Trial Lawyers’ Group Issues Firm Call to Guard Judges and the Rule of Law

ABOTA’s resolution lands in Washington with a clear, urgent ask

The American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) unveiled a public resolution in Washington, D.C., calling for stronger protections for judicial independence and the rule of law. The group’s statement, released on the same day as its annual meeting, frames the issue as more than a legal debate: ABOTA says that recent threats and pressure directed at judges risk shaking public confidence in courts and must be addressed.

The resolution names a handful of concrete steps ABOTA wants — from protecting judges from intimidation to preserving long-standing norms around impartial decision making. The group stresses these are not partisan demands but basic safeguards that help courts do their job fairly and calmly.

What ABOTA is, in plain terms

ABOTA is a national organization made up of experienced trial lawyers. Its members are mostly plaintiffs and defense attorneys who have tried many cases before juries. The group dates back several decades and has built a reputation for defending the civil jury system and for speaking up about how courts should operate.

Membership in ABOTA is selective: lawyers are invited in after a record of trial experience and peer review. That gives the group a mix of courtroom credibility and civic standing. When ABOTA speaks, it does so as a community of lawyers who say they care about fair process, not a political interest group pushing a single agenda.

That standing is why legal observers and some public officials treat ABOTA’s statements as serious. The organization doesn’t represent judges or the government; it represents trial lawyers who rely on a predictable, independent judiciary to resolve disputes. So when ABOTA warns about threats to courts, it’s speaking from a professional stake in keeping judges able to decide cases without fear or favor.

What the resolution actually asks for

The resolution lays out several clear points. First, it calls for protecting judges from threats, harassment and undue political pressure. ABOTA emphasizes that intimidation — whether online or in person — can chill a judge’s ability to make tough calls.

Second, the group urges that public officials, commentators and advocacy groups refrain from rhetoric that may encourage personal attacks on judges. ABOTA’s language stresses that disagreement with a court decision is normal in a democracy, but targeting the people who decide cases crosses a line.

Third, the resolution supports procedures that keep the judicial process transparent yet respectful. That means preserving open hearings and public records while also ensuring judges and court staff can work without fear for their personal safety.

In announcing the resolution, ABOTA leaders used measured but firm words. One passage in the release described judicial independence as “essential to the rule of law,” and urged the legal community and public servants to defend that principle. The group also called for communication that focuses on decisions and legal arguments rather than personal attacks on judges.

Why this matters beyond legal circles

Courts are a public safety valve. When judges can rule without being threatened, ordinary people and businesses can rely on predictable outcomes. If judges feel pressured by threats or extreme public attacks, they may steer clear of controversial rulings, delaying justice or skewing outcomes.

The resolution sits at the crossroads of law and civic life. It matters not just to lawyers but to anyone who depends on courts to settle disputes — from families and small-business owners to investors and government agencies. When public trust in judges erodes, the whole system of rights and obligations can weaken.

Finally, the resolution touches on a larger debate about public speech and accountability. ABOTA frames its request as protecting debate about legal issues while drawing a firm boundary against speech that targets the personal safety or independence of judges.

Who will react, and what to watch next

Expect a range of responses. Bar associations and judicial groups are likely to echo ABOTA’s call for calmer public discourse and better protections for judges. Some lawmakers may welcome the attention, especially if they are looking for nonpartisan ways to shore up court operations.

Advocacy groups that push hard on certain cases may push back, arguing that vigorous public criticism of rulings is part of democracy. How the debate unfolds will depend on whether prominent public figures and the media heed ABOTA’s call to change tone.

Near term, watch for follow-up actions: statements from state and national bar groups, any court orders aimed at protecting judges, or congressional hearings that mention the resolution. If those follow-through steps appear, ABOTA’s resolution may shift from a public warning to a driver of policy and practice changes around the country.

Sources

• prnewswire.com