards $15,000 to select students who will be starting law school in the fall. Almost any incoming law student can apply—so long as their skin isn’t white.
Bingo. So the American Bar Association, which supposedly models ethical conduct for the nation’s lawyers and prohibits racial bias and discrimination in its Model Rules of Professional Conduct, is a flagrantly hypocritical organization, violating its own principles. Got it.
The complaint also alleges that the scholarships violate federal law, specifically 42 U.S.C. §1981, which prohibits racial discrimination in contracts. As you can see above, eligibility criteria for ABA’s scholarship awards explicitly state that applicants must be members of “underrepresented” racial and/or ethnic minorities, whatever “underrepresented” is supposed to mean.
Confident that the unethical progressive bias of the legal profession will protect it from the mass defection of members an ethical association should expect after taking such a position, the ABA is defaulting to a free speech defense—you know, as in “you can’t stop me from calling black people “niggers.” That is no doubt true, but certain consequences follow from being exposed as one who abuses free speech. The ABA is also whining about the Trump Administration announcing that the association will no longer have any role to play in vetting judicial nominations. Why would the government ever allow a proudly racist, discriminatory organization to have such a role?
Other than one run by Democrats, that is….
Ethics Alarms 
i hold that any and all professioanl organizations are bound to deal only with those things that effect thier profession and theirprofession only. I withdrew from tha American Association of Nurse Anesthetist, when they became hyper partisan and ben esposuig policy statements tha thad nothingnto do with the scope and practiv eof certified nurse anesthesia. My wife withdrew from the American Lbirary Assn. due to their extreme policy statments which had nothing to do with librarianship
And thanks for contributing at least one (quality) comment to this post. Too narrow in scope to spark interest? No sharks?
Not too narrow. You just hit all the points. As I was reading through it, I thought about Rule 8.4 and you were right there.
It is just frustrating. You would think that the ABA of all institutions would be competent enough NOT to do something like this.
That is something that annoys me about a lot of legal professionals. They should be slow to reach conclusions; they should be deliberate in reaching them; they should analyze things carefully; they should be mindful of the Rules of Evidence as a method for analyzing facts regardless of whether they ever set foot in a courtroom.
But, many (most?) do not.
-Jut
I took a deep breath and posted briefly about the ABA’s bias and discrimination hypocrisy on the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers listserv in response to a long “Isn’t the ABA wonderful?” post by an esteemed colleague. It will either be reviled or ignored.