The American Bar Association’s House of Delegates this week approved a measure aimed at prohibiting discrimination in the legal profession despite sharp criticism from opponents.

At its annual meeting in San Francisco on Monday and Tuesday, the association’s policymaking body debated whether to implement several proposals, among them Resolution 109, which amends the ABA’s Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 and promotes the fair and equal treatment of those in the legal profession.

According to the ABA Journal, the discussion focused mainly on the harassment and discrimination of women, but Rule 8.4 will prohibit any behavior that an attorney can be reasonably expected to 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 as it relates to the practice of law.

Speaking in favor of the resolution on Monday, chair of the ABA Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, Mark Johnson Roberts, told his story of being passed over by a law firm hiring committee because of his sexual orientation.

In a letter sent earlier this month to the chair of the ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, the National Association of Women Lawyers expressed full support for a resolution aimed at ending discrimination in the practice of law.

“NAWL’s mission is to provide leadership, a collective voice, and essential resources to advance women in the legal profession and advocate for the equality of women under the law,” wrote Marsha Anastasia, president of NAWL.

According to the association’s Annual National Survey on Retention and Promotion of Women in Law Firms, women account for roughly 18 percent of equity partners in The American Lawyer’s AmLaw 200 and are paid 80 percent of what their male colleagues are paid.

Men and women of color make up 8 percent of equity partners and LGBT lawyers are at only 2 percent.

“The ABA Commission on Women in the Profession’s study on women of color in law firms reported that once hired, 49 percent of women of color experienced demeaning comments or harassment,” the letter states.

Anastasia wrote that the proposed revision to Rule 8.4 would provide a mechanism for removing barriers to advancement for women and minorities in a profession “that is charged with providing justice for all.”

“The amended rule is necessary because explicit and implicit discrimination is still pervasive in our institutions as well as across a counsel table,” Anastasia wrote. “Our members experience unequal pay for equal work, misogynistic comments and actions by opposing counsel, limited access to decision-makers, sexual harassment and objectification, inequitable reviews that lead to inequitable compensation, diminishing comments and behavior in meetings and mistaken assumptions that undermine earned progression in the profession.”

According to the letter, those who have experienced instances of discrimination and harassment are the ones whose careers are stalled, derailed and halted while the perpetrators “continue to climb the ladder of success unimpeded in what is essentially an endorsement of their behavior.”

“Perhaps when the refusal to accept discrimination and harassment is literally written into the moral code of the legal profession, women and minorities will be fully accepted as colleagues, partners, bosses and opposing counsel,” Anastasia wrote.

Despite the fact that the amendment to Rule 8.4 passed handily on Monday, it has received sharp criticism from opponents outside the House of Delegates.

A recent op-ed published by the National Law Journal referred to the measure as a demonstration of “hubris and elitism” and accused the bar association of politicizing legal ethics.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese and President and CEO of First Liberty Institute Kelly Shackelford also sent a letter to the ABA’s House of Delegates opposing the resolution and stating that the new ethics rule is “a clear and extraordinary threat to free speech and religious liberty.”

“It is not an overstatement to say that this proposed rule borders on fascism,” Meese and Shackelford wrote.

Two other proposals, one urging clients to pursue services from more diverse attorneys and another advocating for greater diversity in the judiciary, were also on the agenda this week. As of publication, Resolution 102, concerning diversity at all levels of the bench, passed without opposition.