Defending Justice: Mobilizing the Legal Profession to Stand Up for the Rule of Law – by Muhammad U. Faridi
City Bar President Muhammad U. Faridi gave the following opening remarks for the April 21 program “Defending Justice: Mobilizing the Legal Profession to Stand Up for the Rule of Law.” Watch a video of the program here.
It’s a privilege to welcome you to the New York City Bar Association—a 155-year-old institution founded to uphold the rule of law and to ensure that the legal profession serves justice, not politics.
Tonight’s gathering takes place against a backdrop of immense urgency. The events of recent weeks have brought us to a line we cannot afford to cross—a line where lawyers are no longer seen as officers of the court, but as political adversaries. Where advocacy itself is cast as disloyalty. Where legal ethics, constitutional norms, and the independence of the profession are threatened by raw political power.
It is very fitting that this event is taking place just days before Law Day on May 1. Law Day is a tradition established by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to recognize the centrality of law in democratic life. In his 1958 proclamation, he urged Americans to “vigilantly guard the great heritage of liberty, justice, and equality under law.” Those are words worth recalling now.
Having grown up in Pakistan, I know firsthand the dangers that arise when lawyers are penalized for representing the persecuted and when judges are threatened with retribution for the decisions that they make. In such an environment, the law becomes more a tool of those in power than a shield for the vulnerable. The result is not just the erosion of independence of the profession and of the judiciary, but the unraveling of democratic norms.
The rule of law is not self-executing. It requires institutions willing to enforce it, lawyers willing to defend it, and a culture that supports both—the institutions and lawyers defending it. Recent events have tested that culture in serious ways. The executive orders target law firms, based not on any unlawful conduct, but on whom they employ, who they represent, and what legal positions they have advanced. And while judicial decisions are not immune from public scrutiny, there is no justification for public attacks on courts, refusals to enforce judicial orders, or for calls to impeach judges based solely on disagreement with their rulings.
Unfortunately, the attacks on the profession are working. In some instances, law firms have reportedly declined to take on clients or matters that may draw political attention. And we have all heard about the terrible pressure the executive branch has put on firms to align their work with the goals of the administration. That trend should alarm all of us.
The harm here is not confined to lawyers. It extends to clients who depend on independent legal representation. It extends to courts that rely on adversarial advocacy. It extends to the public, whose rights often hang in the balance of a legal system that must operate free from coercion.
There is also a historical dimension we cannot ignore. Attempts to convert lawyers into extensions of the executive branch have marked the decline of democratic systems elsewhere. America’s tradition is supposed to be one of constitutional restraint, and of respect among co-equal branches of government. The willingness of the executive branch to disregard or defy judicial rulings mirrors practices seen in parts of the world where executive enforcement of court decisions are inconsistent, politically motivated, or ignored entirely. The result is predictable: judicial authority erodes and democracy suffers.
Our bar association believes that it is important—indeed essential—for bar associations to speak up for the rule of law and the judiciary because they occupy a unique and credible position within our legal and civic framework. That is why we have acted—and will continue to act—to defend the role of lawyers in our democratic system, to resist efforts to compromise professional independence, and to stand up for our judiciary.
We do not take these positions lightly. The legal profession thrives when it is open to scrutiny, rigor in debate, and commits to self-correcting. But there is a bright line between criticism and coercion, between political disagreement and political punishment, and between rule of law and rule of fear. That line must be defended—clearly, publicly, and unequivocally.
What we are witnessing today is not normal. And it must not be normalized.
So let us be clear:
Lawyers do not serve the executive. They serve the law.
Judges are not instruments of political will. They are guardians of constitutional rights.
And the independence of our profession is not a favor to be extended or withdrawn—it is a structural necessity for a functioning democracy.