The proposed rule prohibits an Illinois lawyer from "engag[ing] in conduct in the practice of law that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, color, ancestry, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, military or veteran status, marital status, military or veteran status, pregnancy, or socioeconomic status." Cutting through the legal jargon, the change has two effects: 1) expanding the laundry-list of "discriminatory harms" to include "gender identity" and "gender expression" (whatever those terms mean) along with "military or veteran status" and "pregnancy"; and 2) taking the decision whether discrimination has occurred away from a court or administrative agency, and putting it into the hands of the state bar disciplinary authorities. David Duggan gave the following remarks:

Good morning. My name is David, middle name Grayson, Duggan, to be distinguished from another David G. Duggan formerly a member of the bar of this state who was disbarred around 20 years ago. I've had to bear that cross for a number of years as people from court clerks to creditors have confused us. Just as I would not want to have to answer for whatever he did, I hope that he bears no consequences for what I will say.

I have been an Illinois lawyer for 42 years and a NY lawyer for 43; indeed I started work at a New York City firm the same day as Arthur Engoron, a name with which you may be familiar [he's the judge on the Donald Trump civil trial now going on in New York City]. I am also the son of an Illinois lawyer who served in the Marine JAG corps, and the great-nephew of two other Illinois lawyers one of whom was a judge of the Circuit Court so my legal heritage is solid and deep. I've never been disciplined, censured, nor had any other adverse determination assessed against me by any court, judicial agency or other body. I've never been arrested, cited, or received so much as a speeding ticket in the 43 years I've been admitted to practice law. For the last 30 years I've been a solo practitioner, without clerical staff or lay support, representing a variety of persons in both civil and criminal matters, in both the state and federal courts of this state. Most of those people were on the lower end of the socio-economic scale.

You might wonder why am I opposing this proposed rule 8.4(j) since I am at the end of my career, and neither run a law office, nor solicit new clients or causes. I have no present intent to hire anyone. But the reason is simple: I'm a Christian and I could not, consistent with my Christian faith employ a person who professes the Muslim faith which I believe is antithetical to the principles on which this country was founded. Without delving into whether a Muslim may take an oath to uphold the Constitution since the Quran specifically absolves a Muslim from swearing to any statement before a non-Muslim, a proposition on which the commentators differ, as a potential employer, I cannot bring myself to rely on the work of someone whose baseline beliefs differ so widely from mine. The reason is that the lawyer's fundamental job is advocacy which itself depends on the trust which the advocate needs to advance his client's cause. If I cannot trust someone who has an ulterior motive in trying to impose sharia law on our country, then that trust, and the advocacy goes out the window.

Conceding that employment of another lawyer is "conduct in the practice of law" I never sacrificed my conscience by swearing an oath to defend the Constitution. I did not forfeit my constitutional right to dissent from the prevailing ideology. The prior version of this rule, now to be jettisoned, at least required that "a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction [find] that the lawyer has engaged in an unlawful discriminatory act, and the finding of the court or administrative agency has become final and enforceable and any right of judicial review has been exhausted." No such protection can be found in the new version and every lawyer in the state could become the victim of a zealous bar disciplinary attorney trying to "make his bones" by bagging an outspoken member of the bar.

Let me diverge from the speculative to give you a personal example. A year ago, I was a defendant in an "Emergency No Stalking Order of Protection" case because I had opposed the ordination to the priesthood of a "married" homosexual male with an adopted daughter. In addition to writing to the bishop who was to ordain this man, I wrote an allegorical tale, posted on social media, about how this was inconsistent with the Christian gospel. This newly ordained minister used these First-Amendment-protected activities to petition the Circuit Court for an order of protection against me, believing I had "threatened" him (and his "family") and therefore committed "harassment." Eighty-plus thousand dollars, and a trip to the Illinois Appellate Court later, the Circuit Court dismissed the case and vacated the order.

My actions were completely consistent with my rights as a citizen of this country to protest a public act which violated my conscience. In discussions between my lawyers and the priest's lawyers, the lawyer representing both the parish employing this minister and the diocese which had ordained him, wrote that he had reported my First-Amendment-protected conduct to both the Chicago Police Department and the FBI. Other discussions resulted in this lawyer's threatening to report me to the Illinois bar disciplinary authorities.

If rule 8.4(j) is enacted, my opposition to homosexuals acting as ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ will be subject to scrutiny. No legal system worthy of the name and subservient to the Constitution for which my father was willing to sacrifice his life, and which I agreed to uphold when sworn in as a lawyer in both IL and NY can allow that. I urge you to reject this intrusion into the lives of lawyers who serve a higher calling: that of a citizen of the City of God.

Following Duggan's remarks, the committee chairman asked if any committee member had questions. None was forthcoming. -ED.

David Duggan is a retired attorney living in Chicago. He is Virtueonline's legal representative