Latest news with #ABA
West Australian
12 hours ago
- Business
- West Australian
Former finance minister Simon Birmingham to lead Australian Banking Association
Former Coalition senator Simon Birmingham has been named as the new chief of the Australian Banking Association. The ABA is the peak industry body representing the major four banks and a number of smaller lenders. Mr Birmingham succeeds Anna Bligh, who announced her retirement in February after more than eight years in the top job. Mr Birmingham, who was one of the Liberal's most senior moderates, announced his retirement from politics late last year after almost two decades in parliament. He was finance minister for the second half of Scott Morrison's prime ministership as the pandemic wrecked global economies and inflation began its steady climb skywards. He has also held trade, finance and education portfolios under two prime ministers. Mr Birmingham will leave his role at ANZ as head of Asia-Pacific engagement, which he assumed in February. He joins the ABA on August 18, with Ms Bligh finishing up four days later. 'He is a recognised leader who has had deep involvement in significant and long-lasting policy decisions and actions throughout his career that have helped to shape our country,' ABA chair and National Australia Bank chief Andrew Irvine said. Mr Birmingham thanked the ABA board for their vote of confidence in his ability to lead the industry.
Perth Now
12 hours ago
- Business
- Perth Now
Former finance minister to lead banking industry
A former Liberal finance minister will represent the country's banks after being appointed chief executive office of the Australian Banking Association. After almost two decades in politics, Simon Birmingham announced his retirement from parliament at the end of 2024 for a role at banking giant ANZ. On Friday, it was revealed he would shuffle jobs once again to lead the banking lobby group from August. "I will always put trust in Australia's banking system first, pursue a competitive regulatory environment, and work to ensure innovation in banking strengthens Australia's financial interests," Mr Birmingham said in a statement. "A strong, healthy, customer-focused financial services sector is vital for all Australians." The association's members include all of the big four banks and 16 other regional and international institutions. Treasurer Jim Chalmers welcomed Mr Birmingham's announcement. "The Australian Banking Association is fortunate to be bringing in someone of Simon Birmingham's calibre as its new CEO," he said. "I'm looking forward to engaging with him on the big issues shaping Australia's banking sector." Senator Birmingham entered parliament in 2007 and served as trade, finance and education ministers in coalition governments under Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison. ABA Chair and National Australia Bank CEO Andrew Irvine said Mr Birmingham's ability to navigate difficult and complex environments made him ideal for his new role. "He will be a sensible, consistent and respected voice on behalf of the industry," Mr Irvine said.
USA Today
15 hours ago
- Sport
- USA Today
Brooklyn Nets jersey history No. 20 - Barry Leibowitz (1967-68)
Brooklyn Nets jersey history No. 20 - Barry Leibowitz (1967-68) The Brooklyn Nets have 52 jersey numbers worn by over 600 different players over the course of their history since the franchise was founded in 1967 as a charter member of the American Basketball Association (ABA), when the team was known as the "New Jersey Americans". Since then, that league has been absorbed by the NBA with the team that would later become the New York Nets and New Jersey Nets before settling on the name by which they are known today, bringing their rich player and jersey history with them to the league of today. To commemorate the players who played for the Nets over the decades wearing those 52 different jersey numbers, Nets Wire is covering the entire history of the franchise's jersey numbers and the players who sported them since the founding of the team. The 21st of those 52 different numbers is jersey No. 20, which has has had a total of 28 players wear the number in the history of the team. The second of those players wearing No. 20 played in the (then) New Jersey Americans (now, Brooklyn Nets) era, guard alum Barry Leibowitz. After ending his college career at LIU, Leibowitz was picked up with the 48th overall selection of the 1967 NBA draft by the New York Knicks. The New Yorker instead signed with the ABA's (defunct) Pittsburgh Pipers, and was dealt to the Americans in 1967. His stay with the team would span just 24 games of the same season, coming to an end when he was traded again, this time to the (also defunct) Oakland Oaks. During his time suiting up for the Americans, Leibowitz wore only jersey No. 20 and put up 11.4 points, 3.0 rebounds, and 3.9 assists per game. All stats and data courtesy of Basketball Reference.
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
American Bar Association sues Trump administration over intimidation of law firms
The American Bar Association (ABA), which globally is one of the largest voluntary associations of lawyers, has recently filed a lawsuit against the US government, including the Executive Office of the President, numerous federal departments and agencies, and their respective heads. The core of the lawsuit, filed in a district court (District of Columbia) revolves around what the ABA terms the 'Law Firm Intimidation Policy' adopted by the Trump administration. The ABA asserts that since taking office, Trump and his administration have wielded the extensive powers of the executive branch to unlawfully coerce lawyers and law firms. The objective, according to the lawsuit, is to force legal professionals to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions that the administration disfavors. This alleged intimidation is carried out through various means, including executive orders, letters, memos, and public statements specifically designed to harm targeted law firms and deter others. The ABA filed this lawsuit because it believes this policy represents an unprecedented challenge to the American legal profession, the rule of law, and access to justice for all citizens. The lawsuit highlights that this kind of clear retaliation chills First-Amendment protected activity, sending ripples across the legal community. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Što je to umjetna inteligencija o kojoj svi pričaju? Courses AI Undo Lawyers and law firms are reportedly becoming reluctant to take on cases challenging the federal government due to fears of retaliatory actions, which severely limits access to legal representation for individuals and organizations whose views are not aligned with the administration. The ABA emphasizes the critical role lawyers play in the constitutional system as a check on the executive branch, arguing that without independent legal advocacy, the judiciary cannot function effectively. The lawsuit details several tactics employed by the administration as part of this intimidation policy. These include: Terminating security clearances: Individuals at targeted law firms have had their security clearances immediately suspended. Severing government contracts: Government contracts held by law firms and their clients are threatened with termination, and contractors are mandated to disclose business dealings with specific law firms. Limiting access to federal buildings and personnel: Employees of targeted firms face restrictions on accessing federal buildings and engaging with government employees in their official capacity. Refraining from hiring: Federal agencies are reportedly refraining from hiring employees from certain law firms for government jobs without a special waiver. Targeted investigations: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Attorney General are directed to review the practices of law firms, particularly regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, with an implied threat of disciplinary action or prosecution. The ABA's filing specifically references multiple executive orders issued against firms like Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, citing how these orders caused significant financial and reputational damage. It also points to 'deals' struck with other prominent law firms (such as Skadden, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Milbank, Kirkland & Ellis, Shearman Sterling, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Latham & Watkins, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft) where they agreed to provide millions of dollars in pro bono services for administration-approved causes and alter internal policies to avoid similar sanctions. The ABA is seeking several forms of relief from the court. Primarily, it asks the court to declare the entire 'Law Firm Intimidation Policy' unconstitutional. Furthermore, it seeks injunctive relief to prevent the defendants—the US government, federal departments, agencies, and their heads—from implementing and enforcing this policy against the ABA or any of its members in the future. Specifically, the ABA requests that the court: Declare unconstitutional the provisions related to security clearance termination, government contracting, federal building and employee access, and federal employment. Enjoin the defendants from enforcing these provisions against any ABA member or their law firm based on their affiliation or client representations. Enjoin the defendants from initiating attorney conduct and disciplinary proceedings or making referrals for disciplinary action against ABA members or their firms based on their affiliations or client representations. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper, including costs. In essence, the ABA's lawsuit is a direct challenge to what it perceives as an executive overreach aimed at stifling independent legal advocacy, thereby undermining the foundational principles of the American justice system and the constitutional rights of free speech, association, and petition.
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Even the legal wonks are standing up to Trump
Advertisement I participated several years ago in an ABA advisory panel of lawyers, journalists, and other professionals tasked with finding ways to better communicate the importance of the rule of law to the public. The work was less about making fiery, impassioned pleas and more about reviewing policy papers and publications and the like. It wasn't sexy stuff. But it was very ABA. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up That's why I was surprised when the organization became a central player in the very public, very political war President Trump and his administration have declared on judges and lawyers. Among the salvos: executive orders aimed at law firms that have represented Democratic clients, demands that law firms donate pro bono services to the administration or be punished with stripped security clearances, canceled government contracts, and barring its attorneys from seeking government jobs. Advertisement But as it turns out, the wonks are ready for battle. On Monday This is different from ongoing challenges by law firms that have been targeted by Trump's executive orders. By claiming that all of the ABA's estimated 227,000 members are endangered by Trump's attack on law firms, it gives the court the ability to grant much broader relief, rather than forcing firms to individually challenge each executive action against them like an autocratic game of whack-a-mole. As I noted That is one reason the ABA created the Special Committee on Legal Aid Work Advertisement This should be uncontroversial stuff. But as its new lawsuit states, these are not normal times. 'Today, though, the American legal profession faces a challenge that is different from all that has come before,' the complaint states. 'It is unprecedented and uniquely dangerous to the rule of law.' Through a spokesperson, William R. Bay, president of the American Bar Association, declined to comment because litigation is ongoing. But a statement that Bay 'There are clear choices facing our profession,' Bay wrote. 'We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession, including lawyers who serve in elected positions, to speak out against intimidation.' I am not an ABA member, but I count myself proudly among the wonks in support of protecting the rule of law. Actions like this lawsuit help the legal profession stand in solidarity against efforts to pick off firms one by one. That's not partisan activism. That's democracy in action. Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
