Judicial officials in Iowa are considering a new rule that would limit the speech and religious rights of lawyers.
“Protections for lawyers’ freedom of speech and free exercise of religion are at risk in Iowa,” said Matt Heffron, a lawyer with the Thomas More Society. “And if lawyers’ rights are at risk, so are the rights of the citizens they defend.
“This is serious.”
The rule would define as “professional misconduct” regarded as “discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Thomas More Society warned the rule would lead to severe punishment of Iowa lawyers who speak in favor of “socially conservative positions” such as traditional marriage.
“It is easy to see this rule being used oppressively to silence the opposition,” said Michael McHale, a lawyer with the society.
Thomas More submitted comments on the proposed rule, which is modeled on a highly criticized American Bar Association model rule.
“The rule would prohibit Iowa lawyers from engaging in ‘harmful verbal conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others.’ The new Iowa Rule makes ‘professional misconduct’ punishable if a lawyer makes ‘derogatory and demeaning’ statements that could be considered ‘harassment or discrimination’ against certain categories of people.”
Heffron criticized the rule’s “sweeping definitions.”
“The broad parameters for ‘harassment and discrimination’ in this rule go way beyond the long-accepted Civil Rights Act language. And the language used in the proposed rule is susceptible to wide interpretation … which could be used as a sword for ideological purposes.”
He warned it could become a “political tool to punish lawyers who espouse traditional family values.”
Thomas More noted the American Bar Association’s 2015 report, the source for Iowa’s proposal, “quoted approvingly a comment that ‘there is a need for a cultural shift in understanding’ about traits such as ‘sex, gender identity, gender expression, [and] sexual orientation.'”
Heffron said the language “could be applied to just about anything an attorney says or does, personally or professionally,” because it references anything “related” to the practice of law.
The letter to officials in the state court system noted that such demands move perilously close to violating the Constitution. Thomas More argues the Supreme Court in 2018 ruled that a state could not require pro-life pregnancy resource centers to carry the state’s promotions of abortion.
“Decisions like these show that Iowa cannot require attorneys to espouse politically correct views on matters of life, family, and religious liberty without violating the First Amendment,” said McHale. “We are confident the Iowa Supreme Court will uphold these constitutional protections, rather than jeopardize the rights of many members of the Iowa Bar.”
The legal team asks the Iowa court to reject the proposed rule change, because “attorneys at the Thomas More Society are motivated by their own religious beliefs in representing clients who seek to spread the pro-life message.”
“Thus, if religiously motivated ‘verbal conduct’ on behalf of the pro-life message is considered ‘prejudicial toward others’ or ‘demeaning,’ while at the same time advocacy for abortion rights is deemed a ‘legitimate’ form of promoting ‘diversity or inclusion,’ the proposed rule could become ‘ridden’ with ad hoc exceptions in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.”