The Public's Benefit - Installment 2

In December, 2008, we posted Law Schools Do Not Seem to Compete for the Public's Benefit contending that Law school reputations currently connote to the public only vague expectations of how brazen and arrogant its graduates behave.

Law school admission standards must be tightened for the entire public to better rely on reputations of respective law schools for producing graduates of innate integrity.

Improving law school admissions standards, although certainly in the public interest, is highly unlikely. Afterall, law schools are not military academies and most lawyers were never Eagle Scouts nor recipients of Girl Scout equivalent Gold Awards.

We expected, to be posting with increasing frequency about the brazen corruption and ethical lapses of lawyers in public office. The shamed law schools will be identified just in case the more serious allegations stick to awaken the public. A disproportionate percentage of law graduates (hardly 2% of the entire workforce) are currently elected to over 20% of public offices. This presents conflicts of interest and unintended concentrations of authority. Combined with self-serving laws tailored to give incumbents subtle advantages over challengers, the country is in growing peril of a permanent political class.

The latest remarkable example of lawyer malfeasance involves one not in public office. With his Harvard pedigree and the kind of dough he could afford to throw around, however, he could certainly influence those in public office:

A well-heeled New York lawyer termed a Houdini of impersonation and false documents pled guilty to a scheme that cost investors and hedge funds at least $400 million. The lawyer, Marc S. Dreier, is a Harvard Law graduate who sold $700 million worth of bogus promissory notes to investors, according to his federal indictment. The New York Times reported yesterday that federal prosecutors have recommended a 145-year sentence for lawyer Dreier. Of course, determination of Mr. Dreier's sentence will be left up to another lawyer --- a judge.

Hopefully, the sentencing judge will also be an emBARrassed Harvard law grad.

Sotomayor and the Supreme Court Paradigm

Seating Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court could well be required for a feat not anticipated in our lifetimes, although certainly provided by the framers of our constitution, — seating non-lawyers on that court.

Sotomayor may weigh her life experiences, as she has stated, to reach judicial opinions some interpret at conflict with the Constitution and case law to date. This would not be the first time, nor would it always lead to favorable outcomes for Sotomayor’s opinions. Dissenting or not, she would be subject to the razor-sharp pressure from her peers.

The longstanding monopoly of an entire branch of the federal government by lawyers, the majority of the U.S. Senate, including its Judiciary Committee, and over 30% of the U.S. House of Representatives by members of a single profession is outrageous on its face. Although such concentrations of authority breed conflicts of interest, most voters cannot see the results.

A scandal with tentacles and ensuing investigation will someday confirm the unconscionable conflicts of interest enabled by lawyers, particularly with unelected enablers like well-heeled lobbyists or worse, lawyer-filled not-for-profits like the A.C.L.U. , A.C.O.R.N.

Like it or not, seating Sotomayor may finally provide that reliance on case precedent and the written letter of the law (i.e. the claimed necessity for jurists' formal legal education) is not so necessary. Voila! We want to see some commoners on our Supreme Court.

Environment of Corruption, Yet?

Inspector General David Kotz uncovered the possible insider trading. Kotz declined CBS's formal request for an interview, citing the ongoing investigation. As related in SEC Attorneys Probed For Insider Trading, Kotz later told CBS News:

"The report talks about our concerns that there is no true compliance system at the SEC."

The SEC has had no compliance system in place to monitor the trades of their employees.

Both attorneys - who deny any wrongdoing - still work at the SEC and make six-figure salaries. The investigation was triggered after the high volume of trades by the female attorney set off alarms inside the agency. ...

In addition, the (pdf) report says that the female attorney “spent much of her work day e-mailing and searching the Internet about stocks.” It quotes her telling investigators: "It's my main hobby. It's my passion.” And: “It’s my way of keeping intellectually above what other people are doing.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If corruption is present at an enforcement and regulatory agency populated largely by members of the legal profession, what must conflicts of interest be like in a federal goverenment populated largely by members of the same profession?


Let's not forget, the ethical tone of a nation is set by its role models, the leaders.

To corporate watchdogs, audit CPAs and their lawyers, the SEC has set the ethical tone since 1934. Look at today's economy; has the SEC's ethical tone been any more effective than Fannie Mae's?

Wasn't it Arthur Andersen's in-house counsel who advised the ENRON auditors to shred their workpapers? Yes, indeed.

Now, another lawyer:

Ex-Ernst & Young Partner Convicted of Insider Trading

May 15 (Bloomberg) -- James Gansman, who was a partner at Ernst & Young LLP, was convicted of six federal insider-trading charges.

A federal jury in Manhattan today also acquitted Gansman of three insider-trading counts and conspiracy. He faces more than 20 years in prison when sentenced Oct. 1. He is free on bail. His accomplice, Donna Murdoch, a managing director at a Philadelphia-based broker-dealer, pleaded guilty in December.

Warning: Never blindly vote for another lawyer, regardless of party affiliation.

Law Schools Do Not Seem to Compete for the Public's Benefit

A public corruption expert reminds us that it is not unusual for public officials to choose friends or associates when making appointments.

The two things that are unusual about this case, he said, referring to Blagojevich, are one, the high level of the official, and two, the apparent brazenness and openness of the alleged incident. - George Brown, law professor, Boston College; December 10,2008, In the old days, buying a Senate seat was not unusual, By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times

On December 9, 2008, Illinois Gov. Blagojevich was arrested by federal law enforcement agents. The governor has been charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud as well as solicitation of bribery.[6]

Gov. Blagojevich earned his law degree from Pepperdine University School of Law in 1983.

On June 4, 2007, a federal grand jury indicted Rep. William Jennings "Bill" Jefferson of Louisiana on sixteen charges related to corruption.[3]

Jefferson earned a law degree from Harvard University in 1972, and an LLM in Taxation from Georgetown University Law Center in 1996.

One might think prestigious law schools would devote significant portions of their curricula to the ethics of elected governmental office and that largely, only those lawyers with pre-eminent ethics qualifications would run for public offices.

Not only would strengthened ethics courses for lawyers raise the bar for public office, it would also cement the reputational stakes of various law schools in the performance of their graduates.

Ultimately, law school admission standards would have to be tightened, and the entire public could better rely on the reputations of each law school for producing graduates with integrity. Law school reputations currently connote to the public only vague expectations of how brazen and arrogant its graduates behave.

Such improvements in the public interest are highly unlikely. We expect, therefore, to be posting with increasing frequency about the brazen corruption and ethical lapses of lawyers in public office. The shamed law schools will be identified just in case the more serious allegations stick.

Why pick on lawyers? To awaken the public. A disproportionate percentage of law graduates (hardly 2% of the entire workforce) are currently elected to over 20% of public offices. This presents conflicts of interest and unintended concentrations of authority. Combined with self-serving laws tailored to give incumbents subtle advantages over challengers, the country is in growing peril of a permanent political class.

In our opinion, freshening and balancing this mix would be much healthier for our country.

Conflicting Interests and Concentration of Authority Just Grew

What happened nationally in the November 2008 election?

- Lawyers retained uncontested, total control of the federal judiciary.

- Lawyers took over total control of the executive branch, which nominates and appoints judges and justices, and breaks Senate ties.

- Lawyers increased their numbers in Congress, which creates huge Environmental Superfunds, Bailout and Carbon Offset Funds, etc. feeding members of their own profession. Trial attorneys are among the largest Democrat campaign contributors, and 98% of those lobbying Congress day in and day out are lawyers.

How long can the press remain silent as voters ignore such outrageous conflicts of interests?

As Lee Muller reminds us, A significant number of major figures in the press are lawyers, or ar married to lawyers who practice in the political arena.

We can certainly include in the significant number some very familiar mouthpieces such as Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers (both of whom are graduate lawyers) and Kathleen Parker, who married one.

Are There Too Many Lawyers in the U.S.?

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court has served more than 20 years. In a recent interview Parade Magazine Intelligence Report asked, You’ve said that there are too many lawyers in the U.S. Why do you think that?

Scalia replied, I don’t mean to criticize lawyers, just the need for so many lawyers. Lawyers don’t dig ditches or build buildings. When a society requires such a large number of its best minds to conduct the unproductive enterprise of the law, something is wrong with the legal system.

Ed.: Could lawyers be colonizing [euphemism for corrupting] the Senate and parasitizing the economy?

Is there a role for politics in our judicial system?

Scalia replied, None whatever. The absolute worst violation of the judge’s oath is to decide a case based on a partisan political or philosophical basis, rather than what the law requires.

Ed.: What Scalia was not asked and did not say is that the preponderance of these parasites in elected office is dangerous. Consider whether it would be wise to elect barbers to over half the seats in the U.S. Senate and then have them exercise advice and consent over appointments of barbers to a separate but equal Supreme Tonsorial Salon.

The concentration of power in a single profession is more than monopolistic, it tends to be corrupting and fosters self-serving results. We are unwittingly creating a nobility within a country created expressly, among other purposes, to ban a noble class.

The Supreme Court, by the way, would better represent America if it had a few barbers or hairdressers among its lawyers. By the way, appointment of only lawyers to the Supreme Court is not a requirement of any law, it is one of the results of too many lawyers in government.

Lawyers Infesting Government: The New 'Organized Crime Racket"

September 14, 2006, in Lawyer Kickers pro bono, we posted 'Lawyers Wield Their Extortion (Threat of Lawsuits), Again'.

Fourteen months later an esteemed member of the nation's journalist community has finally joined in the alarm. Here are some excerpts of what George Will wrote:

Since 1965, the firm has won, often by tactics indistinguishable from extortion, $45 billion from corporations — more than $1 billion a year for plaintiffs claiming to have been cheated as investors. ... It has been indicted as a "racketeering enterprise" that obstructed justice and committed perjury, bribery and fraud while collecting about $250 million in fees from about 250 cases using paid plaintiffs, which is illegal. [emphasis added]

Readers should note that racketeering enterprise laws were developed to quash 'organized crime syndicates' that is, traditional organized crime. George Will's column is worth reading in full and it is great to have someone from mainstream journalism extol the danger of lawyers' infestation of our government: EARLY WARNING: Colonization of the Senate.

We must wait six years for every chance to vote for a non-lawyer senator. Should we not be more frightened that lawyers occupy 100% of the Judiciary, infest 53% of the Senate and often control the Whitehouse than we were when the Mafia controlled a few cities? According to George Will (in his same column):

Lerach was a Lincoln Bedroom guest in President Bill Clinton's White House. Shortly after Lerach attended a White House dinner, Clinton vetoed legislation that would have restricted class-action lawsuits. Lerach gave $100,000 to Clinton's presidential library. ... Until Lerach pleaded guilty, he was a fundraiser for Edwards, for whom he collected $64,000 from lawyers in the firm he founded after he had a falling-out with Weiss.

Time grows short, fellow citizens.