Taa Grays, a former
The group’s first Black female leader also serves on the NY State Commission on Judicial Conduct. A graduate from Harvard University and Georgetown Law, she previously helmed the Metropolitan Black Bar Association, the Network of Bar Leaders, and the Association of Black Women Attorneys.
Grays sat down with Bloomberg Law to discuss what it means to be the first Black woman to lead the 60,000-member organization and her priorities for the next year. What follows is a transcript of that interview, edited for length and clarity.
What made you want to take on this role?
Like with the other organizations I’ve presided over, this wasn’t something where I came to say, “Yes, I want to be president.” It just happened naturally once I became more familiar with the association and leadership opportunities arose.
I didn’t want to do it just because of this role’s visibility. I wanted to think about what could I contribute. What do I bring to the table from my experiences, my background? And then once I centered on that, I felt I had something to offer to make the organization stronger, to bring more people into the fold.
What does being the first Black female president mean for you and for the association?
We’ve done outreach to our delegates to ensure that there’s representation, including of people from different geographic regions, backgrounds, areas of practice, and political persuasions. Yes, we’re in a Democratic state, but there are a whole lot of Republicans, too. There are independents, and people who are with the Working Families Party. So we do make sure that we bring those people into the fold because that’s who we are as a legal profession and as a state.
Me being in this role shows the organization’s commitment to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion because that’s important. I want to be clear that DEI means making sure everyone is invited to the table.
There have been calls for the bar to speak out about things the Trump administration has said and actions taken against the profession. What’s your approach to that?
Under our mission, the rule of law is important. It doesn’t matter whether the administration is Republican or Democratic, we advocate for the rule of law. And if there’s administration policy that isn’t in support of the rule of law, then we’ll speak out against it or call it out that the activities aren’t consistent with it.
We have to make sure the things we are commenting about are consistent with our mission and that we’re protecting access to justice.
There’s been some focus by the administration to reduce funding to legal services, and we’ve advocated for restoring it. That’s not a Republican or Democratic issue. Every state and territory in this country has constituents who use those services.
Can you talk more about the funding issue?
Legal Services Corp. receives federal funds that are distributed across the country to organizations that administer legal services to individuals in their states. The administration has zeroed out that funding.
When you cut that, these organizations are unable to provide services to the neediest in every community—Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, people of different gender identities, young and old people. Everybody uses legal services if they don’t have enough money to pay for attorneys. We consistently speak out in support of funding.
What are your top priorities coming in to the role??
My top three priorities are membership sustainability, making the organization easier to operate, and financial sustainability.
We’re big and have been around for 150 years. We need to take a step back and look at how things are working. Even though we are a nonprofit, that doesn’t mean we’re not-for-revenue, and we have to make money to advance our mission.
I also really want to focus on young lawyers. They’re the future of the profession. We’re not going to be able to continue doing this work for the next 150 years if we don’t bring the young lawyers into our membership and leadership ranks.
Also, family court. Many people are going to family court in a time of crisis on their own. Going back to the access-to-justice issue about services that are available—the system isn’t really well set up for people to do this on their own.
New York State Court of Appeals Chief Judge Rowan Wilson is also focusing on that, so it’ll be bringing together our respective resources and brain power to find ways of making family court a better experience for individuals.
Are you concerned with AI use and its resulting hallucinations, and do you think it needs to be addressed?
Education is a big part of it, helping people understand how the tool is used. The bar can help with that, but organizations also have to make sure they’re educating their associates, partners, and other legal professionals using the tools.
The courts—just like every other employer and legal entity—are struggling to understand a tool that’s changing. It’s very different than other tools we’ve seen in the past. How do you get your arms around something that you’re still trying to understand?
Our committee on AI is also looking at how the technology can be used to address the access-to-justice chasm.
What long-lasting impact do you want to have on the organization?
I want to show that the bar is here to help people better understand how the law helps them, to ensure the least among us can still get access to justice. The system doesn’t work if you only have one party that’s represented. The whole thing doesn’t work if the rule of law is undermined.