In the echoing hallways of legal history, seven years might seem like a fleeting moment. But when the American Bar Association (ABA) decided to carve out a section in its model rules of professional conduct forbidding attorneys from discriminatory or harassing behavior, it set off tremors in the foundations of the legal community.
On one side stood the champions of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g), hailing it as a beacon for marginalized voices in the legal world. On the opposing front, detractors waved the banner of free speech, seeing the rule as a potential silencer. And in this age-old game of push and pull, litigation wasn’t far behind.
The Courtroom Saga of Zachary Greenberg
One attorney, Zachary Greenberg, fearful that his educational sessions on the constitutionality of hate speech bans might become targets, challenged Pennsylvania’s iteration of the rule. He envisioned a world where every seminar held the menace of a career-jeopardizing complaint. For Greenberg, every speech became a tightrope walk over the chasm of disciplinary repercussions.
