Well, it has happened. Law professor Eugene Volokh blogs about the latest move from the American Bar Association. In this excerpt, Volokh quotes from a new provision in the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, described by Volokh as “an influential document that many states have adopted as binding on lawyers in their state.” In the passage below, the boldfaced parts were highlighted by Volokh:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline, or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these rules.

The American Bar Association’s new code must be rejected

Last week the American Bar Association (ABA) changed its model ethics rules for lawyers, prohibiting attorneys from engaging in speech or being a member of any organization — even churches — that holds traditional views on marriage, sexuality and other issues. It now goes to each state’s courts for consideration, which must emphatically reject Model Rule 8.4 as an unprecedented threat to religious liberty, both for attorneys and their clients.

The ABA adopted Model Rule 8.4, which makes it unethical — and thus something for which a lawyer could lose his or her license to practice law — to “discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.”

The rule’s official comments sweepingly interpret discrimination “related” to practicing law to include “verbal conduct” and “business or social activities.” Anything a lawyer says to another person — whether speaking in church or over dinner — sharing his viewpoints on same-sex marriage, transgenderism, Black Lives Matter or illegal immigration, would enable any hearer to file a complaint with the state bar authority.

Indeed, a lawyer’s church membership and worship activities are “social activities.” Churches that are evangelical, Roman Catholic or numerous other faiths (such as Orthodox Jews), have official doctrinal positions that marriage is between one man with one woman and that God purposefully creates each person with a fixed biological sex. Many churches also have certain views about socioeconomic issues. A liberal activist could file a complaint based solely . . .

Judge Wayne Mack is a Justice of the Peace for Montgomery County, Texas. As a Texas Justice of the Peace, Judge Mack is authorized to act as a coroner when a death occurs in Montgomery County. Several years ago, Judge Mack implemented a volunteer chaplaincy program for religious leaders of all faiths. When there is a death in the county, mourners may request a volunteer chaplain to come and comfort them according to their wishes and religious beliefs. In order to honor the volunteer chaplains’ work and to solemnize his courtroom proceedings, Judge Mack invites volunteer chaplains to open his court proceedings with a short prayer.

This week, Pew Research Center released a poll of over 4,000 individuals who had attended a religious service within the past few months. It asked respondents how often clergy had spoken out about various social and political issues. An impressive 64 percent of respondents reported that they had heard clergy speak about at least one of the six issues included in the survey. However, the survey indicates that when it comes to polarizing morality policy issues, majorities of churchgoers hear nothing. Only 40 percent of respondents stated that clergy had spoken about religious liberty. Similarly, 39 percent stated that clergy had spoken about homosexuality. Finally, only 29 percent of respondents recalled hearing about abortion.

In general, in a campaign filled with controversial statements, it's fair to say Donald Trump doesn't do apologies and he doesn't do regret. Which is why it was extraordinary that in his speech in Charlotte Thursday night — one of his first under a new campaign management — Trump did that rarest of things: he expressed regret for rhetorical excesses of the past and conceded that they may have caused pain for some people.

"Sometimes in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don't choose the right words or say the right thing," Trump told the crowd at the Charlotte Convention Center. "I have done that. And believe it or not, I regret it. And I do regret it. Particularly where it may have caused personal pain. Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues."

That was new Trump. Very new Trump.

As ObamaCare implodes, Democrats blame insurers. Democrats claimed for years that ObamaCare is working splendidly, though anybody acquainted with reality could see the entitlement is dysfunctional. Now as the law breaks down in an election ...