Where I stand—Brian Greenspun: Let lawyers do their jobs

Friday, March 30, 2001 | 10:32 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

I HATE BEING put into this position, but every once in a while I have to speak out for the lawyers.

Actually, I don't hate defending a profession of which I am proud to be a member, albeit a nonpracticing one. It is just that from time to time the public perception of attorneys diminishes to a point just above that of used car dealers -- or perhaps below them -- and I understand some of the frustration that accounts for such a low standing. The fact of the matter is, though, if you ever need a lawyer, you thank your lucky stars when you get a good one.

Lawyer bashing, like the constant derision of the political class in this country, has been raised to an art form by those who make a living off of the controversy. That wouldn't necessarily be all bad except for the fact that the vast majority of Americans who pay the slightest bit of attention to such things fall for all the rhetoric and jump on a bandwagon that heads down a road of hate, where no reason for such an emotion really exists.

What I am trying inartfully to say is that there are reasons to dislike some lawyers' tactics and antics, just like there are reasons to get upset about the actions of members of other professions, but when the chips are down, no one I know is willing to forgo the services of the best legal minds they can find because that is the way justice is secured. If there are faults within our judicial system, they usually lie somewhere between unethical activity and the unwillingness of the judges to do anything serious about it. All that means is that the legal bar isn't perfect but, like our democracy, it sure beats whatever is in second place.

I speak out today, however, to express a bit of outrage. I keep hearing that question -- where's the outrage -- a lot since the changeover of administrations in Washington took place Jan. 20. Whether it is over a decision not to advance the search for arsenic-free drinking water in America, or the withdrawal of American financial assistance to worldwide hunger and family planning groups that may think of the "A" word from time to time, or even the discarding of long and hard thought-out rules for workplace safety, there is a consistent and unmistakable dismantling of much of what a good deal of America thought worthy goals for our country.

Since I have always believed that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get, I have tried to take the longer view since President Bush took office. While I yearn for his success -- selfishly his is mine -- I believe that he most likely will go so far that even the broad middle of American thought will turn away from his rhetoric to pay attention to his deeds. If he performs well, he will be rewarded. If he doesn't, the voters will not only make him pay through electoral defeat but will most likely take a lot of his friends down the tube with him. In the meantime, I am content to suffer through a tax cut I don't need in the hopes that all will work out in the end. But I am not convinced that will be the case.

One area that proves to me the extent to which our president will go to salve the needs of the few against the better judgment of the many is President Bush's decision not to involve the American Bar Association in the judicial selection process. The custom, which started with President Dwight D. Eisenhower, has worked well for every administration these past 50 years because it has allowed the president to have the best thinking of a potential nominee's peer group before the nomination is made.

If, for example, a lawyer is being considered by the president for a Supreme Court appointment, it might be helpful to know in advance of a decision to submit his or her name to the Senate for ratification whether or not that person had ever been reprimanded or complained about by clients, judges or other members of the public. The professional reputation and legal ability of most lawyers is better known to the Bar Association than to practically any other resource, so why not use them?

The answer, it seems, stems from a long period of disgruntlement by some very conservative members of the Republican Party who think that the ABA is too liberal to be recommending anything to a Republican president. If that weren't such a ridiculous charge about such a serious matter, it would be laughable. But that kind of foolishness was bought in toto by President Bush, who announced that the ABA would no longer play its recommending and clearing role as it has done for nine preceding presidents.

The ABA too liberal? I know the lawyers and most of them are, at best, conservative thinkers when it comes to those political issues that seem to drive America these days. That some attorneys represent ideas that challenge the norms of society or push up against the status quo from time to time is merely the best of our profession doing what their oaths of office command that they do. But to think that a group as disparate as America's lawyer class can have any monolithic political thought is patently absurd. Which is where I would put President Bush's latest sop to the ultraconservative class of this country.

Ignoring -- or worse, not asking for -- the advice of the American Bar Association when the subject is lawyers who might become judges is like America ignoring the advice of the American Medical Association when matters of health are at stake. Who better to ask for advice than the very people who devote their professional lives to the pursuit of excellence in their chosen areas of expertise?

And yet President Bush has decided to do just that, which, unfortunately, proves louder than words his loss of touch with a reality that cries out for more input, not less, from those groups in our society who are dedicated to bettering their professions. By the way, just because the Bar Association gives a president's choice a bad grade doesn't mean he can't appoint that person. But it does mean that the Senate and the public will have the bad grade to decide whether or not we are getting our money's worth from the guy we hired to be our leader.

So what is the result of the president's decision? Besides leaving himself open to even worse appointments than some of those his father made during his term of office, he has practically guaranteed a gridlock during the Senate's advice and consent proceedings.

That's because the senators will ask the American Bar Association for its thoughts about the president's nominees and I suspect no one will be surprised when the grades come back far less flattering than what the American people had in mind for their judicial officers. That will make the process more long and drawn out than need be, which will raise the level of contentiousness in the Congress back up to the fever pitch that marked the Newt Gingrich years.

In short, very little good will come from freezing out of the ABA. But President Bush knew all of this before he made his decision.

So why did he do it? Think about it, the answer will come to you.

archive