On June 1, the Connecticut Bar Association issued a statement titled "CBA Denounces All Acts of Hate." A number of members objected that the statement did not go far enough to condemn the violence and destruction caused by "unlawful rioting." One member went so far as to complain about protesters blocking access to our highways.

On the same day, in a discussion that seemed to take place a world away, my law students grappled with questions about whether violent protest can ever be justified and what the limits should be on their ability, as prospective members of the bar, to protest and engage in civil disobedience. One of my students confessed to having lain down on the road to block traffic.

I offer no simple answers to these questions, but I wanted to share some thoughts. First, let's be very clear: the spontaneous protests in cities and towns all across the country have been remarkably—and increasingly—nonviolent. Much of the public discourse uses terms such as "violence" and "rioting" indiscriminately, but we, especially as lawyers, should reflect on the difference between "violence" to persons and destruction of property, a line drawn by our laws. When we consider the looting of the Target in Minneapolis, we might ask ourselves whether we would have sided with the "mob" at the Boston Tea Party or with those who decried the incident as an act of vandals that by current estimates destroyed a million dollars' worth of tea? As we contemplate how to respond to these events, we must remind ourselves that there is a difference between condoning and understanding. In the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.: "A riot is the language of the unheard."

For lawyers and law students, the issues are somewhat more circumscribed. With respect to violent protest and property destruction, I cautioned my law students against taking such actions if they ever planned to be called to the bar. Just this weekend, two young Brooklyn lawyers without prior criminal records were arrested after they threw a Molotov cocktail into an empty police car. Although no one was injured, the incident highlights the potential danger to human life that nearly any act of property destruction entails, and the fine line between destroying property and endangering lives.

However, even with respect to engaging in nonviolent acts of civil disobedience, my students and all prospective lawyers in Connecticut face a dilemma if they are arrested and face criminal charges as a result. Under the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct, lawyers commit "professional misconduct" if they, among other things, "[c]ommit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects" or "[e]ngage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." RPC 8.4(2) and (4). Further, under Section 2-40, any lawyer "convicted of a serious crime" has a duty to notify disciplinary counsel.

For prospective members of the bar, the scope of inquiry is far broader, as perhaps it should be. Currently, applicants must submit "arrest report[s] and all other documents" relating to any criminal convictions or pending criminal charges against the applicant. In short, I was unable to reassure my students that they could in good conscience perform acts of civil disobedience without some risk to their bar applications, even if it meant only delay and then subsequent approval.

As theorized by Thoreau, and practiced by Gandhi and King, civil disobedience demonstrates the highest form of respect for the law, an attempt to challenge the system by working within it to demonstrate its unjustness, without resort to violence. In the case of laws that were unjust on their face, Gandhi and his followers would violate the very law they opposed and then ask the tribunal for the maximum penalty in order to highlight the injustice of both the law and the system enforcing it, so that the jails would overflow with otherwise innocent people, and those who watched would be forced to reckon with the wrongs wrought by a failing system.

Today, in many instances, it is no longer a question of de jure laws that are facially unjust, but rather of discriminatory enforcement and treatment. This has made choosing a method of exercising civil disobedience more challenging. Gandhi defied the British salt tax by marching to the sea to make salt unlawfully. Rosa Parks simply sat at the front of the bus. Today, we may have to block highways.

Confronted with the deaths of so many black and brown people at the hands of the police, we must exhort our fellow citizens, our brethren in the Bar, and the Connecticut Bar Examining Committee to acknowledge acts of civil disobedience as a legitimate means of protest. Specifically, the Bar Examining Committee should not treat acts of civil disobedience as disqualifying future lawyers. But, even if there is no guarantee that acts of civil disobedience will be respected, we as citizens, lawyers and law students should recognize that some risks are worth taking.

Sheila N. Hayre is the Waring & Carmen Partridge Faculty Fellow Visiting Associate Professor of Law at Quinnipiac University School of Law.