In a New York Times op-ed by former federal judges Shira Sheindlin of the Southern District of New York and John Jones III of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, they note the obvious. Lawyers have forsaken their dignity. In support, they tell the sordid tale of Trump coercing Biglaw to bend to his will, and some white shoe firms flopping on their knees with tongues out and drool dripping on Trump’s Thom McCans.

Last year was not the proudest year for the American legal profession. The Trump administration took unconscionable and manifestly illegal measures against law firms that had represented clients and causes the administration disliked. In response, several large firms made deals to eliminate diversity efforts and agreed to provide nearly $1 billion of free legal services to causes favored by the government. While a handful of firms fought back and won, most simply remained silent, no doubt wary of making themselves a target of political ire.

Certainly no display of dignity, although not many of us considered Biglaw a bastion of anything beyond pompousness and overcharging, which would bring them closer to Trump than the rest of the legal profession.

In any event, the point of the op-ed is to promote a new set of principles for the legal profession that, as the judges put it, will enable lawyers to “regain” our dignity, begging the question of whether it was gained in the first place. They are entitled “Principles For The Independence of the Legal Profession.”  The preamble provides its purpose.

The objectives of the Principles for the Independence of the Legal Profession are to ensure the preservation of a robust and independent bar; to ensure that all lawyers are able to carry out their duties ethically and in compliance with the rules of professional conduct; to protect and serve the effective functioning of the independent judiciary; to promote the availability of competent counsel for all parties, without regard to interest, ideology, popular support, or government disfavor; to defend the bedrock right to counsel and all the protections of the Bill of Rights; and to support the maintenance of the rule of law for all those subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Having read that, would you ever believe it was written by lawyers? This is the sort of tepid vagary for which lawyers get to buy new cars. But this is just the preamble. No doubt the principles pack a potent punch.

• Defend our constitutional right to be free from government coercion or retaliation for activities that are protected by the First Amendment including representing clients, donating to causes of concern, and expressing beliefs regarding the value of equal opportunity. This principle covers individual lawyers as well as the organizations with which they are associated.
• Respect the Rules of Professional Conduct binding upon us as members of the legal profession, representatives of clients, and officers of the legal system – including our duty, when necessary, to challenge official actions.
• Uphold our duty as members of the legal profession to provide legal services to those unable to pay, by providing legal services directly, or to organizations that are designed primarily to address the needs of people of limited means. Protecting the rule of law is also an essential task required of all members of the bar and must be safe from any interference by the government or any other organization. The duty to provide equal access to justice is a paramount obligation of all members of the legal profession.
• Undertake our duties as attorneys, in accordance with our oath, mindful of the importance of honest counsel in ensuring access to justice to all who seek our counsel and in maintaining public confidence in the actual and perceived integrity of the legal process.

Is that it? Well, yes, that’s not only what they wrote, but all they wrote. It’s not so much that there is anything wrong with these “principles,” although they say nothing new or stray beyond the most fundamental principles already in place. Respect the Rules of Professional Conduct? Wasn’t that our duty already? Defend the Constitution? Who would have known?

As a lawyer who has been highly critical of lawyers, the judiciary and the government when we’ve fallen short of our oath, I don’t take issue with these principles. They’re fine. What they are not is bold, strong and clear. This is weak sauce, the same weak sauce we’ve labored under long before we gave away our dignity, not to mention integrity, for a quick buck or to appease a vulgar fool.

Lawyers were once an honorable profession. We should be again. We need to be again. But what we need isn’t a wagging finger of shame, but a punch in the gut if we’re to stand up against the eradication of a society based on the rule of law because the guy with guns is willing to use them and the guys holding the guns are willing to play along. This packs no punch.