Hofstra Law Review has an entire issue on the "Supplementary Guidelines for the Mitigation Function of Defense Teams In Death Penalty Cases." (Hat tip: SL&P.) Unlike the American Bar Association, which at least pretends to represent the entire bar, these guidelines are a purely defense-side effort.
The defense side was successful in getting the Supreme Court to delegate to the ABA the power to amend the Constitution of United States by saying in Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) that it would look to ABA guidelines to decide what the Sixth Amendment requires in capital defense. The goal here appears to be to convince courts to let the defense side dispense with even the pretense of letting other segments of the bar have a say and decide on its own what is required. I'm not sure why they need to go outside the ABA, given that the ABA is simply a sock-puppet on the defense's hand in these matters, but they apparently think they need to.
The end goal is to convince the American people they cannot afford the death penalty, after the people have rejected all the other arguments. First, promulgate standards. Second, get courts to overturn sentences in any case where the standards are not met. Third, tell legislatures they must make huge new appropriations to meet the standards. Fourth, tell the legislature they just can't afford this, and the only alternative is to abolish the death penalty.