My BarStory S03E04 - Matt Besser, Nick DiCello, Gabrielle Kelly and Chris Schmitt

In 2025, the CMBA has issued a number of statements regarding the Rule of Law and why defending it is the very foundation of this organization. So why do we do it? Why do we take public opinions on issues that might be controversial? Let’s hear it straight from the CMBA’s leadership. In this edition of My BarStory, CMBA President Matt Besser, President-Elect Nick DiCello, and Vice President of Inclusion and Diversity Gabrielle Kelly as they talk with CMBA CEO Chris Schmitt about how we make the tough calls.

Transcript

Chris Schmitt (00:00):
Hello, and welcome to our latest edition of my bar story here at the CMBA. I'm Chris Schmitt, and it's my honor to serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the CMBA and the Foundation. And today we have an awesome panel of some of our leadership here at the CNBA to talk more about a few statements that we've put out recently and about the whole process that goes into when the bar speaks up. So, with that, I'm gonna turn it over for just quick introductions. Matt, do you wanna go first?

Matt Besser (00:27):
I'm Matt Besser. I am this year's CMBA President, and in the rest of my day job, I'm the magic principal at Bolic Besser Serius on the east side of town. I'm a employment lawyer, civil rights lawyer, and mediator.

Nick DiCello (00:44):
Hello everyone. My name is Nick Dello. I'm the president elect of the CMBA and excited to be sworn in this summer. I'm a partner at Spangenberg Shiley and libor, the trial lawyer firm that's been part of the legal community here for more than 80 years. And I am a trial attorney at that firm.

Gabrielle Kelly (01:05):
Hi, I am Gabrielle Kelly. I am the current Vice President of Inclusion and Diversity for the Bar. And then I am also a senior claims attorney at a BA insurance services, where I mostly handle insurance claims and oversee litigation for banks and small businesses.

Chris Scmitt (01:27):
Awesome. Thank you. And thanks all for being here today. It's a important topic and we, we really wanna dive right into statements made by the bar and how we get to them. So why does the bar issue statements at all, Matt? I I think we, you and I have gotten this question a lot in the last couple of weeks.

Matt Besser (01:43):
It really goes back to the fundamental role of a bar association, which is not only to be the voice of a, of a legal community, but for us specifically, we have a long tradition, the CMBA of being the go-to organization in northeast Ohio for any issues of law and justice. Our central mission is to promote the profession as a whole, but it's also to promote and defend the rule of law when issues come up that impact our profession or that impact law and justice within our community. It's our role as the representatives of the legal community to speak up, not only on behalf of our profession, but also to make sure that the public is educated about issues that are happening and about what the law is, and to know that the, the profession is still looking out for our system of checks and balances and for the rule of law.

Nick DiCello (02:42):
Th those are great points, Matt. I would, I would also add to that, that the legal community here in Cleveland and beyond northeast Ohio, throughout the country is diverse. Lawyers practice in every industry, in every field, and every courthouse. Judges are lawyers as well. And so the Bar Association is really the one organization where the legal community can speak with a unified voice, whereas one firm that is involved in one aspect of the law may address any given issue a little bit differently than than the other. Or there's different lawyers have different areas of expertise. So the Bar Association, particularly the CMBA, is the organization that can speak on behalf of the entire legal community to educate the public, to defend our members, including the judicial members in a way that may be an individual lawyer or one distinct law firm cannot. And so the CMBA has tremendous support from all of our members and we're authorized and given the great responsibility to speak on behalf of the broader legal community.

New Speaker (03:53):
Let's transition to talk specifically about the rule of all statement that the bar issued on February 19th. Before we get into the, the particulars of that, I wanna talk a little bit about how the system's supposed to work. So I know that Gabe, you've taught three Rs in the past to continue to teach three Rs and go into high schools around the area to, to really talk about our constitutional system. How are the three branches of government supposed to work? How are they supposed to work together?

Gabrielle Kelly (04:17):
So one of the foundations of our constitution is that you have the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. And with that, you always hear people using those titles. But how they interact, I don't know that everyone understands. And so it's really good that we're discussing it here. You have the legislative branch on your federal level. You have Congress, they're the ones who are making the laws. You hear about bills being presented and passed. That's where the laws are made. And then you have your executive branch, that's your president, that's your enforcer. They're the ones who carry out the laws that have been created. That is their function. And then you have the judicial branch who evaluates the laws when they are brought before them in a court to determine if they are constitutional or otherwise following the laws that have been created.

Gabrielle Kelly (05:23):
And so you have the judicial that checks the legislative on the laws that are created and checks the executive on how it's being enforced. And then you have the legislative that checks the judicial by saying, okay, you've told us this is unconstitutional, or you told us that this is unlawful. Let's recreate this in a way that passes the standard that you have created. And then you also have the executive that is a part of that to say, here's this law and it's constitutional as written, but our enforcement wasn't constitutional of it. So we will revise how we enforce it to make sure that we are meeting the judicial standard. And so that's how they all intertwine. One gets guidance from the other, and it forms the nice little executive judicial legislative triangle of law. And so one branch is not considered to be more powerful than another. Each has a specific function and a specific role. And our democracy works best when each branch does their function.

Chris Schmitt (06:44):
That's great. Gabe and I, I will use the analogy that I've heard Judge John Russo use in classroom. He talks about a three-legged table and that the table only works is the table if things sit flat. And as soon as one of those legs is longer than the other ones are shorter than the other ones, all of a sudden everything slides off. And I think that that's important when we talk about the constitutional balance to think about that there are ebbs and flows with every administration. There are ebbs and flows with every judge in office or everyone that gets elected to Congress. But the reality is the, the equal level of the table is something that is held throughout our nation's history. And so that's, that's really the, the purpose that we're looking to provide by making a statement. And so Matt, can you talk a little bit about the statement itself

Matt Besser (07:28):
For those who, who maybe missed it? There were some members of the executive branch, high level members of the executive branch who had called for the impeachment of a federal judge because they disagreed with the ruling. And I think there was some language thrown around there that the judge was corrupt. And that's an attack, not just on an individual judge. That's an attack on our judicial system and the independence of our judges. And, and when our judicial system, the integrity of our judges are unfairly attacked, that we as a, as a bar association have an obligation to speak up. Calling for the impeachment of judges, calling them corrupt just because we disagree with their rulings is simply not consistent with our system of checks and balances. It, it undermines and erodes public confidence in the judiciary. And that's a very dangerous road to go down.

Nick DiCello (08:29):
Yeah. That public confidence in particular is, is what I found compelling about this statement that we put out, was not just to say that, hey it's not just the finger wagging, if you will, from our direction in Cleveland to say you shouldn't be calling for these things, but it's to point out the danger of calling for these things when it comes to folks around us that are not lawyers, folks in our, in our families, our neighbors that don't necessarily understand it, it's important to, to put it into language that's going to be recognizable, but also actionable. By then,

Matt Besser (09:02):
You know, remember the judiciary judges aren't allowed to speak out to the media to defend themselves, and they have neither the purse nor the sword. The judiciary relies on, on the willingness of the public and elected officials to honor their obligation to obey lawful orders of the court. And when government officials, whether it's president or a local city council person, decide that they're above the law, that they can defy lawful court orders, becomes very easy for members of the public to justify doing that too. And, and when that happens, the whole system falls apart.

Chris Schmitt (09:42):
Yeah, that, that's a critical point, Matt, that judges lawyers as they are they, they are ethically prohibited from speaking out in their own defense because they're not supposed to comment on matters that are before them or that could come before them because they're obligated to demonstrate impartiality. And even the appearance of impartiality is problematic and to be avoided. And so when we talk about trying to protect the judiciary, the judicial process, and the system of justice in this country, one of the problems we have is we live in a polarized society. More and more we're hearing how a judge is appointed by one political party or the other, or in Ohio, we have elected judges at many levels, and party affiliations are now becoming more public on the ballot and, and more discussed in the media and amongst the citizenry. And, you know, I will speak for myself, and I think I can speak for other lawyers on this call and our members more broadly, that as a lawyer who appears before judges whose work <laugh> for judges we as lawyers understand that judges are truly independent.

Nick DiCello (11:03):
They are all committed to following the law. And that's why we have a system of appellate review. Judges are human and they may interpret the law in a manner that they believe is correct and they may get overturned on appeal. And, and that's just the nature of our system of justice. And so some of these attacks that are being levied against these judges as accusing them of being partisan or accusing them of ruling in a certain way to advance some political party's agenda over another's is incredibly dangerous. And it's incumbent upon us at the bar to one, defend those justice, defend the system. But it's also incumbent upon us to try to instill confidence in the people that appear before these judges, that they are impartial, they are not biased. And we say that as lawyers who work for these judges work alongside of these judges, and, and for myself personally, appear before these judges, there are not, you know, Republican and democratic judges.

Nick DiCello (12:09):
There are judges who are sworn to an oath to follow the law as they interpret it. And that's a, a really critical point that I think needs to be highlighted and needs to be defended in this moment in time that we find ourselves. Thanks Nick. And I, I think it's important to to point out that, well, politics is very much a team sport. The judicial branches intended to be everything but a team sport. Absolutely. And it's vital as we talk about the judicial branch to, to recognize that judges interpreting the law as they see fit, knowing that appellate review is is something that holds them accountable, is one of those bedrock principles that we talked about before. And I will call out specifically Judge Amy Coney Barrett justice Amy Coney Barrett, I should say on the Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in a case involving federal funding, and immediately was attacked viciously online by folks that are quote unquote on the same side as her politically for not voting how she was supposed to, or not voting, how she was told to or not voting, how the president who appointed her would've have wanted her to.

Nick DiCello (13:20):
And I just thought that was about the most disgusting thing I've seen at the, the federal level involving the courts in a long time to attack someone for enforcing their own interpretation of the law. And so as we're talking about this this balance of between the branches, I think it's important to say that even, even when politics comes into play in the judiciary, it's, it's a understood principle between lawyers and judges, that the judges are trustworthy in their role, that they were put there for a reason, and that the political underpinnings that may be their background or may be the reason people thought they were there once they're there, once they're an Article three judge, once they're appointed to a court, that tribal allegiance hopefully falls away in favor of judicial interpretation consistent with the Constitution. I I think that's absolutely right.

Nick DiCello (14:13):
I mean, I, I started my career clerking for a federal judge and worked in the Federal courthouse. And, you know, every four years you have new judges who are appointed by a new administration, and, and those men and women on that bench and on courts around the country are among the most honorable and, and accomplished and committed lawyers that we have in our field. And they've sworn an oath for those of us who have taken that oath that we take it very seriously. And I know every judge that has sworn that oath and every justice takes it incredibly seriously. And they're bound to, to follow the law, the, the public needs to be, be reassured that that's what those judges are doing. I think one issue we have with judicial branch is it tends to move a lot slower than folks are accustomed to maybe with the executive branch or even the legislative branch.

Nick DiCello (15:03):
And there's a reason for that. There's a reason why it can take a little longer to go through the judicial process because it's such a critical process of determining whether laws are or un are not constitutional, whether someone's gonna lose their freedom or not. Whether someone's gonna lose custody of their child or not taking one's property from him or her. The, these are critically important issues in our day-to-day lives, and it takes the courts a little longer because of that process of review. But we shouldn't be frustrated about that. We should be faithful in that, that the courts will get it right even if at the end of the day, any one of us might disagree with the ruling. That's, that's how our, our system upholds the rule of law.

New Speaker (15:52):
So I'd encourage those of you listening to go check out the statement if you have not seen it already.

Chris Schmitt (15:57):
It's entitled, unchecked Power is a Threat to Democracy. It says Cleveland Metro Bar. You'll find it on our website or any of our social media channels, and please do read it for the important statement that it is, but also consider sharing it with others that you know out in the community to show that there are some groups that are really standing up for the independent judiciary and ensuring that we retain the importance values of our system. The other thing I would point out is that we've received dozens of comments back from not only members of the bar, but also members of the public. And without exception, every one of them has said absolutely right off. This is not proven to be a controversial statement. This is not proven to be anything other than a firm statement of our beliefs that is consistent with the people we interact with on a daily basis.

Chris Schmitt (16:46):
So while politics may be underpinning what led to the statement in the first place, I think it's a pretty American value for people of both parties, especially people involved with their justice system to value and to support those things that we have. Statement. Now I wanna turn to a different kind of statement that the, the bar may make. This isn't the unsigned on behalf of the bar statement that's out there. This is really a particular issue where it felt important as the CEO of this organization and to have others on our staff and on our board speak up about the importance of conscious inclusion. And I will say that conscious inclusion is one of the four values that we have established in our last strategic plan as the guiding stars of what we do as an organization. And so, conscious inclusion has already mentioned innovative leadership, professional excellence, and community advancement. And so Matt, I know you were on the, the committee that helped come up with that strategic plan. Can you just talk a little bit about that process?

Matt Besser (17:47):
So, a number of years ago we went through, it may have been 2020 now, we went through our periodic strategic planning process to take stock of where the bar is, what we're doing, what we should be doing, and where we want the bar to be in the years to come. And those four core values were the offshoot of that, and we thought that they reflected what the purpose of a Bar association is, is supposed to be, and, and how best to go about fulfilling our mission of representing the legal community and promoting and defending the rule of law.

Chris Schmitt (18:22):
Thanks, Matt. And I would say that those four values really carry through everything we do. We don't have a innovative leadership department, we don't have a community advancement department. Those are the four principles that guide all of our work across all of our different areas. Gabe, can you talk a little bit about what do we mean by conscious inclusion?

Gabrielle Kelly (18:39):
So, conscious inclusion is not defined as promotion of a particular race or gender. Here at the bar when we speak of conscious inclusion, we really mean a plan, a focus, and understanding that we will include all members of our membership, of our community, of basically our world. So on that aspect, we are thinking of not just gender or race but also age, background, political affiliation wealth, all of these different aspects that make you who you are. The idea of conscious inclusion is that everyone who joins the bar, everyone who comes to the bar or everyone who has any relationship with the bar, will feel as if they are being included in what we are doing.

Chris Scmitt (19:47):
That's great. Our responsibility as an organization. And I would argue that our responsibilities as, as lawyers in the world is to ensure that people have the ability to get to the start line. The work that we do in these areas is very much about making sure that everyone, no matter the, the advantages or the limitations that they've had in their life, has a chance to get to the to get to the starting tape. What, what they do with the race and how they run the race after that is largely on them. And there are aspects of that that we can't control and we don't want to control. But making sure things like we can get grandma's wheelchair onto the sidewalk because there's a curb cut that's conscious inclusion. That's what we're talking about when we bring up this civilian top important area. So Gabe, you and I got to co-author a letter that's gonna be in the bar journal that's coming up here in March and April. Can you talk a little bit about that letter?

Gabrielle Kelly (20:39):
Sure. That letter basically affirms what we've been talking about so far that we at the bar absolutely believe in conscious inclusion. It's how it informs the programs that we have and the people, how we interact with them. In co-writing that letter, what we were stating is that this is who we are and what we believe. And it was nice to come about that you and I and also other members of the bar, Trent Butler and Morgan Davies were able to collaborate and say that these are the values that the bar holds, this is how it's informed the work we've done. This is how it informs how we think about the future of the organization. And so we really got to make it known to our members and the wider public that we will forever stand by the principles that we are formed on and that are in our strategic plan, and basically decided to come together to make that known for those that would otherwise be silent or expect us to shirk from what we believe in

Nick DiCello (22:00):
In times where conscious inclusion may be tied in with DEI as conversations that people feel like they have strong feelings about. We thought it was important to highlight, not only do we hold these as values, but they play out every single day in the programs that we put out to the public. We didn't go through the entire review process for this, the letter that we put out. And the reason was the bar has already made a statement on this. By putting these values in our strategic plan, by establishing these programs that live up to these values, we've said very firmly as an organization that conscious inclusion is something we believe in. And we're not, we're not gonna back away from that. I think there are political wins out there that might chase others off of their programs in this area, but we are doing just the opposite.

Nick DiCello (22:47):
Not only do I want to highlight what we're doing, but I wanna lean into that as a value to usher people that they're gonna have a place here no matter who they are, where they come from. We highlight programs in there, like the three Rs program we have in high school education, the Stephanie Chubbs Jones Summer Legal Adventure program that we have for high school kids, the Lewis Oaks Scholar programs, our one L clerkship program for folks in the school system and in the college system. And then we get to the one L clerkship program that we have, and then all of the, the diversity of sections and of committees that we have that are supporting people and providing them new resources as throughout their legal career. And we even have groups that of retired judges and lawyers that meet.

Chris Schmitt (23:29):
And conscious inclusion is to ensure that just, just because you give up your bar card upon retirement age doesn't mean you're not, you're not part of our community anymore. And so we wanna make sure that we are investing in people and no matter where they find themselves along their legal journey. I, I just would make one comment on this topic. You know, the, the word DEI has become so politically charged and the, the Bar Association for us, I just see this as as part of the fabric of who we are. We've always had this idea of conscious inclusion. And the reason it's part of the DNA of the Bar Association is because we, as lawyers represent and serve the full spectrum of our community. We have lawyers who service Fortune 500 companies, and we support and promote those lawyers and those companies.

Chris Schmitt (24:15):
They're important members of our community. We have lawyers that support and serve indigent people who can't afford to pay a lawyer. So our mission is on behalf of our entire membership, our entire membership represents and serves the full spectrum of people in our community. So when we talk about conscious inclusion, all we're doing is, I see it is recognizing a fundamental truth about what the bar does and what our members do, and they serve all, all corners of, of our community. And we have programs that are directed at all of those corners. We have, we have programs that service all members of our community, and we are, we are, we do have the foundation side, which is a charitable organization that's purpose, is to raise money and service our community. So for us, it's always been aligned as, as part of our mission.

Nick DiCello (25:12):
You know, I've been a little dejected about some folks ascribing, you know, DEI to, to one initiative or, or the other. I, I don't know that we've ever used the DEI nomenclature here at the Bar Association. And, and, and whatever the nomenclature is, is is really not important. But at the bar, this has been a fundamental underpinning of our mission since I've been involved. And it's not, not a controversial one, it's one that has overwhelming support of all of our members because it is exactly consistent with the mission of our membership. We have a very robust process to get to the statements as well. I actually dedicated my column in the march april edition of the Bar Journal to talk more about that process by which we come to statements on behalf of the bar, those unsigned statements that are really given the full weight and authority of, of the organization. And so, Matt, I know that you've been through this process a few times now. Can you talk a little bit about the, the importance of that process by, by which we come to a statement and, and the few different routes we can follow

Matt Besser (26:17):
Right off the bat? It's really important for folks to understand that as officers, we are shepherds of the organization. We, we come and go you serve one year as president of our, and, and it's a tremendous privilege and responsibility, but we're shepherds and caretakers. And that's, that's been the approach that every president that I've had the chance to work with has taken. It's the approach that I take, I know it's the approach that Nick and Judge Keller will take. And the reason I say that is because we set up a process for issuing public statements to make sure that it's not a one person show. That the Bar Association doesn't speak solely because it's the personal policy or political preferences of the president for that year.

New Speaker (27:07):
So we do have a robust process, and this is how it works. You know, we have a, a written series of guidelines that talk about what types of things the CMBA will issue a public statement on or, or can issue a public statement on.

Matt Besser (27:23):
Some of 'em are pretty obvious. It's matters of importance that impact the practice of law or the profession. Things that reflect on the independence or integrity of the judiciary, things that reflect upon access to the legal system. And then just more generally matters relating to the rule of law, sustaining and improving the quality of public trust in the administration of justice and the legal system and, and issues of general importance to, to the greater Cleveland area. So those are the general topics. And our policy says that we issue a public statement only if it would further the interest of the CMBA, its members and the community as a whole. And, and this part's important if the vast majority of our members would agree with the position, that's not a, a strict numerical threshold, but it is a standard that we hold ourselves to and, and have for many years.

Matt Besser (28:20):
In terms of the process, what happens is someone either on the board or, or a member of the organization or from the public will request a, that the CMBA take a public position on an issue or issue a statement. When that sort of request comes in, there's an initial screening process. It goes to the president and the CEO to determine if it sort of facially meets the criteria that I, that I mentioned for being the type of thing the CNBA talks about. We also look to see if we've previously issued a public statement on, on that topic that might apply. And from there, there are two tracks we can follow. One is called rapid response. So we have a a five member rapid response team by rule it, it's made up of the CEO, the president, the chair of our thought leadership committee, which this year is Tom Heron at Franz Ward, and then two members of the bar who are appointed by the president. And although the president can appoint anybody, guidance is given in, in the bylaws that consideration for diversity of thought should be made. And so that's the approach we've always taken is, is with those two at large spots to make sure that we're getting as broad across section as possible that's gonna represent our membership thought or the rapid response team will review the request for a statement. But there has to be a unanimous vote, you gotta have all five say yes before CMBA will issue a statement.

Chris Schmitt (29:46):
And that's not just saying yes to issuing a statement at all, that's issuing a statement in the specific words that we use to issue, to issue the statement. But also that we should make sure that the vast majority of members would agree with a statement. So it's really a, a high threshold for, to get over the line on the rapid response group,

Matt Besser (30:05):
A very high threshold. It's not always met. The other track we have is if there's not need for a rapid response, meaning within 48 hours, basically, then the request for statement goes to our thought leadership committee, and the thought leadership committee will meet, discuss the statement, discuss the wording of the statement, sometimes craft the statement themselves. The threshold there for approval is three quarters, three fourths of of thought leadership committee. And if the statement's approved, couple different things could happen. One is the president could, could authorize it by him or herself or, or veto it. In practice though, what we've tried to do is send it to the full board for approval. You know, there have been a couple requests for statements, couple statements recently. That's the practice we followed. We've sent it to the full board for approval. And we do that just to make sure we have as many different viewpoints and voices having a chance to weigh in and put eyes on a statement before we issue something that, you know, we're issuing on behalf of the legal community. So we do that very thoughtfully. We do it carefully, and we don't do it willy-nilly. We certainly don't do it on the whims of any particular officer of the CMBA in a given year.

Nick DiCello (31:15):
That's incredibly important, Matt, that by the time it gets through the thought leadership and the board route, I mean, we've had 50 plus respected attorneys from around town that have weighed in on these statements. So Nick, can you talk just a, a little bit about the guess the, the importance of the thoroughness of that process? What are we trying to accomplish? Yeah, Matt gave a good recitation of the process. I would say substantively the board, the officers, the board of the bar is a collaborative board and a very collaborative process. And when the statements propose statements filter to the board, we are confident that we've got a broader representation of the legal community just by way of the diversity that we seek to strive for by creating the board lawyers from all different areas, private business, the courts public service, nonprofit, that all sectors are represented on our board.

Nick DiCello (32:14):
So when we have a statement that's reviewed by the board and there's collaboration and there's discussion and there's approval by the board, then I know as an officer and I, and I, I believe I can speak for Matt and Judge Keller, that we feel confident that we are speaking as a unified voice on behalf of the entire Cleveland and beyond legal community. We get challenged sometimes by our members in the, the political nature of some of the statement. I'm a big believer that law is inherently a political business. We all believe that we are in support of, and in furtherance of the laws that are on the books, and those laws come together by the legislative branch and are approved by the executive, and then they go into the digital branch for review. And the importance of us weighing in on things that may seem like they're sticky political topics sometimes is very much a belief in the institutions.

Nick DiCello (33:11):
So justice and the institutions of the courts and the institutions that protect the right to counsel and protect all of the members of our society to have representation in most settings. All of that really necessitates us being advocates of the rule of law as one of our core driving principles in our mission statement, but also in protection of the public. So often we weigh into these topics because it's not just for the good of our 5,000 members to make a statement, but it's good for the residents of Cuyahoga County and beyond the state of Ohio and nationwide to see that there are groups like ours that are standing up for the, the bedrock principles of our democracy.

Matt Besser (33:52):
We're all mindful of the fact that the Bar Association like our community and the country is full of people with political viewpoints that run the entire spectrum. And it's just sort of inherently the case that if we issue a statement, it may be perceived by one side of the other as for or against a candidate or a political party. But the CNBA for, for as long as it's been around has been nonpartisan. And we are nonpartisan. Some of these issues are inherently political in nature, but we only speak out and speak up if something affects those institutional concerns that Chris mentioned. And, and we're sensitive to the fact that, that not every member will agree, but that's our guiding star is promoting and defending the rule of law, protecting our system of checks and balances and, and educating and protecting the public as a whole. If

Nick DiCello (34:46):
I could comment to what Matt said, and this is an important point, that it's important for people to understand that as lawyers, you know, we really are, some of us more than others, we really are in the business of conflict, okay? And so we are experts in that field, and when we put the lawyers that we put together to evaluate these statements, then propose them and discuss them and collaborate with our other members and other directors on the board, you know, we have the ability to argue and look at all sides. We have judges, we have lawyers, we have people who are in the business of arguing one side against another. So what I enjoy about being involved in this process, and I think as lawyers we have a unique ability to be nonpartisan when we evaluate these things, is everybody in the room is always trying to argue another viewpoint or another perspective.

Nick DiCello (35:44):
And, and so when we issue a statement on something, it's not because we feel like we have to advocate for one side over another side, and it's a close argument, but we think the yays habit we are issuing statements that has been said on this podcast before I just started talking, is that they directly deal with the bedrock principles upon which our constitutional system of justice are built. The ability to go into court and argue both sides of an issue is what we are speaking out against and defending. We are not going and issuing statements and saying one side's position should be accepted. We are defending the right for people and parties and citizens of our country to have access to the courts, equal access to the courts with, with lawyers of their choosing and argue whatever side it is they believe is right. And we trust the process to get it right, even if we may identify with one side or the other. So I, I think it's important that we communicate to folks and, and our members need to know this and the public needs to know this. We're not picking sides when we issue these statements. We are issuing statements that defend the entire process itself.