Explaining the Importance of Legal Representation

In another string, I reiterated my position that the Bar has not done an adequate job of explaining the importance of the lawyer's role in fulfilling the constitutional rights of all of us.  I welcomed the criticism by the Liz Cheney group because it might induce that kind of public explanation.  That is happening.  Prominent lawyers, including Kenneth Starr, have published a letter saying in part:

"As attorneys, former officials, and policy specialists who have worked on detention issues, we consider these attacks both unjust to the individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications."  They added that "the American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients goes back at least as far as John Adams' defense of British soldiers accused of killing colonists in what became known as the Boston massacre.”

Also, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York said that it “unequivocally condemns these attacks as an assault on our nation's most fundamental values and traditions and on the very notion of the rule of law itself.  It is fundamental that all persons no matter how unpopular have a right to representation by counsel and that lawyers have a duty to provide such representation and to do so on a pro bono basis where such persons cannot afford counsel."

In addition, American Bar Association President Carolyn Lamm, issued the following statement:

"Individuals and organizations conducting a witch hunt in order to name names of Department of Justice lawyers who earlier represented Guantanamo detainees are showing a profound disregard for a fundamental tenet of our justice system and our Constitution: that anyone who faces loss of liberty has a right to legal counsel."

Comments

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

On the other hand, we also find this: http://volokh.com/2010/03/09/more-on-liz-cheney/

[Monroe Freedman]

Volokh makes a valid point, just as I thought I had made a valid point in my original criticism of Mike Tigar for voluntarily representing Nazi mass-murderer John Demjanjuk.

My point was, and is, that the decision to represent a particular client or cause is the point at which the lawyer has the most scope to make a moral decision; also, that it is entirely appropriate for others to criticize that decision on moral grounds. (At the same time, I object to strident charges, such as a lack of patriotism, unethical conduct, etc. My own question to Mike was, "Why you, old friend?")

Mike responded with an eloquent and persuasive defense of why he had chosen to represent Demjanjuk. That's just the kind of public dialogue that I think is in the interest of the profession and of the public. And (setting aside the hysterical nature of Cheney's charges), that is what is happening now.

[John Steele]

Without jumping into the fray about Cheney's comments -- which were ill-considered, widely rejected, and have basically back-fired -- I wanted to mention that there is another category of disputes where this issue has been playing out recently. We've had electoral campaigns in LA and NY, and elsewhere, where a candidate was once a lawyer and the political opponents are (1) demanding to see the list of the candidate's clients; and (2) trying to stir up public outrage over the choice of clients.

[Maternity nursing clothing]

interesting! Licensed attorneys have the authority to represent persons in court proceedings and in other legal matters. When hiring an attorney, a careful consumer considers a number of variables, including the nature and importance of the case, the attorney's fee and payment arrangement, personal chemistry with the attorney, and the attorney's reputation.

[Marble Suppliers India]

I’m not sure about this really but I do have an open mind.