Can We Make the Profession Better? Leaders of the ABA House of Delegates Speak Out

Episode Notes

Transcript

Michal Rogson:

Hello everyone and welcome to Litigation Radio. I’m your host Mic Rogson. My background is in insurance litigation, but I transitioned in-house over 15 years ago and I’m now vice president at Skyward Specialty Insurance Company where I manage their national court bond practice. I’m an expert in litigation and fiduciary bonds that are often needed across the spectrum of litigation. On this show, we talk to the country’s top litigators and judges to stay abreast of developing trends in litigation and discover best practices in developing our careers and building a sustainable practice. If you’d like to stay up to date on future episodes, please be sure to subscribe to the podcast on your favorite podcasting app. This podcast is brought to you by the litigation section of the American Bar Association, which is where I make my home. In the A BA not only is Litigation section an inviting and supportive community of highly talented litigators, it also provides litigators of all practice areas, the resources we need to be successful advocates for our clients.

You can learn more at ambar.org/litigation. Today we’re going to speak to two of the most prominent and influential members of the American Bar Associations House of Delegates, Jonathan Cole and Laura Farber. Jonathan is a shareholder with Baker Donaldson out of its Nashville office handling civil trial work relating to financial services and business disputes. He has been serving as the chair of the House of Delegates since 2024, having also served as a delegate from Tennessee since 2009. Laura is a partner at Han and Han, LLP, a woman owned firm out of Pasadena, California, who focuses her practice on employment and commercial litigation. Laura has been California’s state delegate to the A House of Delegates since 2016 and is currently running unopposed for a BA President-elect for the upcoming 2026 to 2027 term. Welcome, Jonathan and Laura.

Jonathan Cole:

Thank you so much. It’s great to be here.

Michal Rogson:

Looking forward to this. Well, I’m thrilled to have you both and I think that before we dive into the guts of our topic today, I want to share with our listeners why I thought this topic might be of interest to them. I can see someone thinking, why do I care about how the A works or what the House of Delegates does? And I’d like to answer that question with my own question, which is why do any of us get involved in bar associations, especially large national ones like the American Bar Association? We can get our CLEs in so many places nowadays that I really don’t think that’s the main motivator for many of us, though it’s undoubtedly a fabulous perk, especially with the caliber of attorneys that I’ve met and learned from in the A BA. But for my part, I decided to join the A BA over a decade ago, approximately, at least in part because I felt like if I wanted to make a difference, I needed to be part of an organization that had the scope to make a difference.

And as a lawyer, the A BA seemed a very obvious and natural fit. And it’s not like I had delusions of grandiose achievements. I just wanted to make a meaningful contribution in some small way, right? Leave the world a little bit better than it was before. And what’s wonderful is that the A BA actually afforded me the opportunity to do just that. And in a way I never really expected. It began when a friend told me about a call she’d gotten from a concerned aunt who was trying to prevent her gay teenage nephew from being sent to an institution for troubled youth, which is also commonly referred to as a residential treatment facility. And she researched the topic and discovered that there was a movement to demand oversight of these institutions because there were no industry standards or mechanisms for oversight and many deliberately engage in systemic abuse as part of their treatment programs.

Now, this topic is entirely outside the scope of my law practice, so I’d never given it much thought and honestly never thought that I might be able to contribute in some way. But the idea that these facilities were deliberately engaging in abusive tactics with no accountability and worse were being used to correct gay children. Correct. Shocked me. So my friend and I brought the topic to the attention of the Abba’s Commission on sexual orientation and gender identity, which is commonly known as Soji. And Soji embraced the issue wholeheartedly. They started a troubled teen task force, which ran a series of educational programs and ultimately with the help of many people and under the stalwart and flagging direction of, so G’s a liaison, skip Harsh, who deserves so much credit for it, soji co-sponsored resolution 6 0 5 to the House of Delegates endorsing the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act.

And that was my first introduction to the House of Delegates, to what it does, to how it works, to how it guides Abba’s policy. And I can tell you that when Resolution 6 0 5 was adopted at the 2023 annual meeting of the House of Delegates, and then when it actually became the law of the Land, the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act passed the Senate with bipartisan support in December of 2024, I felt extremely proud and humbled that I’d gotten to help in some small way. That was why I had gotten involved in the A, BA. And to me that’s the kind of thing that makes belonging to a large national organization so valuable because we all have something to contribute. We don’t even always know what it’s going to be, right. I just happened to bring something I heard of to a group that I was associated with in the A, BA, and it ended up becoming this thing that actually made a difference.

So the bottom line for me is you can’t contribute if you don’t know how. And the House of Delegates is how many of us can contribute if we learn about it. So that’s what I’m here to do, is I want to let everyone else know what I didn’t know so that whatever thing it is they haven’t brought yet because they didn’t know where to bring it, they’ll know now. So before we delve into the guts of what the house is and what it does, I’ve shared a little bit of my background story. I would love to hear your stories about how and why you ended up getting involved with the House of Delegates. You are, if you will, the superheroes of this particular podcast. So I want a glimpse into your origin stories. Who’s going first?

Laura Farber:

Looks like I am. Anyway, I’m so happy to be here. Laura Farber, I practice law at Han and Han in Pasadena in the employment area. And I am fortunate enough to be working in a firm that is very supportive of my involvement in the community, but also especially in Bar Association work. And I started with the LA County Bar. I was in the young lawyer group called the Barristers, and we had this program we were putting together called Diversity on the Bench. And the idea was to try and get to a point where the bench starts to look like the community around us. And what happened is I submitted this program because there was a young lawyer division, there still is of the A BA, which is wonderful. And you submit programs, they’re selected, and this one was, and then other affiliates throughout the country can replicate it.

So I went to my first a meeting as a young lawyer and that was it. I mean, once I was there I said, wow, the energy, the interest, the engagement meeting people from all over the country was amazing. So long story short, fast forward several years later, and by the way, I met Jonathan in the Young Lawyers Division and we’re still huge friends today and colleagues. It’s so wonderful. And to have friends basically all over the country. Anyway, fast forward, I ended up running for an officer position and became chair of the House of Delegates. I was chair during nine 11, so that was really interesting. But after being chair of the house, the thing that you can do is become a member of the ABAs House of Delegates as a division delegate representing the Young Lawyers’ Division. So that’s exactly what I did. And that’s the first time that I got into the House of Delegates.

But before that, the Young Lawyers Division has its own assembly. So we were doing the work of the delegates in the Young Lawyers division that was similar to what the A BA did, but with a young lawyer focus and young lawyer members. And that was wonderful because you’ve got the chance to actually explore the things you’re describing, the things that we all love to do, but that really confront maybe young lawyers in a different way in the beginning of their practices. And so we got to sort of prepare to the extent that you wanted to be involved in the house by working in that assembly. And many times there will be resolutions brought in that assembly to the House of Delegates, which is something that did happen. But anyway, so once the chair position was completed, I then went on to serve as a division delegate representing the YLD in the House of Delegates.

And since that time, I have been a member of the House of Delegates, but I’ve worn different hats, which you can do and we’ll talk about that in a little while. But I was a wildy delegate for three years, and then I applied to my local bar, the LA County Bar, and I served in that capacity in the house for a few years. And then I became a state bar delegate when we had a mandatory bar only. And from then after the state bar position, I ran because this is another elected position for California State Delegate, which you mentioned in the intro. And I’ve served in that role until most recently. This was actually just recently my last meeting in that role. And now I am a delegate to the house representing the California Lawyers Association, which is our voluntary bar. So I have worn several hats in the ABAs House of Delegates and also served on several committees, which we have as well.

And so there’s different ways to get involved in addition to being able to bring amazing resolutions. So that’s kind of my story as to how I got involved in the A BA and then how I got involved in the House of Delegates. And it has been impactful, it has been meaningful. I have learned areas of the law that I don’t practice in that I knew nothing about. And I’ve been able to be educated, to be entertained and then to speak intelligently about a lot of issues, but to see the impact. Because what then happens is a lot of times when we adopt policy, we then go lobby on it and we see it become law like what you described. And that is such an amazing feeling. Jonathan, your turn.

Jonathan Cole:

Hey, I’ll share it. And likewise, just like what Laura was saying, I mean I got my start pretty early on. And actually even going back, I’ll tell you the reason I went to law school was to try to make a difference. I’d seen these shows growing up in the eighties and the nineties, LA Law and these great shows. It seemed kind of fun to be a lawyer, but you see that they really actually changed people’s lives. And so that’s really drawn me to the pro bono aspect of our profession, the access to legal services. And so I was involved in that in law school. And when I got out of school, I started doing some pro bono cases and things like that. And at the same time, there’s an older AttorneySync, my firm, and he said, I think you might want to enjoy getting involved in theBar, something that where a lot of people are active and address some of these issues.

And he said, I think you should go to a Tennessee Young Lawyers meeting. And it sounded kind of fun. And so I went, and then at one point they said, we need to send some people to a national conference, this thing called the Affiliate Outreach Project Conference that was put on by the A Young Lawyers Division. And they have a meeting in Tucson, Arizona. And I thought, boy, that sounds like a fantastic place, so I want to check it out. And so I raised my hand, said I wanted to go along to that, and I went and I started meeting people that were really impressive. I think Laura and I met at some of those early meetings and then other lawyers from around the country and I could see that there are other people doing these things and trying to make a difference themselves. And then kind of back to my pro bono work, I really got enthused about doing that work, trying to represent somebody and trying to make a difference in their life.

And it’s incredible what one lawyer can do. But I’ll tell you the thing is you do see a limit that something that you make that difference in that one case, but then you got to add those. You can only represent so many people yourself. But the thing is, working in theBar, we join together as a collective group and sometimes we can make systematic differences across our profession and across our country and all the communities we serve. And so Laura, I mean I got really attracted to the A BA and lawyers division. I was also active in my state and local young lawyers. And so really enjoyed getting to meet people, seeing how people were developing their practice, growing in their careers and trying to fulfill the things that drew them to law school in the first place. And Laura, I served as chair of the Young Lawyers’ Division, the A BA.

She and I served a few years apart in that, but it really got motivated and inspired by these great lawyers around the country. A few years after that, there’s an opportunity, a seat opened up and our delegation from Tennessee in the House of Delegates I’d served just like Laura in the assembly of the Lawyerist vision. So I’ve kind of seen policy a little bit from the young lawyer perspective, but I could see that all the players in the A a, the national people that were involved in these things were part of the House of Delegates. And so I raised my hand, ran for a seat to represent Tennessee in the House of Delegates. Served in that role for about 15 years until I took my current position of chairing the house. And I’ve been really so inspired to see that this is where policy is made and if you hear the A BA speak about something or if there’s a model rule that gets passed or we change the rules of ethics or a standard of practice, it’s generally coming out of the House of Delegates.

That’s where the A BA speaks, it’s the voice of the profession. And so the A BA is a little bit unique. It’s not like the president or a small group of people are the ones able to make the decision and determine what the A position is on something. It’s the House of Delegates, not the Board of Governors, not even the president. The House of Delegates is the ultimate decision-making authority of the A BA itself. And so I’ve been so inspired to kind of meet with these lawyers, see incredible people. We’ve had attorneys general of the United States who’ve spoken with us, incredible people who’ve won the A medal and given, done this outstanding work in their career. And so I can tell you I’ve never left an A meeting and not come home really kind of reinvigorated re-inspired to make an even greater difference in my community. And so that’s the thing I’ve loved about the house and we really see it’s that policy side of it that allows us to take a position to assert the voice, how we feel about something as a profession. And so I’ve really enjoyed that experience.

Michal Rogson:

Well, I’m curious, I mean I think that anyone who’s made it thus far into the podcast understands at this point that the House of Delegates is the policymaking body of the American Bar Association. Right. Did it always exist? I mean, was it created at the inception of the A BA or was it something that came along later specifically because the A determined at some point that it needed a policymaking body.

Jonathan Cole:

It’s been around for a long time, but not quite as old as the A BA. We’re about to celebrate our hundred 50th anniversary in a couple of years. The A BA was founded in 1878, but the House of Delegates itself was founded in 1936, which is we’re having the 90th year anniversary right now. So there’s a number decades that took place in the A BA before they got to the House of Delegates. However, from the beginning, the A BA itself was founded by 14 state bars getting together in Saratoga Springs, New York. And likewise, it’s the state bars that were generally who bonded together to form the House of Delegates, to have a broad base group, not just a board or some kind of select group, really one that represents the whole profession to come together to form that House of Delegates back in 1936. And since then, it’s evolved over time.

But generally in terms of it’s a wide ranging body now. It’s a little under 600 lawyers and judges from across the country. Every state is represented there. And frankly, every kind of practice area, the sections and divisions of the A BA have representation and other kind of groups like the National Association of Attorneys General and other entities, national Bar Associations like the NBA or NAPABA or HNBA all have representation in the house. So that’s how it stands to represent not just what the a a thinks about something, but what the profession thinks about an issue

Michal Rogson:

Because it’s comprehensive, because it includes representation from across the spectrum of both geographical law practices and affinity groups or other identified groups.

Jonathan Cole:

Exactly. I mean, it’s not just the lawyers who are in the office towers, they’re represented as well in our cities, but the ones from the court squares and every practice area, the deal making lawyers, the trial lawyers, the judges people represent the government. They’re all there in the house. And it’s not just a A people, they’re all A members who sit in the House of Delegates. However, they do represent ’em a cross section of representation across all across the country.

Laura Farber:

And you’ve got solo practitioners as well as big firm, mid-size firm. You have government as Jonathan mentioned. So what I love too is the practice setting. You have the variety, the experiences are really different depending on your practice setting, the things you see, the issues you confront, the issues you have to deal with and the positions that we take. And that’s so beautiful about this house is you have so many different experiences and perspectives and we all come together and we debate resolutions. We’re not always on the same page. And that’s healthy. I mean, we don’t always want to be on the same page, but we learn from those debates. There are things, I don’t practice IP law. I mean I learned so about IP law in the House of Delegates and other areas and that’s so amazing, but being able to speak with that voice is also incredibly powerful.

Michal Rogson:

So I think what I’d like to talk about next is a little bit, learn a little bit more about the structure and the process, how it functions. But first we should go to a quick word from our sponsor. So we’ve learned that the House of Delegates and the A generally started with 14 states getting together. It is now every state, every group. How does it get anything done? You’ve got just under 600 people showing up twice a year, right? There’s midyear and there’s annual meetings, and that is when the voting occurs. How does it all work? How is the sausage made?

Laura Farber:

I will say that the House works through its committees. I think Jonathan would agree with that. And we have committees that help put together everything that we do. Although resolutions, which are the piece that we’re talking about in terms of the policies, they can come from all sources, including people that aren’t members of our House of Delegates, which is wonderful. You don’t have to be a member of the house to address the house. You just have to get speaking privileges. And ideas will come from sections, substantive loss sections like the litigation section and others. They might come from a state bar association, a local bar association. It could be an affiliate bar. A variety of different sources will come up with ideas about changes perhaps that we need to make in the law or new things we should be thinking about. Or perhaps there is a law pending in Congress that we want to speak about, but we have no policy to be able to do that.

So many different things that can come to become topics of resolutions. And then we have committees. We have an incredible drafting committee that assists people because we have a format that you’ve got to follow. We’ve got rules and we follow those rules. And the drafting committee is phenomenal for helping people, especially if they haven’t done resolutions in the past, put those together. And then we have the rules and calendar committee, which to me is probably one of the hardest working committees in our house because what they do is they look at and there are deadlines to submit resolutions. They look at all the proposed resolutions, they make sure they’re in the form that they need to be. They assist with helping develop the agenda. And the chair of the house is part of that as well as the secretary of the association and the chair of drafting.

They sit on there plus the committee members and they literally divvy up what are the proposed resolutions? We study them. I mean we spend a lot of time studying them, making sure number one, that they are germane to the house, the delegates to whatever it is that we’re trying to do, that they are in the right format. And then we make a decision on whether we’re going to calendar that. So then you come up with an agenda and the agenda is what drives those meetings and the chair and consultation with the house rules and counter committee and staff will all come together and then that gets disseminated and distributed to all the components of the house. I think Jonathan, I’m sure I’ve missed some things. Why don’t you fill in whatever I’ve missed there.

Jonathan Cole:

No, it’s a great overview and the only thing I would add is just to kind of point out, it’s really two times a year. We meet in February at the midyear meeting, and then we meet in the annual meeting in August. And so it’s an opportunity to get involved. We have deadlines that kind of come along, but you can be, if you have an idea of something that you’re concerned about, something that you’re passionate, that you think the law should be changed or that we need to address or that a needs to speak on something. As Laura said, we’ve got this drafting committee that will help you kind of give you the guide, help you work through the issue for you to draft something submitted for consideration. And so very much it, it’s a hands-on process, but there’s a helpful hand out there to help you get involved in that, to propose something and to make sure that you’re doing it the right way so you can be as effective as possible. So it does work through the committees, but it’s here to, there are people to guide you through that way.

Michal Rogson:

Well, I mean, the point is that the house wants people’s ideas. The A generally wants to stay at the forefront of issues and it needs its members and all members of the profession to contribute to that process. But my question to you is going to be okay, me, for example, if I have an idea, and I’ve done this once and I did it completely unwittingly, I just happened to take it to a commission that I was involved with and that’s how I learned the process. Now I know I could also have taken it, for example, to the section of litigation, which I’m also very active in, and said, Hey, you guys, I think that this is something that we should consider proposing a resolution on. So if you are a member of a section or a commission or any group in the A, b, A, if you have an idea, I guess the obvious way to sort of start developing it into a proposal for resolution is to speak to someone in leadership in your group and say, Hey, I’ve got an idea. They’re going to welcome it. Everybody wants to make sure that if there’s an issue that needs to be addressed, it’s addressing it. Now what if you are just a litigator listening to this podcast? You’re not necessarily actively involved in the American Bar Association, but there’s an issue that keeps coming up. Your local guys are talking about it. What should they do? I mean, they’re not supposed to call the planning committee and go, Hey, I’ve got something directly.

Jonathan Cole:

Actually, we would welcome that a single member can bring any resolution of the house. So it’s a lot easier, like you talked about, to go through groups because you’ll be able to get support and probably some help drafting something. But we have individual members. We have a long history of people bringing matters to the house just so it’s harder to do it that way. And I’d encourage people, frankly, to probably talk within groups that you’re associated with because you can get support for it. People will speak as a pro speaker and to support the resolution and also give you input. You want to have the best work product going forward to propose something. And also you don’t want to do all this work and find out, oh, they already have policy about this. So to kind of work through that figure, that process out, it is probably best to engage with groups, entities within the A, B, A to bring those resolutions. But any person could bring it themselves, and we do it. We actually have somebody bringing a resolution themselves to this meeting coming up in a few weeks in San Antonio at the mid-year meeting. So it happens, it’s not that often, but we welcome members, any kind of group within the A BA to brings any type of resolution. We’d like to hear from ’em.

Laura Farber:

Well,

Michal Rogson:

Kudos to that individual.

Laura Farber:

The other thing that’s really cool is you don’t have to bring it to an a, BA entity. You can bring it to your local bar, you can bring it to a state bar. You can bring it to any bar association or any component, any entity that has a representative seat in the house. To Jonathan’s point to not only help you with, and the ABA is really the resource with the format because you want to do it in the right format, but to also, I mean there’s a little political aspect to this too. You want to gain support. You want to maybe even gain some co-sponsorship potentially or figure out how to navigate any arguments that come up and people say, oh, I’m not sure about this piece of your resolution, or I’m not sure I liked because the resolution is part of it, and then there’s a report that goes with it.

I don’t like what you wrote here, or Have you thought about this argument? Or sometimes you learn that someone’s opposed to your resolution. And so, okay, do I talk to that person? Of course. Do I talk to that group? Figure out if there’s a way to resolve the concern, if there’s a concern. And if not, it’s debated on the house floor. And that’s always, I actually love the debates. I think they’re great and you learn so much and then the house gets to vote and we welcome all of that, the different thoughts, the different perspectives, and then we want to have that debate so that people are informed and can make a conscious choice and vote. And we follow Robert’s rules. So that’s something that the chair of the house in consultation with rules and calendar, we’ll make sure that we’re keeping order in the house and doing things the proper way.

Sometimes there’s amendments, sometimes there’s a motion to postpone indefinitely, whatever happens, the typical Robert’s rules approach, but it’s the right approach. I think it’s a great way to get involved and especially on areas that you’re passionate about. Also, if you can tap into someone with expertise in an area, that can be invaluable because when we submit the documents, the resolution and the report, you want it to have substance. You want there to be citations of support. This is why this is important. Some research perhaps that’s done so that you can persuade folks so people understand that this is something that has the data behind it. It has the analysis, it has the expertise behind it, but there’s so much there that can be a resource for folks that have an interest in a particular area that they want to propose.

Michal Rogson:

That was actually an interesting part of the experience was getting the feedback. I mean, when we initially drafted the resolution that we had drafted, we did get feedback because we were looking for co-sponsorship from other sections and committees. We ended up tweaking. I mean, some of the feedback was really, really constructive. You may have a fantastic idea. It may be a topic that really does need to be addressed. That doesn’t mean that your first stab at creating a resolution to address it is going to be the best one. And getting the feedback of other groups, including groups who may disagree, who may oppose it on some basis, can help you hone how to make it more effective for the profession at large. Because again, that’s what we’re dealing with. You want it to pass the house and the house is made up of roughly 600 delegates from across the country and across the profession.

So it needs to be overwhelmingly appealing at least or reasonable on some level. Now, I am curious, obviously there are state representatives and then there are both state bar and local bar representatives, or I should say delegates to the House of Delegates. How does a local bar association or state bar association become a, or qualify, I guess, to send delegates is if a new one pops up, someone decides to create a new local bar association and they say, Hey, this sounds amazing, we want to be part of the House of Delegates. How would they approach that?

Jonathan Cole:

Well, they would just apply to the A BA. Basically there’s a process, I’ll tell you, it’s not all local bars are represented in the house. You have to be of a certain size to have a seat in the house.

Michal Rogson:

That makes

Jonathan Cole:

Sense. All states have seats clearly. But if there’s a local bar and frankly some that are new that develop and are gained a lot of membership quickly, that they can apply for membership and have a certain number of seats. Seats are allocated basically on formula based on your membership and also your members that are a B members. So there’s a kind of a calculation of how many seats you should receive. Typically, local bars, local or metropolitan bars have one to two or three seats, whereas in states have typically five to, well, some states have just a few seats up to maybe California as the largest delegation. Laura, how many do we have in Florida?

Laura Farber:

In California? Well, my gosh, I don’t even, I think I lost count. I think we’re at like 12, 13, somewhere in there.

Jonathan Cole:

We

Laura Farber:

Got a big number a lot,

Jonathan Cole:

Right? So it kind of depends on the size of it, but they would just apply if they’re a substantial enough size for a local or a metropolitan bar, then they’d be qualified to be given a certain number of seats for that.

Laura Farber:

And when you have a delegation, that’s the other thing, you have a delegation, like when I was California delegate, you convene your delegation from California in that delegation. I had people from San Diego, I had people from San Francisco, la, Beverly Hills bar, I had the state bar, the voluntary bar, California Lawyers Association. And then if there’s a section person who happens to practice law in California, they are part of our delegation. So your delegation can be huge and it can reflect all the different components we’ve been talking about. State bar, local bar, it can be a National Bar Association, it can be HNBA, it can be any affiliate that has a seat in the house. We also have at large delegates, and these delegates are elected by the A, BA at their midyear and annual, actually, no, just once a year at the annual meeting.

And I believe we have 18 and they’re done six at a time, if I’m not mistaken. So they’re staggered. And you can run for that, just whoever you are, you can just run at large for these seats. So we have those as well, which means you don’t have to be affiliated with the state bar, local bar an A, B, A entity at all. You can just decide, I’m going to run as an at large, you have to have a petition that is submitted and people have to fill the, fill out the petition, you submit it timely and you literally run for election. So we have so many different ways for people to get involved in the House of Delegates. And again, even if you’re not a member, you can still speak to the house. All you got to do is request privileges, rules and counter committee has a list of people that many times every single meeting, we always have a list of people that have been given privileges of the floor to address the house. And so it really is a very inclusive, wonderful, broad based group that reflects the views of the profession.

Jonathan Cole:

And typically what you have those people who want to speak to the house, we’re bringing in the experts on some issue to talk about their experiences or how they’ve seen the law come out into actually play out in real life. So that’s the wonderful benefit that you get to hear from the people who have actually seen this, who know what’s going on and can inform the delegates to make the best decision.

Michal Rogson:

I mean, you had mentioned that there were committees and not just the delegates, but the House has various committees. Do you need to be a delegate to be on these committees? Are there ways to sort of volunteer other than obviously speaking before the house or proposing a resolution? Are there ways to participate in the house on a volunteer basis, for example, without being a delegate?

Jonathan Cole:

Well, you do need to be a delegate to serve on one of these committees because restricted to just members of the house. However, we do want participation and people will be involved. And so like you mentioned, being all the sections of the A BA are involved in terms of producing policy and generating ideas for the house to consider. Some states are very active. We receive resolutions from various different groups. A lot of sections, divisions and forums also states and a few local get involved. And so that’s way for you in the house to be part of the process and to propose something or weigh in for or against something that’s coming up to the house.

Michal Rogson:

So indulge me, if you will. Let’s do this because we’ve been talking about the resolution sort of in the abstract. We’ve also mentioned that there might be a political element to it. You want to gain consensus, you want people to agree, you probably want to go into the voting process, having some sense of how it may go. I am betting that there are very few resolutions where everyone’s like, it’s a toss up, it’s a nail biter. We can’t wait to find out what’s going to happen. And that it’s a lot of fun when it does happen. But if you would take me through the process of a resolution, let’s pretend we’re making up a resolution right now. Where is it starting? What does it have to go through?

Jonathan Cole:

Well, to start out with, so somebody would have an idea, we get proposed and they would have to work with a drafting committee to have it in the form that Laura talked about before. And so once it got submitted and it was worked out, rules and calendar would look at it to make sure it kind of meets the form. And also as Laura mentioned, that it meets one of the goals, four goals of the A B, A. So it can’t just be some random thing that has nothing related to the profession. And so assuming that’s the case, then rules and calendar would put it on the calendar for either the midyear or the annual meeting. And those are sent out to the delegates. And also they’re, that information is sent out to the state and local bars because some of them are involved in determining whether or not they want their delegates to vote a certain way on something or whether or not they want them to vote at all on it.

And so once you get to the meeting, the information is sent out ahead of time, you would hear through various caucuses. That’s where various groups get together about, there’s a women’s caucus and a young lawyer’s caucus, other caucus like that where there’s discussion about them on an informal basis. And then the house generally meets on a Monday or a Monday and a Tuesday. And so a resolution would come to the floor rules and calendar kind of set the order that they come up in and somebody would get up and present the resolution, move it, and then speak on behalf of it. If there’s opponents, they would be able to speak against it. And then the vote is taken. And sometimes we have a voice vote and sometimes it’s very overwhelming that we vote one way or another. But then sometimes, I mean we actually do have things that come down.

We’ve had things that come down to one vote out of the nearly 600 people. So it does happen. It’s not often, but we’ve had several contested votes. Our last meeting in Toronto at the annual meeting, it was our process of governance. Every 10 years we review a lot of governance proposals about where are the seats in the house and who are the seats on the board of governors and then also the nominating committee. And some of those are very controversial frankly, and some got voted down, some got approved. And so we do have contested votes on it pretty regularly.

Michal Rogson:

Now, prior to the resolution being submitted and sent to rules and calendar, in terms of the back room negotiations, let’s say a bar association comes up with a resolution, would those kinds of backroom conversations be happening at the meetings in other words before or would it be happening even before the meetings if they’re reaching out to, for example, if it’s litigation related, they’ll reach out to the section of litigation. If it’s children’s rights, they might reach out to children’s rights and civil rights and social justice or something like that to see if the different pieces of the American Bar Association would support it. And then they can co-sponsor as well. In other words, if you come up with a resolution, you can obtain co-sponsorship, which in turn also demonstrates that you have already done some of this legwork and made sure that other groups are on board and agree with the language.

Laura Farber:

Well, it’s smart to do that. I mean, politically, again, I come back a little bit to the politics of it. Some of us love student government, some of us like politics, not the real life stuff necessarily. This is really great to be able to really get into it. And if you are not familiar, this is where the benefit of those a, a contacts and relationships. For example, if there’s somebody in California that wants to propose a resolution, I would encourage them to reach out to their state delegate. And that’s easy information to get because that state delegate helps you navigate, okay, let’s look at the substance. Okay, who can we connect you with that might have some feedback and or be able to help you get support or maybe tweak some language. And what we used to do is we used to have, sometimes we’d have these resolutions with 50 million co-sponsors, and we decided to change the rules to kind of narrow how the co-sponsorship works.

So you can get supporters, which is great, and the co-sponsors are usually people that are involved in helping to draft the resolution or parts of the resolution or form the resolution. And so that to your point, that’s when the dialogue starts early on, you’re reaching out early on, you might not know who to reach out to. You don’t necessarily know. I mean, that maybe is a big organization. You don’t necessarily know who can touch on this particular topic or how many different avenues this might take. That’s why the resource of a state delegate, for example, is a really good one or someone that has a lot of experience in the house delegates. It doesn’t have to be the state delegate. It can be someone else who’s navigated that path before. I think that is a really good tip for somebody that is interested in pursuing a particular topic and a proposal and will give it a better chance of succeeding.

Because by the time you get to the meeting, the hope is once you’re going to all these caucuses, sometimes there is last minute tweaking. There’s amendments and things that happen, but the hope is that by then you have a pretty good sense of whether you have opposition number one or some amendments that people want to make and then where this might head. But the key is to be prepared ahead of time so that by the time you get to that meeting, it doesn’t always happen. But by the time you get to that meeting, it’s smoother. It’s a little bit easier to manage. And the rules and calendar committee actually holds a hearing on usually the Saturday before the house convenes. And you can go to that. It’s an open hearing and you can go and you can learn, number one, if there’s opposition, we have to file these things called salmon slips when you want to speak on a resolution.

There’s a history there, but their color is salmon. Yeah, I’m so curious. And we have a salmon person that rotates from the rules and calendar committee that oversees the process. At every single meeting, you go to that hearing and you will listen in or inquire, is there opposition? Is there an amendment? And not only that, you can also help navigate and give input to the speaking order of who’s speaking on a resolution. That’s a whole nother, and Jonathan, how much fun that is trying to organize when you have a lot of speakers. And then the chair of the house has the discretion to decide how many speakers we’re going, especially on an uncontested resolution where the rules of we’re called limited debate are involved. But the point is there’s a lot that you can learn, and once you’ve been through this process, it becomes a lot easier to navigate. But it’s so much fun.

Michal Rogson:

I will say the first time that I went to an A annual meeting, I did not know what it was or what I was doing there. I mean, there is so much going on that it can be really, really difficult to navigate. And when it first started making sense to me was when I was involved in that resolution and we had representatives of the troubled teen industry survivors, if you will come and speak. And I helped shepherd them around to the various state delegation breakfasts and meetings to the different caucuses that were going on. And that’s when I think I finally understood sort of big picture how it all worked. I will say, I don’t know if there are people who are interested in coming to the mid meetings or the annual meetings to sort of watch this process, but it might be helpful to create a guide or have someone who can serve as a guide for them if they do come.

Because I can tell you, I was completely lost that first time. I was like, there are 800 million people here, and there’s so many different things going on in 8 million different rooms. I don’t know where to go. I don’t know what to look at first. But it is, once you are involved in that process, if you are engaged or even just interested in a particular resolution and you follow that through what one of these annual or mid-year meetings looks like, it makes sense and it’s really remarkable and beautiful and interesting and exhilarating as a process. And to me, it was amazing to discover that that is how you hear about a policy. And then the president speaks out on a topic or the a a takes a position perhaps on a particular case. And you don’t realize necessarily that every single thing that either the president says or position that’s taken in a case all comes back to policy that’s established through these resolutions, resolutions that you or I could participate in and get passed.

But it is an incredible machine that somehow really does seem to work. I just want to encourage everyone listening, if there’s something, if there’s an issue in our profession that you are passionate about that you think needs tweaking or fixing, I mean another resolution, I wasn’t involved in it, but this sectional litigation is very proud of it. It was resolution 200, which was aimed at combating judges judge forum shopping, which is an issue that faces litigators across the country. And we managed to get consensus on language. And it passed at the 2025 midyear meeting. I mean, if these are the kinds of issues that you are thinking about and you have a fix, you have an idea, you have a position that could make a difference on a national level, the House of Delegates is where you’ve got to bring it. And I’m really hopeful that this podcast both serves as an inspiration to the listeners and gives them ideas.

Maybe they haven’t really thought about this before, but there is one thing that I wanted to ask because obviously the House addresses many issues that are inherent to the practice of law itself, like the resolution I just mentioned on preventing judge forum shopping. But the House also establishes policy on behalf of the A BA that goes beyond what you would call the four corners of the practice of law. For example, the resolution that I was involved in, taking a position on the treble teen industry and the passage of laws both on a state and the federal level that help regulate that industry that’s not technically specifically within the four corners of the practice of law. So how would you respond to criticism that the A BA has exceeded its mandate when it takes policy positions that are outside the four corners of the practice of law?

Jonathan Cole:

Well, the one thing that we have to watch out for is that we’re requiring that all resolutions at least relate to one of the four goals of the A BA, right? So that’s a threshold, but I’ll tell you frankly, most people can argue that some way to fit within one of those. But it’s a very valid concern of should we be speaking on an issue? And so we’ve been careful that we don’t have a select person or small committee that kind of makes a decision and tells somebody, no, we won’t consider that. Frankly, the house made up of these nearly 600 judges and lawyers around the country, they’re smart enough to make that determination. And frankly, they should make that determination. Should we speak on something? Because frankly, we need to have our strongest voice on matters that fall within our wheelhouse, administration of justice, rule of law type related issues.

And that’s where we, frankly, we have expertise and it’s something that we have the strongest basis for each speaking on something. So there’s a debate all the time about should we be talking about something or taking a position on something or not? And so that we ask the delegates to make that determination, frankly, that’s part of the discussion. And we encourage people to bring that issue, whether or not they think the A BA should be taking a position on it, we may not, even though some people might feel passionate about it in their personal lives, but it’s maybe something that we defer so that we can be heard as strong as possible on the things that do fall directly within our wheelhouse. So we’ve been careful. We don’t tell people no, but frankly, that’s something that delegates have to make a determination of before we take a position on something.

Laura Farber:

If you think about it, it becomes organic because if it’s happening in the house, meaning it’s being proposed and there is a sufficient mass or critical mass or whatever of people that say, why are we stepping into this thing? Then the resolution is likely to be defeated because people think, you know what? It’s not the substance that we are focused on. It’s the fact that we don’t think the A BA should be speaking on this topic. On the flip side, many people may have thought, well, it’s not really relevant. It’s not really that germane. But then when they hear the connection between the topic and the rule of law and how it impacts how we all interact with the law or access justice or how we interpret the law or how it impacts day-to-day living for certain people that don’t have the ability to do anything, you start seeing perspectives here that really open your mind and you say, oh, hadn’t thought about that angle. And that actually is very compelling. And so that’s so beautiful again about being with these incredibly bright, amazing people with viewpoints from all over the country and experiences from all over the country that come together so that they can be heard and we can make a collective decision. And that’s what I love about this organization.

Michal Rogson:

Now, would I be correct in saying that it is at least somewhat unique in its scope and in the fact that it embraces all parts of the profession? As you were saying before, large firms, small firms across the spectrum of practice areas without being, because I know there are other national bar associations, but the A BA is not specifically affiliated with any either particular group or particular area of practice. The idea of the A BA was that it should encompass all practices, all groups, anyone involved in the profession across the country.

Jonathan Cole:

It is unique. I mean, there are a lot of other great entities. Then you kind of mentioned specialty bars or other groups and stuff that kind of make up the profession. But we’re the only place where you have this broad of a body, nearly 600 people making a decision about how the profession feels about something. And as we’ve talked about, it represents all the lawyers all across the country, whether or not they’re active in the A BA or not, what they’re feeling about it through their representatives about what our position is on it. And I’ll tell you, the house itself is really kind of an amazing thing. You kind of mentioned going to the A meeting, seeing the house, it’s really incredible. I mean, this large room we’re actually too large for most ballrooms. We had to go to convention centers and things like that.

And you have all these, every state’s represented. It has a placard, and people sit by state regardless of their entity in the house. So if you’re there for the section of litigation or somewhere else, you sit with people from your own delegation. And so if you live in California and you represent another entity, you would sit with a California bar, likewise in Tennessee or all across the country. And so you see this really incredible body of all these icons of the profession sitting there and talking about things that are important to things that are going on. It’s really incredible to see. And so I’d encourage, it’s not open any a b member can participate, sit in and see how it goes. We’d love to have people to experience it for themselves.

Laura Farber:

And you don’t have to be some senior lawyer or a super experienced lawyer. You can be a young lawyer, new to practice, and you can come go to the young lawyer division assembly, get a taste for it, and then you can come to the House of Delegates and sit in and listen and say, wow, you don’t have to wait to have impact. You don’t have to wait until the future to be involved. You can do it now and you can make a difference now. And so many young folks, including my kids who are not lawyers but are so passionate about issues or things they feel are unjust or unfair, this is a place where you can actually pursue that. And I think it is just fantastic. And I think it can make such a difference in your practice. Easy for me, it makes my practice more fulfilling to do these other things because I am making a difference and I think it makes me a better lawyer, even if it’s not in the areas I practice in. I have knowledge, I have ways of relating to people, connecting with people, making my arguments, building a relationship that will then allow me to flourish in other ways. And so that’s why I think this is so great and I want everyone to join us.

Michal Rogson:

Well, I can’t think of a better way to end. I was going to ask you if you had some last thoughts, but I imagine, Laura, that is what you would like to leave our listeners with. And it’s very close to what I started with. And actually Jonathan, what you started with, because we both said we wanted to make a difference. I also went into the law because I wanted to make a difference. I made some career choices based on wanting to pay a mortgage too. And you always have to balance wanting to pay a mortgage and wanting to make a difference. But I think that involvement and engagement in something like this, right, even in a small way, it doesn’t have to be a massive time commitment either, but if you have an idea, mention it to your delegate. But there are always ways in which we can contribute.

And so many of us went into the law wanting to make a difference and don’t necessarily know how. And this is one way that you can. So thank you both so much for joining me today and walking us all through these somewhat internist scene processes of the House of Delegates. It’s not a simple thing to wrap your mind around it part because it’s scope is so grand and really, I mean, the first time I walked into a House of Delegates meeting, it is breathtaking, the size and scope it really, really is. And that is the decision-making body, the policymaking body of the American Bar Association. And it’s frankly pretty awe inspiring. And I love how democratic it is too. That just makes me fundamentally happy on a justice perspective. In any case, thank you both so much for taking your time to walk us through. Thank you for all the time that you have spent contributing to this August and amazing body. And hopefully, I’m thinking to myself when I hear about everything that the two of you have done and achieved, I wonder how you found the time. And so I’m thinking I should have you back for a time management episode. How do you create an amazing practice and also be engaged in all these civic duties? So maybe we’ll plan one of those in the future.

Laura Farber:

Well, I’ll come back anytime, so you just let me know. And especially if Jonathan is here too. I mean, that’s my buddy for since Young Lawyer Days, and I’m happy to back. This has been an absolute pleasure. I will hold you to it. It’s

Jonathan Cole:

Been great. Thanks for having us.

Michal Rogson:

Thanks again. And now it’s time for a quick tip from the A BA litigation section’s. Mental health and wellness task force. I’d like to welcome Elizabeth Kelly. Elizabeth is a criminal defense lawyer with a nationwide practice focused on representing people with mental disabilities, and she’s here today to share her insights into encouraging civility. When communications get snarky, my instinct is often to respond with even snarkier snark, but I’m guessing that there’s a better way. So tell us, Elizabeth, what should we be doing when things get heated?

Elizabeth Kelly:

My tip is lowering the temperature. As you know, a cold wave is gripping the east coast, but nonetheless, I encourage all of us, wherever we live, to lower the temperature. We talk about civility in the legal profession and the place where we get tripped up the landmine for so many of us are email and texts specifically how to respond to something snarky. My advice is pause and don’t engage. Try to think where this person is coming from. Are they overwhelmed by work? Are they facing incredible pressure? Do they have family challenges? Do they have health issues? Maybe they have unaddressed mental health issues. Maybe they just feel insecure, particularly in front of you. Either don’t respond, or if that’s not an option, please don’t respond in kind. It only escalates the situation. Remember grace. It only escalates the situation. Emails and texts live forever and memories are long. If nothing else, respect your own boundaries.

Michal Rogson:

Elizabeth, thanks so much for sharing that and for being on the show today. And that’s a wrap on this episode. I’d love to hear your thoughts about today’s topic, and if you have comments or questions you’d like for me to answer on an upcoming show, you can contact me at m [email protected] or connect with me on LinkedIn. You can also connect with the a b ABA Litigation Section on those platforms as well. But as much as I’d love to connect with you online, nothing beats meeting you in person at one of our next litigation section events. It’s not too late to join me at the 2026 Women in Litigation CLE conference taking place February 11th through 13th in Jersey City, New Jersey. This year’s theme launch and lead empowering women litigators to lead with purpose aims to ensure all attendees leave feeling empowered, inspired, and equipped to accelerate their career trajectory.

Connect with litigators from across the country and hear from distinguished speakers like Desiree Rawls Morrison, McDonald’s General Counsel, who will be our keynote luncheon speaker. As always, discounted rates are available for litigation section members. Learn more and register at ambar.org/lead her. If you like the show, please help spread the word by sharing a link to this episode with a friend or through a post on social and invite others to join the community. If you want to leave a review over at Apple Podcasts or a quick rating at Spotify, that’s incredibly helpful as well. And finally, I want to quickly thank some folks who make this show possible. Thanks to Michelle Oberts who’s on staff for litigation section. Thanks. Also goes out to the co-chairs of the litigation section’s audio contact committee, Haley Maple and Michael Steger. Thank you to the audio professionals from Legal Talk Network and of course, thank you for listening. See you next time.

Continue Reading