The American Bar Association wrapped up its annual meeting in San Francisco on Tuesday, with the ABA’s House of Delegates notably adopting six immigration policy positions, including proposed changes to make the nation’s immigration judicial process operate more like Article I courts.

Before the organization skipped town, newly sworn-in ABA president Judy Perry Martinez sat down with Law.com to talk about the organization’s priorities for the next year. In one possible indicator of those priorities, Martinez, who is of counsel at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn in New Orleans and a former in-house lawyer at Northrop Grumman Corp., plans to visit the ABA’s South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project, or ProBAR, in the coming weeks. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

At your passing of the gavel ceremony, you said: “Our finest moments and most enduring contributions have been when we have used our voice and resources for causes about which we can act with authority, and which we can influence with impact.” What are those causes for the ABA at this moment?

There are many causes on which the ABA can act with real authority and have real impact and many of them are in the realm of access to justice. Certainly, what we do to speak about and to address the service to the public in significant ways—and also in service to the profession—in looking at ourselves and asking how can we be better for the public we serve.

I gather that immigration and the asylum system is one area that the ABA is focused on currently. You’re heading to the border to do some pro bono work in the next couple of weeks. What is the ABA doing specifically on that front right now?

We’ve been entrenched in that challenge for 30 years. When I was down in Harlingen, Texas, last year and working at ProBAR and going to the detention centers and looking at it, I can tell you that there are some extraordinarily dedicated people there who are working six and seven days a week who work on the issues and deliver direct legal services, as well as information sessions, which are significantly how people get information about what the process is going to be as they go through it.

So, our work there is not only on the boots on the ground level, but it’s also on the policy front. The Commission on Immigration, as well as the ABA Standing Committee on Pro Bono and other entities both within the organization and [others outside it] are looking at how we make the system better, because we know it can’t continue to operate as it is. We think we have some very concrete ideas about how we make it better, most importantly for the people who come through the system there and want justice, but also so it would be a system that works better and more efficiently—more in line with what we think the expectations are of our Constitution.

It’s an understatement to say that the current political climate is fraught with potential controversy. As a 400,000-member legal organization with members all over the political spectrum, when is it appropriate for the ABA to speak up on a particular political issue?

As the president of the association, I can only speak when there is policy of the association that exists. And we make our policy through adoption of resolutions at the House of Delegates at the ABA. That is an almost 600-person member body which carefully looks at resolutions and reports that come before it in order to take positions. Sometimes, even within the ABA, there can be opposing views.

Oftentimes lawyers do what lawyers do best, and that is come to resolution—in this case it’s truly resolutions—that they craft after much debate and back and forth and research. We are a big tent, as you well know, and we have members on every end and side and in the middle of the political spectrum. But we have lawyers who care about the administration of justice.

From my perspective, having been in the association, actively engaged for 36 years now, I can tell you there are a significant number of issues where it doesn’t matter what your party is or how you vote. What I know is they care about issues of due process, and equality, and justice and fairness and the rule of law and, frankly, they want to see us speaking up because when one lawyer talks it can make a difference in an individual’s life. It can save a life. When the ABA speaks that voice of justice is trumpeted, and it resonates farther than it does often when one lawyer speaks.

When you do speak up as president, is it important that you do it with the backing of the full organization? I know that your predecessor called for an FBI investigation during Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process. Ted Olson notably dropped his membership. Might there be some times that you alienate some portion of the membership and is that a concern?

What is a concern to us is speaking truth. In the context of lawyering, speaking the truth is about speaking constitutional values. It’s about educating the public about what they might not realize that we hold to be dear about how our system of laws operates. There may be, on some occasion, where some member is not pleased by what we say and what we say is based on policy adopted by our House, which you must remember is made up of constituents and divisions and forums, but also made up of individuals who come from state and local bar associations and specialty bar associations and other affiliated organizations. That’s a powerful cross-section of people in the bar, and if you look at the demographics of the people in the bar, certainly the gender demographics have evolved, the percentages of persons of color are evolving. Frankly, when it speaks, it speaks with authority.

That does not in any way mean that we don’t need to hear and want to know what an individual member believes about a position we took. Listening to that makes us better, because it makes us more informed. I am always wanting to hear when a lawyer has another perspective. Because that’s what lawyers do. We don’t go in a corner with people of like minds and discuss important subjects. What we do is sit down with people of differing views and perspectives and readily come to the table to talk to them so that we are informed.

In the context of some of the resolutions that were debated today, we look at them from the perspective of what’s going to be best for the public. Sometimes it’s hard to take a position that is contrary to what the status quo is: immigration courts and respectfully requesting for them to be independent, like Article I courts. They have not been in that category before like a tax court or a bankruptcy court. We are asking for something different.

There may be people who disagree with that. But there’s been a position taken by the House [of Delegates] now on that point. And that was after thoughtful research, looking into all aspects of the question, I believe, and then coming to a conclusion that we think is in the best interest of those seekers of justice who go before those courts.

Turning from policy to membership, the executive director of the ABA told another media outlet last year that the organization had lost around 60,000 members over the past decade. How much of a concern is that loss of members for you? 

Number one: I wish everyone knew what I know about the ABA, because to me it’s an essential part of being a lawyer: belonging to something that not only makes a difference but can also make you a better lawyer.

Number two: Growing membership is always a focus and challenge. And I think it is for any organization. In this particular time for the ABA we have, I think, put a lot of resources and attention on what do we need to be in order to be the organization that people are drawn to. Not only join because someone told you to join, and that may have been a way of the past. I think what we are doing now is we are showing, we are demonstrating why you should want to join.

Growing that number is, I think, important to us. But I can also tell you that what we are looking at is not only the population of lawyers who are out there right now, but we are shaping ourselves for the population of lawyers to come. That’s some of the most exciting things we’re doing right now. We’re, I think, hearing more keenly, listening more keenly to the voice of law students and the voice of young lawyers about what they want and what they expect.