Midyear Meeting 1990

8C (North Carolina Bar Association)
(Approved by voice vote)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports the lawyers, judges and public officials of Colombia who have refused to surrender their country, their judicial system, or the rule of law to those who traffic in drugs and death, and urges the President and the Congress to provide all appropriate assistance to help our brave colleagues stem the destructive flow of cocaine and other drugs which threaten not only their country, but ours.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association provide such support to the judicial system of Colombia as may be appropriate.

8D (Los Angeles County Bar Association)
(Approved by voice vote) (Retained 7/2000)

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association immediately establish a Task Force to identify the problems facing the criminal and civil justice system and to create solutions to these problems, assigning the highest priority to this project, as a complement to the ABA's other efforts to increase access to our system of justice.

100A (Judicial Administration Division)
(Amended and approved by voice vote) (Retained 7/2000)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association endorses and supports the Drug Recognition Program initiated by the National Highway Safety Administration and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, provided that it is applied in a manner fully respecting the subject's constitutional rights; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association encourages adoption and use of the Drug Recognition Program by the states and other jurisdictions.

100B (Judicial Administration Division)
(Approved by voice vote) (Retained 7/2000)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state and local bar leaders to take a leadership role in establishing coordinating councils composed of key figures in the criminal justice system who have the authority to ameliorate the problems of crowded jails and the related issue of court delay.

100D (Judicial Administration Division)
(Approved by voice vote) (Retained 7/2000)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the Standards Relating to Court Organization be amended in accordance with the draft dated October, 1989.

100E (Judicial Administration Division)
(Approved by voice vote)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the ABA urges judicial leaders to encourage and promote the full participation in the work forces of the court systems under their jurisdiction of all persons regardless of their race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age or handicap; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the ABA encourages each court system, and each major local court with significant control over personnel administration, to adopt merit-based personnel systems, including specific equal employment opportunity and affirmative action plans, that encompass all facets of court personnel management including recruitment, hiring, training, promotion and advancement; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the ABA calls upon officials within the legislative and executive branches of government who select and appoint persons to the judiciary, and members of judicial selection commissions or advisory groups who assist them, to incorporate affirmative action values as they decide whom to recommend and appoint to judicial positions; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the ABA encourages executive agencies that control or share in the selection of court personnel to implement equal employment opportunity and affirmative action plans and programs as they staff the courts.

101B (Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice)
(Approved by voice vote) (RETAINED 7/2000)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association recommends that -
(1) Congress reconsider section 6483 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Amendments Act of 1988, which provides for civil penalties for personal-use possession of controlled substances, because that section contains inconsistent and ambiguous provisions concerning the availability of formal administrative hearings, standards of proof, the right to counsel, and expungement; and
(2) If Congress wishes to retain civil penalties for personal-use possession of controlled substances, it revise those provisions of section 6486 that pertain to the standards of proof in judicial proceedings involving such penalties, and consider additional revisions to section 6486, such as the handling of uncontested civil penalties in pretrial diversion and clarification of the provisions pertaining to judicial review and expungement.

106(C) (Individual Rights and Responsibilites, CJS, etc.)
(Approved by standing vote of 238-106)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association recognizes the fundamental rights of privacy and equality guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and opposes legislation or other governmental action that interferes with the confidential relationship between a pregnant woman and her physician, or with the decision to terminate the pregnancy at any time before the fetus is capable of independent life, as determined by her physician, or thereafter when termination of the pregnancy is necessary to protect the woman's life or health.

115A (CJS)
(Approved by voice vote) (Retained 7/2000)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association recommends that States and the federal government should adopt procedures ensuring that a prison and jail impact statement be prepared for and considered by a State legislature or Congress before the passage of laws involving the sentencing of convicted criminals, parole policies, and other issues whose resolution may directly lead to an increase in the number of persons incarcerated in correctional facilities or the length of their incarceration; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a prison and jail impact statement should include, at a minimum, the following information:
(a) an estimate of the number of individuals who will annually be incarcerated in or remain incarcerated in prisons or jails as a result of the contemplated legislation being enacted;
(b) an estimate of the amount of additional prison or jail space needed to accommodate the increase in the size of the prison or jail populations;
(c) an estimate of the cost of building additional prisons or jails or of taking other steps to make the space available for the anticipated greater number of incarcerated persons; and
(d) an estimate of the amount by which the expected increase in the number of persons incarcerated in prisons or jails or the duration of their confinement will increase operating expenses, which are the sums incurred when paying for staff, food, supplies, medical care, and the other costs stemming from the supervision, treatment, and care of inmates; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That Congress and the State legislatures should not enact legislation that will increase the number of persons incarcerated in correctional facilities or the length of their confinement without taking steps to ensure that either:
(a) the resources, including space and money for increased operating expenses, are already available to handle the increase in the size of the prison or jail populations; or
(b) money is appropriated to cover the costs of implementing the legislation; or
(c) other counterbalancing steps are taken to decrease the size of the prison or jail populations.

115B (CJS)
(Approved by voice vote) (Retained 7/2000)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges that jurisdictions considering authorization of contracts with private corporations or other private entities for the operation of prisons or jails do so with extreme caution; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That jurisdictions contemplating entering into contracts with private corporations or other private entities for the operation of prison or jail facilities are urged to recognize that:
1. the imposition and implementation of a sentence of incarceration for a criminal offense is a core function of government;
2. there are numerous and complex legal issues involved in the delegation of incarceration functions to private entities; and
3. there is a strong public interest in having prison and jail systems in which lines of accountability are clear, which are operated in a cost-effective fashion, which provide proper care and treatment for inmates, and which meet minimum standards for the operation and maintenance of prisons and jails; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association disapproves of any jurisdiction undertaking a privatization program in order to avoid fundamental questions about its sentencing policies, the use of the incarceration sanction, and the conditions of confinement in publicly operated prisons and jails; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That jurisdictions seeking to contract with private entities for the operation of prison or jail facilities should do so in accordance with the "Guidelines Concerning Privatization of Prisons and Jails," dated 03/29/89, and appended to the Report which accompanies this Recommendation.

115C (CJS)
(Approved by voice vote) (Retained 7/2000)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports legislation that would create an office or center of correctional education within the U.S. Department of Education to perform certain functions, including but not limited to the following:
(A) coordinate all adult and juvenile correctional education programs within the Department of Education;
(B) provide technical support to State and local educational agencies and to correctional systems on adult and juvenile correctional education programs and curricula;
(C) provide an annual report to Congress on the progress of the office or center and the status of adult and juvenile correctional education in the United States;
(D) cooperate with other federal agencies carrying out correctional education programs to ensure coordination of such programs;
(E) advise the Secretary of Education on correctional education policy; and,br> (F) distribute grant funds that may be available for correctional education within the Department of Education; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports legislation that provides for funding of vocational education in adult and juvenile correctional institutions and programs through such mechanisms as the Carl D. Perkins Applied Technology Education Act; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports legislative initiatives, at the federal and State levels, that specifically recognize, address, and attempt to correct illiteracy within adult and juvenile correctional institutions and programs.

115E (CJS)
(Approved by voice vote) (Retained 7/2000)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges that the following measures be taken in the litigation of death penalty cases:
1) Because many of the defects and delays in habeas corpus procedure are due to the fact that the accused was not represented by competent counsel, particularly at the trial level, the state and federal governments should be obligated to provide competent and adequately compensated counsel for capital defendants / appellants / petitioners, as well as to provide sufficient resources for investigation, expert witnesses, and other services, at all stages of capital punishment litigation. The American Bar Association Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases should govern the appointment and compensation of counsel.
2) The individual or organization responsible for appointing counsel should enlist the assistance of the local bar association and resource center to seek the best qualified attorneys available.
3) Jurisdictions that have the death penalty should establish and fund organizations to recruit, select, train, monitor, support, and assist attorneys involved at all stages of capital litigation and, if necessary, to participate in the trial of such cases.
4) New counsel should be appointed to represent the death-sentenced inmate for the state direct appeal unless the appellant requests the continuation of trial counsel after having been fully advised of the consequences of his or her decision, and the appellant waives the right to new counsel on the record.
5) To avoid the delay occasioned by the appointment of new counsel for post-conviction proceedings and to assure continued competent representation, state appellate counsel who represented a death-sentenced inmate should continue representation through all subsequent state, federal, and United States Supreme Court proceedings.
6) To assure that the state provides competent representation and to avoid procedural delays as well as multiple review of the same issues, the following procedural barriers to federal habeas corpus review should not apply with respect to any state court proceeding at which the state court, in deprivation of the right to counsel recognized in paragraph "1" above, failed to appoint competent and adequately compensated counsel to represent the defendant/appellant/petitioner:
(a) exhaustion of state judicial remedies, (b) procedural default rules; and (c) the presumption of correctness of state court findings of fact.
7) Federal courts should not rely on state procedural bar rules to preclude consideration of the merits of a claim if the prisoner shows that the failure to raise the claim in a state court was due to the ignorance or neglect of the prisoner or counsel or if the failure to consider such a claim would result in a miscarriage of justice.
8) State appellate courts should review under a knowing, understanding, and voluntary waiver standard all claims of constitutional error not properly raised at trial and on appeal and should have a plain error rule and apply it liberally with respect to errors of state law.
9) On the initial state post-conviction application, state post-conviction courts should review under a knowing, understanding, and voluntary waiver standard all claims of constitutional error not properly preserved at trial or on appeal.
10) The federal courts should adopt rules designed to facilitate both the presentation of all available claims in the first habeas corpus petition and the prompt exhaustion of any unexhausted claims in order to eliminate the problem of procedurally forced successive petitions.
11) A rational process of review will be facilitated by a stay of execution that remains in force until the completion of the initial round of state and federal post-conviction review. Therefore, unless the state courts grant a stay of execution, the federal courts, in preservation of their habeas corpus jurisdiction, should grant a stay of execution to run from the initiation of state post-conviction proceedings through the completion of the initial round of federal habeas corpus proceedings, and should be empowered to do so.
12) The petitioner should have a right of appeal from denial of an initial federal habeas corpus petition without the need to obtain a certificate of probable cause.
13) A one-year limitations period should be employed as a substitute mechanism to move the case toward reasonably prompt completion, but only with adequate and sufficient tolling provisions to permit full and fair consideration of a petitioner's claims in state court, federal court, and the United States Supreme Court. The sanction for failure to comply with the time requirements should be dismissal, except that the time requirements should be waived where the petitioner has presented a colorable claim, which has not been presented previously, either of factual innocence or of the petitioner's ineligibility for the death penalty.
14) A federal court should entertain a second or successive petition for habeas corpus relief if:
(a) the request for relief is based on a claim not previously presented by the prisoner in the state and federal courts and the failure to raise the claim is the result of state action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, the result of Supreme Court recognition of a new federal right that is retroactively applicable, or based on a factual predicate that could not have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence; or
(b) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient, if proven, to undermine the court's confidence in the jury's determination of guilt on the offense or offenses for which the death penalty was imposed; or
(c) consideration of the requested relief is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
15) The standard for determining whether changes in federal constitutional law should apply retroactively should be whether failure to apply the new law would undermine the accuracy of either the guilt or the sentencing determination.
16) To afford the states a reasonable time to adopt and implement rules and procedures pursuant to these recommendations, the proposed federal statutory and rule changes should take effect upon adoption by the states of provisions in accordance with these recommendations, but not later than two years from the date of enactment of federal legislation; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association commends to Congress the sample legislation attached in Appendix "B" as a way to implement these Recommendations.

118 (Standing Committee on Ethics & Professional Responsibility, CJS)

BE IT RESOLVED, That Rule 3.8 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the Comment to that Rule be amended by adding a new paragraph (f) and Comment as follows: Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
The Prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
. . . .
(f) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless:
(1) the prosecutor reasonably believes:
(a) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;
(b) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution;
(c) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information; and
(2) the prosecutor obtains prior judicial approval after an opportunity for an adversarial proceeding.

Comment
Paragraph (f) is intended to limit the issuance of lawyer subpoenas in grand jury and other criminal proceedings to those situations in which there is a genuine need to intrude into the client-lawyer relationship. The prosecutor is required to obtain court approval for the issuance of the subpoena after an opportunity for an adversarial hearing is afforded in order to assure an independent determination that the applicable standards are met.

126 (Law Student Division)
(Amended and approved by voice vote) (Archived 7/2000)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association rescinds its prior marijuana policies of 1972 1973 and deplores the use of marijuana and other harmful drugs, which have become one of the nation's most serious and growing public health problems.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the President, the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Congress to substantially increase funding to establish education, prevention and treatment programs as widely as possible to reduce and discourage the use of marijuana and other harmful drugs.

301(St. Comm. Professional Discipline, Ethics Committee, CJS, etc.)
(Amended and approved by voice vote)

BE IT RESOLVED, That it is the policy of the American Bar Association
a. That Department of Justice lawyers may not be given blanket exemption from the requirements of Rule 4.2 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct or Disciplinary Rule 7-104(a)(1) of the predecessor ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility as adopted in individual jurisdictions; and
b. to oppose any attempt by the Department of Justice unilaterally to exempt its lawyers from the professional conduct rules that apply to all lawyers under applicable rules of the jurisdictions in which they practice.

Annual Meeting 1990

10H (Association of the Bar of the City of New York
(Approved by voice vote)

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association support five year reauthorization of the National Endowment for the Arts with no restrictions on the content, the subject matter, message or idea of what the Endowment may fund.

101A (CJS)
(Approved by voice vote) (Retained 7/00)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association, in order to promote compliance with the Money Laundering Control Act (18 U.S.C. Sections_1956, 1957) and the Bank Secrecy Act (31 U.S.C. Section_5322) recommends that the United States adopt prosecution policies to encourage compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and Money Laundering Control Act by establishing guidelines and standards governing prosecution of financial institutions; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the standards and guidelines should encourage financial institutions to adopt comprehensive Bank Secrecy Act compliance programs and anti-money laundering programs, and to cooperate with law enforcement authorities.

101B (CJS)
(Approved by voice vote) (Retained 7/00)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association adopts the black letter amendments dated August, 1990, to Chapter Five, "Providing Defense Services," of the Second Edition American Bar Association Standards For Criminal Justice.

102 (Military Law)
(Approved by voice vote) (Retained 7/00)

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association recommends that the military continue to operate a system of corrections for military prisons and opposes any transfer of management or operations of the military correctional system to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Midyear Meeting 1991

103 (CJS; Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports Congressional legislation mandating the inclusion of state and local indigent defense programs among those programs eligible for fund under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and similar federal laws, further mandating the inclusion of research, training and technical assistance programs for state and local indigent defense systems in the Discretionary Grant Programs under the Bureau of Justice Assistance and similar federal agencies; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges Congress to authorize and appropriate funding to assist state and local governments in implementing the constitutional obligation provide effective assistance of counsel for indigent defendants state and local proceedings; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state legislatures in those states where funding for indigent defense services is primarily provided at the local level to increase the level of state funding.

104A (CJS)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the United States Department of Justice, and state and local prosecutor agencies, to promulgate guidelines to govern the use of civil or criminal forfeiture; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That these internal guidelines should contain provisions that require consideration of and protections for the interests of innocent third parties that may be affected directly or indirectly by forfeiture or asset freezing orders; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a procedure for appropriate internal agency review of forfeiture charges and asset freeze or orders be implemented to ensure compliance with applicable guidelines, the appropriate use of forfeiture provisions, and the protection of innocent third party interests.

104C (CJS)
Revised by the proponents and approved by voice vote. As approved, it reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association adopts the black letter amendments dated February, 1991, to Chapter Eight, "Fair Trial and Free Press," of the Second Edition American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice, as revised.

104D (CJS)
Revised by the proponents and approved by voice vote. As approved, it reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association adopts the black letter amendments dated February, 1991, to Chapter Four, "The Defense Function," of the Second Edition American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice, as revised.

104E (CJS; IR&R)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association recommends that the Congress of the United States not enact legislation similar to H.R.5050 and S.2735 of the 101st Congress, granting the Federal Bureau of Investigation the unrestricted authority to issue administrative summonses in criminal investigations; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association also recommends that prior to the consideration of any legislation granting the Federal Bureau of Investigation authority to issue administrative summonses, full hearings be held by the appropriate committees of the House and the Senate.

Annual Meeting 1991

10F (Special Committee on the Drug Crisis; Boston BA; Maryland State BA; San Diego County BA; Bar Association of Baltimore City; Rhode Island BA; Cleveland BA; Bar Association of Metropolitan St Louis)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state and local bar associations to establish special committees to inform the bar on all aspects of the drug crisis, to study the impact, consequences and effectiveness of current drug policies on their areas' entire justice system, to participate in an examination and improvement of our nation's drug policies and facilitate the participation by their members in anti-drug programs in their communities.

10D (Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements; CJS; Commission on Women in the Profession; Commission on Opportunities for Minorities in the Legal Profession; Association of the Bar of the City of New York; Boston Bar Association
The recommendation was approved as amended. As approved, it reads:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports the enactment of authoritative measures, requiring studies of the existence, if any, of bias in the federal judicial system, including bias based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation and disability, and the extent to which bias may affect litigants, witnesses, attorneys and all those who work in the judicial branch.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges that such studies should include the development of remedial steps to address and eliminate any bias found to exist.

10A (CJS; National Conference of Federal Trial Judges; Illinois State Bar Association)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the Association recommends that the Judicial Conference of the United States' Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules encourage the United States District Courts to fashion remedies in appropriate individual cases, or encourage adoption of local rules in selected Districts, to address the issue of long trials involving numerous defendants, often referred to as "megatrials," which create substantial risks to the fair administration of justice.

105A (CJS)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the procedures for revising the ABA Standards For Criminal Justice be amended to provide that a majority vote, rather than a two-thirds vote, of the Criminal Section Council members present is required to authorize a Recommendation to amend the Standards.

105B (CJS)

By voice vote, the House deferred action on the recommendation urging the enactment by each state of an Adult Community Corrections Act to facilitate the establishment of a comprehensive adult community corrections program.

117B(IR&R)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association, without taking a position on the enactment of general federal death penalty legislation, supports in principle legislative measures which would prevent or minimize any disproportionate effects of general federal death penalty legislation on Native Americans subject to federal jurisdiction.

302 (Judicial Administration Division)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports legislation by each state legislature and the United States Congress mandating the preparation of judicial system impact statements to be attached to each bill or resolution that affects the operations of State or Federal courts; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges each state legislature and Congress to establish a mechanism within its budgeting process to prepare judicial system impact statements determining the probable costs and effects of each bill or resolution that has an identifiable and measurable effect on the dockets, work loads, efficiency, staff and personnel requirements, operating resources and currently existing material resources of appellate, trial and administrative law courts; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges that if proposed legislation has an identifiable and measurable effect on the judiciary, a judicial impact statement be attached to each such bill or resolution before a committee hearing may be conducted on the bill or resolution and that the judicial impact statement must be printed on the first page of such committee report and all subsequent printings and must remain on the bill or resolution throughout the legislative process, including submission to the chief executive, (Governor or President) for approval.

110A (Young Lawyers Division)
Approved by voice vote with an amendment accepted by the proponents. As approved, it reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports the enactment of federal, state and territorial legislation that: 1) Encourages the establishment of educational programs directed at school children, their parents, and juvenile services professionals on firearm safety for children, including the dangers of the use of such weapons; 2) Provides for stricter regulation of, and manufacturer's warnings on, "BB" guns and air rifles; and 3) Provides criminal penalties for adults' failure to properly safeguard firearms and ammunition they own or control, thereby placing minors at risk of death or injury.

101 (Los Angeles County Bar Association)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association recognizes that the highest priority of the bar and bench must be to promote improvements in the American system of justice by ensuring balanced and adequate funding for, and timely access to, the entire justice system and urges Association entities, state and local bars and affiliated organizations to form coordinated action committees with non-lawyer groups to:
1. Assess the depth and breadth of the crisis in their jurisdictions; 2. Design and implement an action plan to attack the crisis and maintain and improve balanced and adequate funding for the entire justice system; and 3. Educate policy makers that their actions may have consequences for the entire justice system well beyond their intended purpose.

Midyear 1992

10A (Kansas Bar Association; State Bar of Michigan; South Carolina Bar; North Carolina SB; Hawaii SBA; Maryland SBA; Maine SBA; Massachusetts BA, Mississippi Bar; Alabama SB; State Bar of Nevada; cosponsored by Washington SBA, Louisiana SBA, Tennessee BA, Tulsa County BA, State Bar of South Dakota,)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association establish standards for accrediting private organizations which certify lawyers as specialists, and that it establish and maintain a mechanism to accredit such organizations which meet those standards.

10F (Los Angeles County BA, Special Committee on Funding the Justice System)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports federal, state, territorial and local legislation mandating the use of Justice System Impact Statements to be attached to all legislation or resolutions and executive branch orders or actions that have an identifiable and measurable impact on the operation of one or more elements of the criminal and civil justice system.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the establishment of appropriate mechanisms at the federal, state, territorial and local levels to ensure the preparation of the justice system impact statements that examine and analyze the funding, workload, and resource impact of proposed legislation and executive branch orders or actions for each and every element of the criminal and civil justice system, including, but not limited to, law enforcement, prosecution, public defense, probation, corrections, courts, civil legal services and dispute resolution.

100 (Judicial Administration Division)
The recommendation was to adopt amendments to the American Bar Association Standards Relating to Trial Courts.* The House amended the proposed Standards as follows:

Proposed Standard 2.31 (Responsibilities of Judges and Lawyers), was amended to read:
Judges are responsible for the prompt and just disposition of matters assigned. The bench has the duty to control the movement of cases through the system. The bar has a duty to cooperate by being ready to proceed with scheduled matters. Judges should not grant, nor should lawyers request, postponement except for good cause. Cooperation between the bench and the bar is essential in accomplishing overall management of the trial court.

Proposed Standard 2.32 (Disqualification of Judges), was amended to read:
2.32 Disqualification of Judges. A judge should be subject to disqualification for cause on the grounds set forth in the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct (1990). A judge against whom a motion to disqualify for cause is made may be authorized to determine whether it is legally sufficient on its face, but factual issues raised by the motion should be heard and resolved by another judge. The filing of a complaint with the disciplinary commission is not in itself sufficient to cause disqualification of that judge.

Proposed Standard 2.38 (Media Coverage in the Courtroom) was amended to read:
Each state supreme court should adopt rules regulating television and radio broadcasting and taking of still photographs in the courtroom. These rules should apply statewide and preserve the dignity, decorum, and substance of the judicial process.

Proposed Standard 2.71 (E) was amended to read:
In a domestic dispute situation, take steps necessary to protect the victim. Steps to protect the victim include where sufficient evidence exists: Confining the abuser, issuing proper restraining orders, suppressing the victim's address, ordering abusers into counseling or treatment, and ordering family support. The court should understand the dynamics of domestic abuse, especially the psychological effects on the victim. The court should make decisions designed to stop the abuse. The court should expedite the hearings.

The Division's recommendation was then approved by voice vote. It reads:

RESOLVED, That the black letter Standards Relating to Trial Courts be amended in accordance with the draft dated November, 1991, as amended.

101A (CJS)
The recommendation was to adopt amendments to Chapter Three, "The Prosecution Function," of the Second Edition American Bar Association Standards For Criminal Justice. The House amended the proposed Standards as follows:

Proposed Standard 3-2.9 (e) was amended to read as follows:
(e) A prosecutor, without attempting to get more funding for additional staff, should not carry a workload that, by reason of its excessive size, interferes with the rendering of quality representation, endangers the interests of justice in the speedy disposition of charges, or may lead to the breach of professional obligations.
Proposed Standard 3-3.9(c) was amended to read as follows:
(c) A prosecutor should not be compelled by his or her supervisor to prosecute a case in which he or she has a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused.
The Section's recommendation was then approved by voice vote. As approved, it reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association adopts the black letter amendments dated February, 1992, to Chapter Three, "The Prosecution Function," of the Second Edition American Bar Association Standards For Criminal Justice, as amended.

101B (CJS)
Revised by the proponents and approved by voice vote. As approved, it reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act but urges that Congress conduct comprehensive public hearings to determine the effectiveness of the Act and to examine its future goals and objectives.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That in the event Congress decides to reauthorize the Act, any such reauthorization should include:
adherence to an unbiased, responsible agenda for research, development and demonstration programs; diversification of training; guarantees of juveniles' right to counsel; improvement of conditions of confinement; and a commitment to alternatives to confinement; a prohibition on secure confinement of status offenders; curtailing waivers for States and Territories which do not comply with the Act's objectives; and strict Congressional oversight of the Act and its implementation.

101C (CJS)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges States, territories, localities, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and correctional officials to take steps to increase literacy among criminal offenders; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports a mandate requiring every correctional system to make available to criminal offenders a wide array of adult basic education programs; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association endorses the use of mandatory literacy programs to reduce illiteracy among criminal offenders, provided that the programs meet the following requirements:
1. Inmates are not denied parole or their incarceration otherwise extended because they are illiterate.
2. The programs are of high quality.
3. Special education programs are provided for offenders with developmental or learning disabilities.
4. Offenders who, because of a medical, developmental, or learning disability, cannot meet the literacy-level requirement and cannot reasonably be expected to benefit from participation in a functional literacy program are not required to participate in the program.
5. Appropriate incentives are developed to encourage and reward offenders' participation in the programs.
6. Ensure that there is coordination between literacy programs for offenders in community corrections programs, in prisons, in jails, and on parole.
7. The programs are adequately funded; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the "Model Literacy Act for Adult Offenders," dated July 1991, is offered as a suggested example for jurisdictions considering mandatory literacy programs for adult offenders.

101D (CJS)
Revised by the proponents and approved by voice vote. As approved, it reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges each State and Territory to enact an Adult Community Corrections Act to facilitate the establishment of a comprehensive adult community corrections program, and offers the "Model Adult Community Corrections Act," dated May 9, 1991, as a suggested example.

101E (CJS) Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the Judicial Conference of the United States to recommend amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to implement the concepts embodied in the following proposed rule changes:
I. Proposed Rule 16 (a)(1)(E)
Upon request by a defendant or as it otherwise becomes known to the government, the government shall promptly furnish to the defendant all evidence within the possession, custody or control of the government which tends to exculpate the defendant of the crimes charged in the indictment or tends to mitigate the defendant's sentence. The government shall have a continuing obligation to furnish the defendant such material as it becomes known or available to the government.
II. Proposed Rule 16 (a)(1)(A)
Upon request of a defendant the government shall permit the defendant to inspect and copy of photograph: any relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant, or copies thereof, within the possession, custody or control of the government, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known, to the attorney for the government; the substance of any oral statement which the government intends to offer in evidence at the trial made by the defendant whether before or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person then known to the defendant to be a government agent; and recorded testimony of the defendant before a grand jury which relates to the offense charged. Where the defendant is a corporation, partnership, association or labor union, [the court may grant the defendant, upon its motion, discovery of relevant recorded testimony of any witness before a grand jury who] it can inspect and copy or photograph any such relevant written or oral statements or testimony where the statements or testimony were made by a person who (1) was, at the time of the statement or [that] testimony, so situated as a [n] director, officer, [or] employee or agent as to have been able legally to bind the defendant in respect to conduct constituting the offense, or (2) was, at the time of the offense, personally involved in the alleged conduct constituting the offense and so situated as a [n] director, officer, [or] employee or agent as to have been able legally to bind the defendant in respect to that alleged conduct in which the witness was involved.
III. Proposed Amendment to Rule 17(c)
A subpoena may also command the person to whom it is directed to produce the books, papers, documents or other objects designated therein. The court on motion made promptly may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. [the court may direct that] Upon the consent of the government, the defendant, and the person subpoenaed, or upon order of the court, a subpoena may require the production of books, papers, documents or objects [designated in the subpoena be produced before the court] at a time prior to the trial or prior to the time when they are to be offered in evidence, and in such case the subpoena may be complied with by production of the subpoenaed books, papers, documents or objects directly to the parties or their attorneys, unless the court orders otherwise. [and may upon their production permit the books, papers, documents or objects or portions thereof to be inspected by the parties and their attorneys.]
IV. Proposed Amendments to Rule 16(a)(1)(D) and (b)(1)(B)
To amend Rule 16 (a)(1)(D) by adding:
Upon request of the defendant, the government shall disclose its intention to call an expert witness at trial. The government shall also provide the area of expertise for which the witness will be offered. If no such notification is made at least ten days prior to the first day of trial, the court shall not allow the testimony of the expert witness in the absence of a showing of good cause for the lack of notification.
To amend Rule 16 (b)(1)(B) by adding:
Upon request of the government, the defendant shall disclose his intention to call an expert witness at trial. The defendant shall also provide the area of expertise for which the witness will be offered.
If no such notification is made at least ten days prior to the first day of trial, the court shall not allow the testimony of the expert witness in the absence of a showing of good cause for the lack of notification.*

102 (Judicial Administration Division; National Conference of Federal Trial Judges, Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association endorses the recommendation of the Federal Courts Study Committee for an immediate, in depth and independent study of the actual operation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines System to determine whether the system is fair and effective, and whether it meets Congressional objectives.

104 (Judicial Administration Division National Conference of State Trial Judges
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association adopts the black letter "Trial Management Standards"* as follows:
1. Judicial trial management -- general principle: the trial judge has the responsibility to manage the trial proceedings. The judge shall be prepared to preside and take appropriate action to ensure that all parties are prepared to proceed, the trial commences as scheduled, all parties have a fair opportunity to present evidence, and the trial proceeds to conclusion without unnecessary interruption.
2. The trial judge and trial counsel should participate in a trial management conference before trial.
3. After consultation with counsel, the judge shall set reasonable time limits.
4. The trial judge shall arrange the court's docket to start trial as scheduled and provide parties the number of hours set each day for the trial.
5. The judge shall ensure that once trial has begun, momentum is maintained.
6. The judge shall control voir dire.
7. The judge's ultimate responsibility to ensure a fair trial shall govern any decision to intervene.
8. Judges shall maintain appropriate decorum and formality of trial proceedings.
9. Judges should be receptive to using technology in managing the trial and the presentation of evidence.

122A (Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports the re-establishment in the United States Department of Justice of the Office for Improvements in the Administration of Justice (OIAJ) with broad authority to pursue a range of programs and projects relating to the entire justice system.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Office be headed by an Assistant Attorney General, under the direction of the Attorney General.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That OIAJ be authorized and responsible for developing ways to improve the operation of the civil and criminal justice system and to enhance citizen access to justice.

Annual Meeting 1992

111 (International Criminal Court Task Force)
Proponents presented a substitute resolution jointly with the New York State Bar Association, which was approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association recommends that the U.S. Government work toward finding solutions to the numerous important legal and practical issues identified in the accompanying reports of the Task Force on an International Criminal Court and the New York State Bar Association, with a view toward the establishment of an international criminal court, considering the following principles and issues:
A. Jurisdiction of the court shall be concurrent with that of member states. It may cover a range of well established international crimes, but member states shall be free to choose by filing a declaration of the crimes they shall recognize as within the court's jurisdiction.
B. No person shall be tried before the court unless jurisdiction has been conferred upon the court by the state or states of which he is a national and by the state or states in which the crime is alleged to have been committed.
C. The fundamental rights of an accused shall be protected by appropriate provisions in the court's constituent instruments and in its rules of evidence and criminal procedure.
D. The obligations of states under the court's constituent instruments shall be enforced by sanctions.

Midyear Meeting 1993

107A (Committee on Military Law)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports changes to the Rules for Courts-Martial to provide an opportunity for convicted service members to review and submit matters for consideration at all stages of military administrative review and to provide an opportunity for convicted service members to review and submit petitions requesting certification to the United States Court of Military Appeals.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports amendments to the Rules for Courts-Martial 1112 and 1201(b) to permit convicted service members to review and submit matters for consideration by military administrative reviewing authorities.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports amendments to the Rules for Courts-Martial 1203(c) to provide an opportunity for convicted service members to review and submit petitions to the appropriate service Judge Advocate General for certification of a case to the United States Court of Military Appeals.

107B (Military Law Committee)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports legislation to amend the Victims of Crime Act of 1984:
1) to recognize that victims of crimes committed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice are entitled to receive the benefits intended to compensate other victims under the Act;
2) to make compensation available to nonworking spouses and children who are victims under the Act;
3) to expand the geographic applicability of the Act to include U.S. citizens and their family members who may be outside the United States and who may become victims of crimes committed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

108A (CJS)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association adopts the black letter amendments dated February, 1993 to Chapter Eighteen, "Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures" and to Chapter Twenty, "Appellate Review of Sentences," of the Second Edition American Bar Association Standards For Criminal Justice.7

108B (CJS); cosponsored by the Section of Business Law)
Revised by the proponents and approved by voice vote. As approved, it reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the appropriate committees of the Judicial Conference of the United States to address problems that may arise as a result of parallel and concurrent civil and criminal proceedings, including amendment of relevant federal procedural rules.

108C (CJS)
Amended and approved by voice vote. As approved, it reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association approves the Uniform Victims of Crime Act promulgated in 1992 by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, to the extent that the Act is not inconsistent with Association policies and standards, as an appropriate Act for those states desiring to adopt the substantive law suggested therein.

Annual Meeting 1993

10G (Committee on the Drug Crisis; CJS; Boston BA)
Approved as amended. As approved, it reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial and local bar associations to establish policies in support of community service programs that (1) challenge teens and young adults to develop a sense of purpose and self-worth, (2) revitalize urban areas by fostering civic pride and volunteerism and (3) join with coalitions to help prevent the erosion of families and communities through drug abuse and related crime and violence.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial and local bar associations to encourage participation in community service programs by bar members, law firms, and law schools.

100 (Military Law Committee; Commission on Women in the Profession; cosponsored by Judge Advocates Association and Standing Committee on Lawyers in the Armed Forces)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association recommends that Article 93, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (10 USC § 893) be amended to establish expressly sexual harassment of a military subordinate by a military superior in a duty setting as a criminal offense triable by court-martial.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association recommends that Article 93, UCMJ, be amended to be gender-neutral.

101 (Bar Association of San Francisco; Association of the Bar of the City of New York; Philadelphia BA, Beverly Hills BA, Alameda County BA, IR&R; cosponsored by CJS)
Revised and amended and approved by voice vote. As approved, it reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports federal, territorial and state legislation which would restrict the sale and possession of assault weapons to the military and law enforcement organizations.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial and local bar associations, and all of their respective members, to join with the ABA in the effort to pass such legislation.

101A (CJS)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association adopts the black letter amendments dated August, 1993, to Chapter Fifteen, "Trial by Jury," of the Second Edition American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice.14

101B (CJS)
Revised and amended and approved by voice vote. As approved, it reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges adoption of amendments to the Independent Counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act as follows:
1. Allowing the Attorney General to decline cases involving technical, yet benign, violations of the law, subject to the review of an independent counsel;
2. Allowing the Department of Justice the use of subpoenas duces tecum during the preliminary investigation;
3. Increasing the time allowed for the initial review of allegations from 15 days to 30 days;
4. Imposing initial pre-indictment tenure limitations of eighteen months and initial pre-indictment budgetary limitations of $1,500,000 on an independent counsel, subject to court authorized extensions of equal terms and/or amounts under the standard of 28 U.S.C. Section 596(b) (2).
5. Expanding the eligibility for service on the Special Division of the Court and requiring the establishment of rules of procedure and avenues of appellate review relating to actions of the Special Division.

101C (CJS)
Revised and amended by the proponents and approved by voice vote. As approved, it reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association encourages all federal, state, territorial and local detention and correctional facilities and programs to seek and to maintain accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care as a step toward maintaining proper conditions of detention and corrections; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care to review their processes, procedures and standards on an ongoing and open basis to ensure that only facilities and programs that comply with constitutional requirements, meet sound professional standards, and provide a decent, safe and humane environment are accredited.

300 (Specialization Committee)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association accredits the following designated specialty certification programs for lawyers:
1. Civil Trial Advocacy program of the National Board of Trial Advocacy, Boston, MA:
2. Criminal Trial Advocacy program of the National Board of Trial Advocacy, Boston, MA:
3. Business Bankruptcy program of the Commercial Law League of America Academy of Commercial and Bankruptcy Law Specialists, Chicago, IL;
4. Creditors' Rights program of the Commercial Law League of America Academy of Commercial and Bankruptcy Law Specialists, Chicago, IL;
5. Business Bankruptcy program of the American Bankruptcy Board of Certification, Washington, D.C; and
5. Consumer Bankruptcy program of the American Bankruptcy Board of Certification, Washington, D.C;

Board of Governors (November 1993)
(Commissions on Women in the Profession and Opportunities for Minorities in the Profession)
The Board amended, then approved the recommendation, to read as follows:

RESOLVED, That it is inappropriate for an Officer of the Association or a member of the Board of Governors to be a member of a club which discriminates, by policy or in practice, on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, disability or national origin (a "Discriminatory Club").

FURTHER RESOLVED, That current members of the Board and Officers of the Association and those nominated for such positions in February of 1994 who hold membership in a Discriminatory Club, should, by no later than November of 1994, resign from such Club, unless by such date such Club no longer constitutes a Discriminatory Club. After such date, no Officer of the Association and no member of the Board should be a member of a Discriminatory Club while serving in such position.

Midyear Meeting 1994

8 (Committee on the Drug Crisis; Boston Bar Association; cosponsored by CJS)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association encourages the adoption of voluntary, pretrial drug testing programs to assist judicial officers in determining appropriate conditions of release; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That adequate treatment should be provided to assist individuals in complying with a release order requiring pretrial drug testing; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the framework for conditional release involving pretrial drug testing should include graduated sanctions; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That there should be procedures in place to ensure the integrity of the testing program and accuracy of test results; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the results of pretrial drug testing, or refusal to submit to such testing, should not be admissible as evidence of the guilt of a defendant on an underlying charge.

8D (Bar Association of San Francisco; CJS; Task Force on Gun Violence, Beverly Hills BA, Santa Clara County BA, Litigation, King County BA, Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the CJS, the Alameda County Bar Association; cosponsored by Section of Science and Technology, Steering Committee on Unmet Legal Needs of Children, Section of Real Property, Probate and Trust Law and Denver BA
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association, which has for almost 30 years supported policies regulating the use and sale of guns, reminds the public of the Association's long standing opposition to uncontrolled use and sale of guns and its commitment to public safety; issues the warning that guns have now become the most visible instrument of violence in what has become a culture of violence of which children and youth have become victims; and reaffirms the following Association policies respecting regulation of firearms:
1965: Support legislation amending the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 to, inter alia, require licensing of dealers in interstate commerce of firearms; prohibit sales to felons, fugitives, persons under indictment, adjudicated mental incompetents and minors; restrict sale of handguns to residents of the state where purchased; and control commerce and importation of larger caliber weapons and firearms in general.
1973: Support legislation to limit sale and possession of cheap foreign-made handguns.
1975: Support amending the Gun Control Act of 1968 to, inter alia:
prohibit interstate sales by unlicensed persons of ammunition and firearms components; define the term "firearms for sporting purposes";
upgrade standards of eligibility for licensing of dealers, requiring background checks of applicants and making conferral of such licenses discretionary rather than mandatory;
require dealers, manufacturers, transporters and importers of firearms and ammunition to provide adequate and secure storage facilities in order to reduce theft of firearms and ammunition;
mandate a waiting period prior to firearms purchases for a criminal background check by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms;
encourage severe, but not mandatory, penalties for offenses involving firearms;
and require periodic review of eligibility of handgun possessors consistent with due process of law.
1983: Oppose efforts to repeal provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968; endorse effective and proven measures to control the "possession" of handguns; support enactment of appropriate penalties to deter firearms-related crime.
1991: Support the enactment of legislation encouraging gun safety education programs and providing for penalties for adults' failure to properly safeguard firearms.
1993: Support legislation to limit availability of assault weapons to the military and law enforcement organizations.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges legislative bodies to vigorously pursue solutions to the problem of gun violence consistent with existing ABA policy.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association instructs the Task Force on Gun Violence to report to the House of Delegates at the August 1994 Meeting as to policy recommendations further addressing the problem of gun violence.

100 (Committee on the Drug Crisis; cosponsored by CJS, Ohio State Bar Association)
Revised by the proponents and approved by voice vote. As approved it reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports the development of a comprehensive, systemic approach to addressing the needs of defendants with drug and alcohol problems through multidisciplinary strategies that include coordination among the criminal justice, health, social service and education systems, and the community.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the courts to adopt treatment-oriented, diversionary drug court programs as one component of a comprehensive approach that (i) intervene with drug-involved defendants immediately after arrest and divert eligible defendants to treatment programs in lieu of criminal prosecution, (ii) provide carefully structured treatment programs with explicit criteria governing the successful and unsuccessful participation of defendants, including the identification of clear expectations as to the defendant's responsibilities for participation in the program, (iii) establish the expected outcomes of the program with periodic evaluation; (iv) require frequent and direct contact with a supervising judge and the courtroom team assigned to the judge; and (v) target carefully the population of defendants with drug-related problems to be served by the program to maximize the program's effectiveness.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, local and territorial bar associations to facilitate the development of treatment-oriented, diversionary drug court programs that result in dismissal of drug-related charges upon the completion of drug rehabilitation.

102 (CJS)
Amended and approved by voice vote. As approved it reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports the principle that the act of contacting or retaining an attorney should not be admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

103 (Individual Rights and Responsibilities; CJS, LSD, YLD, NAWL)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association, in its efforts to promote the United States' ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and previously having endorsed such ratification in principle, suggest that such ratification be accompanied by Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations as follows:
1. Addressing Article 30 of the Convention, a Reservation that the United States may regulate the practice of religion to the extent that such regulation is permitted by the United States Constitution;
2. Addressing Article 37 of the Convention, a Reservation that United States jurisdictions, pursuant to existing law, may continue to confine within adult correctional facilities certain children who have committed offenses, even when such confinement may not be in the "best interests of the child" in a particular case;
3. Addressing Articles 9, 37, and 40 of the Convention, an Understanding that these Articles permit United States jurisdictions to separate a child from his or her parents against their will even if such separation may not be considered to be in the "best interests of the child," if such separation results from deprivations of liberty duly imposed for infringements of penal law;
4. Addressing Article 10 of the Convention, an Understanding that United States jurisdictions may determine the "exceptional circumstances" warranting restriction of a child's relations and contacts with parents in different states in accordance with the "best interests of the child" standard articulated in Article 9;
5. Addressing Article 28 and other provisions of the Convention, an Understanding that the Convention prohibits corporal punishment in the schools and that the United States government will take appropriate measures to bring relevant laws into conformance with this prohibition;
6. Addressing Article 29 of the Convention, an Understanding that the United States is not required to regulate private educational institutions in any way beyond that which is permitted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
7. A Declaration that this Convention imposes no legal obligations on the United States regarding the voluntary interruption of pregnancy and that this Convention cannot be interpreted as affecting laws in the United States relating to such interruptions;
8. A Declaration that, for purposes of the Convention's Article 1 definition of "child," the age of majority in the United States is age 18.

106 (Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements; cosponsored by National Conference of Federal Trial Judges, Sections of Urban, State and Local Government Law and Science and Technology)
Revised by the proponents and approved by voice vote. As approved it reads:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports in principle the following conclusions and recommendations set forth in the March 1993 Report of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government entitled Science and Technology in Judicial Decision Making:
1. The present adversarial process is competent to manage the problems associated with the complex issues of science and technology which come before the Court.
2. Judges should take an active role in managing the presentation of scientific and technological issues in litigation whenever appropriate.
3. Scientific and technical issues should be integrated into traditional judicial education programs.
4. Institutional linkages between the judicial and scientific communities should be developed to facilitate judicial education and to further understanding between such communities.
5. An independent non-governmental Science and Justice Council of judges, lawyers, scientists and others should be established to monitor changes that may have an impact on the ability of the courts to manage and adjudicate scientific and technological issues; it should also initiate improvements in the courts' access to and understanding of scientific and technological information.

Annual Meeting 1994

10E (Gun Violence Task Force; Bar Association of San Francisco, Santa Clara County BA, Beverly Hills BA, Alameda County BA, Section of Litigation; cosponsored by CJS, Los Angeles County BA, Government and Public Sector Lawyers Division, Standing Committee on Public Education)
Amended and approved by voice vote.11 As approved, it reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the House of Delegates calls on the American Bar Association and all other concerned institutions to address the myriad of problems which contribute to the culture of violence in society, and develop a national agenda to address these problems.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That leaders of the legal profession join and work with our counterparts in the medical, teaching, religious, civic, law enforcement and other professions, to prevent and reduce gun violence, including efforts to:
1. Educate the public regarding the causes, risks and costs of gun violence;
2. Educate the public and lawmakers regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to make widely known the fact that the United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently, uniformly held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution right to bear arms is related to "a well-regulated militia" and that there are no federal constitutional decisions which preclude regulation of firearms in private hands; and
3. Promote the provision of volunteer legal research for and assist governmental entities seeking to enact or enforce laws aimed at reducing gun violence.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association supports a national approach and a strengthened federal role to reduce gun violence, through the regulation of the sale, transfer and possession of firearms, and supports legislation to amend the Gun Control Act of 1968, to:
1. Expand the list of persons prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under the Act to include persons convicted of violent misdemeanors; persons convicted of spousal abuse or child abuse; and persons subject to a protective order;
2. Require a special federal license for any person to possess a "personal arsenal" of firearms or ammunition;
3. Provide that Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL) be limited to bona fidefirearms dealers and require: compliance with state and local laws; adequate business liability insurance; an annual fee sufficient to cover the costs ofinvestigating license applications; an increased number of permitted yearly inspections; thorough background checks of employees; cooperation with criminal investigations and reporting of all gun thefts to ATF and local police; permitted gun sales to be limited to the location of the licensed premises; ammunition sales and sales of component parts of handguns to meet FFL requirements; and
4. Provide authority to ATF, or other appropriate federal agency, to regulate firearms as consumer products, to set minimum mandatory safety standards such as requiring child-safe locking devices, to issue recalls of defective products and prohibit sales of firearms failing to meet minimum safety standards, and to disseminate safety information to the public.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association, recognizing the singular role of handguns in the epidemic of gun violence in our society, supports enactment of legislation to:
1. Require persons to obtain and maintain a current handgun license, with background check, age, residency, safety training and insurance requirements, in order to buy or otherwise receive transfer of any handgun or handgun ammunition;
2. Require that all handguns be registered and all newly manufactured handguns be equipped with safety features in order to reduce accidental injuries; and
3. Increase the federal tax on handguns and the tax on handgun ammunition, with the proceeds dedicated to a fund to treat the victims of gun violence and to finance educational programs to reduce gun violence.

10C (Steering Committee on Legal Needs of Children and Their Families, Government and Public Sector Lawyers Division, Young Lawyers Division, Sections of Individual Rights and Responsibilities and Litigation, Hawaii State Bar Association, National Conference of Women's Bar Associations; cosponsored by CJS and Commission on Women in the Profession)
Amended and approved by voice vote. As approved, it reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association reaffirms its commitment to unified children and family courts adopted in 1980 and set forth in the American Bar Association Standards Relating to Court Organization and Administration14, Standard 1.1 and adopted as well by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association pledges itself to promoting the implementation of unified children and family court systems as described in Standard 1.1 of the Standards Relating to Court Organization and Administration and enunciated below, recognizing that the manner of administering these courts may differ among states and jurisdictions.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association endorses the following clarifications and additions to the components of unified children and family courts:
(1) Intake processes by which families will be initially assisted and expeditiously directed to the appropriate entity in the court system to meet their needs.
(2) Provision and/or integration of comprehensive services and other assistance, as appropriate, for children and families in the courts. Appropriate services can include, but should not be limited to, representation, alternative dispute resolution, guardians ad litem, mental health services, substance abuse counseling, interpreters, and emergency financial and housing assistance. A unified children and family court must have all authority which is supported by its constitutional, statutory and equitable powers to order other government agencies, e.g., housing authorities, mental health agencies, etc., to provide services to families.
(3) Provision and encouragement of "alternative" dispute resolution techniques such as mediation, where appropriate, or where all parties request such an alternative, to resolve family issues. Such techniques are not meant to compromise legal protections and confidentiality and are subject to the development of standards and guidelines.
(4) Development and enforcement of time standards for cases involving the custody or out of home placement of children, e.g., foster care placement, adoption, etc., to prevent prolonged uncertainty that may adversely affect family members, particularly young children. To ensure speedy resolution of all cases in the children and family courts, sufficient resources should be provided to allow judges and social workers to devote adequate time to each case, including sufficient support personnel so that judges can devote their time to adjudicating adversarial issues while trained court staff review uncontested decrees, perform case management and so forth.
(5) An integrated management information system which includes monitoring, tracking, and coordinating all cases in the division to assure either that one judge be assigned to handle all matters pertaining to one family or that all judges presiding over matters affecting one family are made aware of other pending cases affecting that family and shall coordinate to the greatest extent possible all judicial efforts regarding that family.
(6) Assurance that judges and court personnel who work in the children and family court are adequately prepared for and receive on-going training in family court issues including, among other things, domestic violence, child psychology, and the value and methods of alternative dispute resolution.
(7) Adequate oversight of the new court system's performance and outcomes while keeping confidential all information which would tend to identify individual children except if the release of such information is necessary to assure provision of appropriate services for those children.

100 (Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee; CJS)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association amend Rules 3.6 and 3.8 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1983, as amended) to read as follows:
Rule 3.6 TRIAL PUBLICITY
(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:
(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;
(2) information contained in a public record;
(3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress;
(4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;
(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto;
(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and
(7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6):
(i) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused;
(ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;
(iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and
(iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.
(d) No lawyer associated in a firm or government agency with a lawyer subject to paragraph (a) shall make a statement prohibited by paragraph (a).

COMMENT
It is difficult to strike a balance between protecting the right to a fair trial and safeguarding the right of free expression. Preserving the right to a fair trial necessarily entails some curtailment of the information that may be disseminated about a party prior to trial, particularly where trial by jury is involved. If there were no such limits, the result would be the practical nullification of the protective effect of the rules of forensic decorum and the exclusionary rules of evidence. On the other hand, there are vital social interests served by the free dissemination of information about events having legal consequences and about legal proceedings themselves. The public has a right to know about threats to its safety and measures aimed at assuring its security. It also has a legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in matters of general public concern. Furthermore, the subject matter of legal proceedings is often of direct significance in debate and deliberation over questions of public policy.

Special rules of confidentiality may validly govern proceedings in juvenile, domestic relations and mental disability proceedings, and perhaps other types of litigation. Rule 3.4(c) requires compliance with such rules.

The Rule sets forth a basic general prohibition against a lawyer's making statements that the lawyer knows or should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding. Recognizing that the public value of informed commentary is great and the likelihood of prejudice to a proceeding by the commentary of a lawyer who is not involved in the proceeding is small, the rule applies only to lawyers who are, or who have been involved in the investigation or litigation of a case, and their associates.

Paragraph (b) identifies specific matters about which a lawyer's statements would not ordinarily be considered to present a substantial likelihood of material prejudice, and should not in any event be considered prohibited by the general prohibition of paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) is not intended to be an exhaustive listing of the subjects upon which a lawyer may make a statement, but statements on other matters may be subject to paragraph (a).

There are, on the other hand, certain subjects which are more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding, particularly when they refer to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in incarceration. These subjects relate to:

(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness;
(2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration, the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense or the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by a defendant or suspect or that person's refusal or failure to make a statement;
(3) the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented;
(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration;
(5) information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and that would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial; or
(6) the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, unless there is included therein a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.
Another relevant factor in determining prejudice is the nature of the proceeding involved. Criminal jury trials will be most sensitive to extrajudicial speech. Civil trials may be less sensitive. Non-jury hearings and arbitration proceedings may be even less affected. The Rule will still place limitations on prejudicial comments in these cases, but the likelihood of prejudice may be different depending on the type of proceeding. Finally, extrajudicial statements that might otherwise raise a question under this Rule may be permissible when they are made in response to statements made publicly by another party, another party's lawyer, or third persons, where a reasonable lawyer would believe a public response is required in order to avoid prejudice to the lawyer's client. When prejudicial statements have been publicly made by others, responsive statements may have the salutary effect of lessening any resulting adverse impact on the adjudicative proceeding. Such responsive statements should be limited to contain only such information as is necessary to mitigate undue prejudice created by the statements made by others.

Model Code Comparison
Rule 3.6 is similar to DR 7-107, except as follows: First, Rule 3.6 adopts the general criterion of "substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding" to describe impermissible conduct. Second, Rule 3.6 makes clear that only attorneys who are, or have been involved in a proceeding, or their associates, are subject to the Rule. Third, Rule 3.6 omits the particulars in DR 7-107(b), transforming them instead into an illustrative compilation as part of the Rule's commentary that is intended to give fair notice of the kinds of statements that are generally thought to be more likely than other kinds of statements to pose unacceptable dangers to the fair administration of justice. Whether any statement will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicially an adjudicatory proceeding will depend upon the facts of each case. The particulars of DR 7-107(c) are retained in Rule 3.6(b), except DR 7-107(C)(7), which provided that a lawyer may reveal "[a]t the time of seizure, a description of the physical evidence seized, other than a confession, admission or statement." Such revelations may be substantially prejudicial and are frequently the subject of pretrial suppression motions whose success would be undermined by disclosure of the suppressed evidence to the press. Finally, Rule 3.6 authorizes a lawyer to protect a client by making a limited reply to adverse publicity substantially prejudicial to the client.
Rule 3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;
(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal; and
(e) exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6.
(f) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless:
(1) the prosecutor reasonably believes:
(i) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;
(ii) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution;
(iii) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information; and
(2) the prosecutor obtains prior judicial approval after an opportunity for an adversarial proceeding;
(g) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.

COMMENT
A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence. Precisely how far the prosecutor is required to go in this direction is a matter of debate and varies in different jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions have adopted the ABA Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution Function, which in turn are the product of prolonged and careful deliberation by lawyers experienced in both criminal prosecution and defense. See also Rule 3.3(d), governing ex parte proceedings, among which grand jury proceedings are included. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor and knowing disregard of those obligations or a systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of Rule 8.4.
Paragraph (c) does not apply to an accused appearing pro se with the approval of the tribunal. Nor does it forbid the lawful questioning of a suspect who has knowingly waived the rights to counsel and silence.
The exception in paragraph (d) recognizes that a prosecutor may seek an appropriate protective order from the tribunal if disclosure of information to the defense could result in substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest.
Paragraph (f) is intended to limit the issuance of lawyer subpoenas in grand jury and other criminal proceedings to those situations in which there is a genuine need to intrude into the client-lawyer relationship. The prosecutor is required to obtain court approval for the issuance of the subpoena after an opportunity for an adversarial hearing is afforded in order to assure an independent determination that the applicable standards are met.
Paragraph (g) supplements Rule 3.6, which prohibits extrajudicial statements that have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. In the context of a criminal prosecution, a prosecutor's extrajudicial statement can create the additional problem of increasing public condemnation of the accused. Although the announcement of an indictment, for example, will necessarily have severe consequences for the accused, a prosecutor can, and should, avoid comments which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a substantial likelihood of increasing public opprobrium of the accused. Nothing in this Comment is intended to restrict the statements which a prosecutor may make which comply with Rule 3.6(b) or 3.6(c).

Model Code Comparison
DR 7-103(A) provided that a "public prosecutor...shall not institute...criminal charges when he knows or it is obvious that the charges are not supported by probable cause." DR 7-103(B) provided that "[a] public prosecutor...shall make timely disclosure...of the existence of evidence, known to the prosecutor...that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the degree of the offense, or reduce the punishment."

101A (CJS)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association adopts the black letter amendments dated August, 1994 to Chapter Eleven, "Discovery and Procedure Before Trial," of the Second Edition American Bar Association Standards For Criminal Justice.17

101B (CJS)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges federal, state, territorial, and local governments to incorporate publicly or privately operated victim-offender mediation/dialogue programs into their criminal justice processes, consistent with the "Victim-Offender Mediation/ Dialogue Program Requirements," dated April 1994; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association encourages federal, state, territorial, and local governments to support continuing research regarding victim-offender mediation/dialogue programs and the dissemination of those research results.

102 (Judicial Adminstration Division)
Recommendation was to adopt amendments to the American Bar Association Standards Relating to Appellate Courts, dated May, 1994. The House amended the proposed standards as follows:

Proposed Section 3.50 (Caseflow Management and Delay Reduction -- General Principle), was amended to read:
An appellate court should supervise and control the preparation and presentation of all appeals coming before it. its management procedures should:
(a) take effect from the time the notice of appeal is filed and continue through final disposition of the appeal;
(b) facilitate early differentiation of cases according to their complexity, common subject matter, common parties, and other relevant criteria;
(c) permit resolution of cases within time standards adopted specially by and for that court. These standards should be developed after analysis and differentiation of the appellate caseload as recommended in Subsection (b) above and after appropriate consideration of those reference models suggested in Sections 3.52-3.55;
(d) conform to the rules of procedure and administrative regulations established for the court system as a whole; and
(e) be established through consultation with affected staff and the bar, stated in writing, and made known to the bar and the public.
Proposed Section 3.52. (Standards of Timely Disposition of Appellate Cases) was amended to read:
(a) Purpose. Time standards should be used as an administrative goal to assist in achieving caseflow management that is efficient, productive, and produces quality results. Cases vary in complexity of legal issues and length of record, and no single fixed time standard is appropriate for each appeal. To measure the efficiency of an appellate court in processing its entire caseload, courts are encouraged to adopt standards which provide that, for any given period, a percentage of appeals complete each appellate function within a certain number of days. Some cases, however, are unique so that it is impracticable to set a goal for a particular time within which they should be resolved. Courts are encouraged to give the reference models set forth in subdivisions (c) and (d) herein and Sections 3.53, 3.54, and 3.55 serious consideration when formulating time standards for their particular court.
(b) Overall Time Standards. Timely disposition of appeals is a cooperative effort among those responsible for the administrative, lawyer, and judicial functions in a court system. See Sections 3.53, 3.54, and 3.55. Time standards should be developed by each court after appropriate involvement of, and consultation with, those whose work they monitor. These goals are not intended to become rules for appellate courts. Rather, their purpose is to establish a framework for periodic reassessment and constant betterment of goals which the court commits itself to achieve. States can adopt a variety of rules and procedures that will be designed to achieve these goals. The function of time standards is to establish a method for assessing whether those rules and procedures are successful.
(c) Reference Model: Time Standards for Supreme Courts.
(i) 50% of all cases should be resolved within 290 days from the time of the petition for certiorari from the intermediate court of appeal or from filing of the notice of appeal.
(ii) 90% of all cases should be resolved within one year of the petition for certiorari from the intermediate court of appeal or from filing of the notice of appeal.
(iii) The remaining 10% should be resolved as expeditiously as possible, given the length of the record, the complexity of the issues, or other unusual circumstances.
(d) Reference Model: Time Standards for Intermediate Courts of Appeal.
(i) 75% of all cases should be resolved within 290 days from filing of the notice of appeal.
(ii) 95% of all cases should be resolved within one year of the filing of the notice of appeal.
(iii) The remaining 5% of the caseload of an intermediate court of appeal should be resolved as expeditiously as possible, given the length of the record, the complexity of the issues, or other unusual circumstances.
(e) The Judicial Administration Division Council shall review this standard no later than January 1, 1997. In making this review, the Council shall determine whether this Standard should be retained, amended, or deleted and make recommendation thereon to the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association.

The Division's recommendation was then approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association adopts the amendments to the Standards Relating to Appellate Courts18 dated May, 1994, as amended, August, 1994.

114C (International Law & Practice Section; cosponsored by Standing Committee on World Order Under Law)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association recommends that the United States Government take an active role in the establishment of an international criminal court that would be based on the following principles:
A. The consensual jurisdiction of the international criminal court should be based on the consent of the state having custody over a person accused of a crime specified in an international convention which (1) adequately defines the crime; (2) has been widely accepted by states representing all of the world's major legal systems; and (3) contains the extradite or prosecute obligation.
B. The mandatory jurisdiction of the international criminal court should be based on a decision by the Security Council issued pursuant to its powers under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter:
(1) determining that any person or category of persons who have participated in an activity that the Security Council had determined endangers international peace and security and have been accused of having committed a crime which is recognized by the international community as a gross violation of a rule of customary international law widely accepted by states representing all the world's major systems as giving rise to personal responsibility, should be subject to possible prosecution and trial in accordance with the statute of the court; or
(2) transferring to the court for possible prosecution and trial any person who has participated, or is participating, in an activity which the Security Council determined endangers international peace and security and who is accused of having committed a crime under general international law or an international treaty in force, when a state where the accused person is found refuses to try or extradite that person.

114D (International Law & Practice Section; cosponsored by Standing Committee on World Order Under Law)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association recommends that the U.S. Government take the following steps to advance the promotion and observance of international human rights:
A. Strongly support the recently created post of High Commissioner for Human Rights.
o The High Commissioner should oversee and direct the work of all U.N. agencies concerned with human rights; should be able to convene sessions of the Commission on Human Rights to address emergencies; should integrate human rights obligations into U.N. peacekeeping and humanitarian operations; and should have the authority to raise human rights concerns in the Security Council.
o The High Commissioner should be based at U.N. headquarters in New York so as to have ready access to the General Assembly and the Security Council and should be provided with adequate staff and resources to carry out the High Commissioner's responsibilities.
o To fulfill its potential, the office of the High Commissioner must have an adequate staff that could be stationed around the world to help victims, provide advisory services, give technical assistance, observe developments, mediate disputes, and express concern about violations.
B. Support in addition, the establishment of special regional Commissioners for the protection of minority rights in regions in which such Commissioners do not exist at present.
C. Help to increase U.N. resources for the promotion of democracy and the
strengthening of the rule of law.
D. Expedite the ratification of important U.N. conventions relating to the protection of human rights and enact legislation that would make it possible to remove most of the reservations to various human rights treaties that have already been ratified, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
E. Strongly support the appointment of women to senior positions in the United Nations system.
F. Support the strengthening of the system of Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups by providing them with sufficient resources and staff to carry out their assignments and allowing them to investigate human rights abuses within their jurisdiction on their own initiative.
G. Work to more appropriately institutionalize the relationship between non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the U.N. system so as better to reflect and utilize the full potential of NGOs in norm creation and in more systematic scrutiny of state compliance, and to protect NGOs providing humanitarian assistance.

Midyear Meeting 1995

106 (Federal Judicial Improvements Committee; cosponsored by Litigation)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

Resolved, That the American Bar Association urges the U.S. Judicial Conference to authorize further experimentation with cameras in federal civil proceedings by re-instituting a pilot project to permit photographing, recording and broadcasting of civil proceedings in selected federal courts under guidelines promulgated by the Judicial Conference.

107A (CJS)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

Resolved, That the American Bar Association opposes Rules 413, 414, and 415 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (concerning the admission of evidence in sexual assault and child molestation cases) as enacted by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 (1994).

107B (CJS)
Approved by voice vote.

Resolved, That the American Bar Association supports amending the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to embody the principle that a summons should issue upon indictment, unless good cause is shown at an ex parte proceeding for the issuance of a warrant.

111 (Hispanic National Bar Association; National Asian Pacific American BA, National Bar Association, Commission on Women in the Legal Profession, Commission on Opportunities for Minorities in the Profession, Litigation; cosponsored by JAD, YLD, Standing Committee on Judicial Selection, Tenure and Compensation, and Chicago Council of Lawyers
Amended and approved by voice vote. As approved, it reads:

Resolved, That the American Bar Association reaffirms its longstanding policies and urges the President of the United States to appoint minority lawyers of racial and ethnic diversity to all levels of the federal judiciary, including the United States Supreme Court.

112 (Family Law; cosponsored by Chicago Council of Lawyers)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

Resolved, That the American Bar Association urges Congress and the various states and territories to enact legislation to provide that no person or entity could deny insurance benefits solely on the basis of the applicant's status as a victim of domestic violence.

113A (Judicial Administration Division; Special Committee on Funding the Justice System; cosponsored by the Section of Tort and Insurance Practice, and the Standing Committees on Judicial Selection, Tenure and Compensation and Professional Discipline)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

Resolved, That the ABA urges that appointing authorities for judges or judicial officers not use as a criteria, for appointment or reappointment, revenue generation or conviction rate goals.

117A (International Law Practice Section, cosponsored by Chicago Council of Lawyers)
Approved by voice vote. It reads:

Resolved, That the American Bar Association supports efforts by the international community, by national governments, and by non-governmental organizations to encourage the adoption and implementation of effective legal measures and mechanisms to deter corrupt practices in the conduct of international business.

Further Resolved, That the American Bar Association urges the United States government to take steps to support the adoption and implementation by national governments and the international community of effective legal measures and mechanisms that are actively monitored and enforced to deter corrupt practices in the conduct of international business.

Annual Meeting 1995

11-11
By voice vote, the House approved a revised proposal to amend the Bylaws to create a Standing Committee on Substance Abuse. §31.7 was amended to read as follows, and alphabetized accordingly. Substance Abuse. The Standing Committee on Substance Abuse collaborates with other American Bar Association entities; federal, state and local public/private organizations; and state and local bars to address issues of substance abuse. In carrying out its function, the Committee shall:
1. Encourage state and local bar associations to actively develop and foster lawyer and public participation in community anti-drug coalitions as an effective means of addressing substance abuse.
2. Encourage, support, and initiate discussion and examination by ABA entities of exemplary methods that address substance abuse.
3. Develop, after consultation with other appropriate ABA entities, and then implement a communications strategy to inform and educate lawyers and the public on exemplary programs which address substance abuse.
4. Make appropriate recommendations to develop and promote practices and policies that support prevention, education, and treatment of substance abuse.

100 (Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Litigation)

Resolved, That the American Bar Association amend Rule 4.2 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Comment thereto, to read as follows:
RULE 4.2 COMMUNICATION WITH PERSON REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.

Comment
[1] This Rule does not prohibit communication with a represented person, or an employee or agent of such a person, concerning matters outside the representation. For example, the existence of a controversy between a government agency and a private party, or between two organizations, does not prohibit a lawyer for either from communicating with nonlawyer representatives of the other regarding a separate matter. Also, parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other and a lawyer having independent justification or legal authorization for communicating with a represented person is permitted to do so. Communications authorized by law include, for example, the right of a party to a controversy with a government agency to speak with government officials about the matter.
[2] Communications authorized by law also include constitutionally permissible investigative activities of lawyers representing governmental entities, directly or through investigative agents, prior to the commencement of criminal or civil enforcement proceedings, when there is applicable judicial precedent that either has found the activity permissible under this Rule or has found this Rule inapplicable. However, the Rule imposes ethical restrictions that go beyond those imposed by constitutional provisions.
[3] This Rule also applies to communications with any person, whether or not a party to a formal adjudicative proceeding, contract or negotiation, who is represented by counsel concerning the matter to which the communication relates.
[4] In the case of an organization, this Rule prohibits communications by a lawyer for another person or entity concerning the matter in representation with persons having managerial responsibility on behalf of the organization, and with any other person whose act or omission in connection with that matter may be imputed to the organization for purposes of civil or criminal liability or whose statement may constitute an admission on the part of the organization. If an agent or employee of the organization is represented in the matter by his or her own counsel, the consent by that counsel to a communication will be sufficient for purposes of this Rule. Compare Rule 3.4(f).
[5] The prohibition on communications with a represented person only applies, however, in circumstances where the lawyer knows that the person is in fact represented in the matter to be discussed. This means that the lawyer has actual knowledge of the fact of the representation; but such actual knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances. See Terminology. Such an inference may arise in circumstances where there is substantial reason to believe that the person with whom communication is sought is represented in the matter to be discussed. Thus, a lawyer cannot evade the requirement of obtaining the consent of counsel by closing eyes to the obvious.
[6] In the event the person with whom the lawyer communicates is not known to be represented by counsel in the matter, the lawyer's communications are subject to Rule 4.3.
Model Code Comparison
This Rule is substantially identical to DR 7-1