Where are the Lawyers of America? (what I was saying in 2000)

[donsu]

http://counterpunch.com/nader10062007.html


Who Will Confront the Unprecedented and Unconstitutional Concentration of Executive Power?


The rogue regime of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney-so widely condemned for its unconstitutional, criminal Iraq war, its spying on Americans illegally, its repeated illegal torture practices, its arrests and imprisonment of thousands in this country without charges and its pathological secrecy and corporate corruption-still has not felt the heat of the 800,000 practicing lawyers and their many bar organizations.

Lawyer jokes aside, the first defense outside of government against the rejection of due process, probable cause and habeas corpus should come from the officers of the courts-the attorneys of America. With few exceptions, they have flunked, asleep at the switch or loaded with excuses.

-snip-

With all this in mind, I have been asking lawyers why they do not become directly active in challenging what they themselves believe is a reckless above-the-law Presidency and its enormous concentration of unlawful power. Here are some examples of their replies.

--real estate attorney with a sterling civil liberties background says "I am just too busy."
--numerous retired lawyers of considerable accomplishment simply say they are retired.

--mid-career business attorneys say they have too many clients who might object (too much wheeling and dealing to uphold the rule of law in Washington, D.C.).

--public interest lawyers say it is not within their declared mission-eg. environmental, consumer, poverty or law reform work.

--"Too controversial," and "I'm not up to it," announced a prominent trial lawyer.

--"I wouldn't know where to start and I just need my leisure time," replied a highly specialized estate and trusts attorney.
-snip-
------------------------------


they are neo cons or cowards

in the beginning, 2000, I kept asking here at DU - where are the lawyers? I kept asking for a couple of yrs. and then gave up because american lawyers weren't coming, ever.

it's enough to make you cry

[Blackhatjack]

1. What an idiotic post..... give us some names and dates to match those quotes...

(Edit to fix typo)

First of all, it is the lawyers that doing exactly what you criticize them for not doing.

Second, very few lawyers who graduate from law school are engaged in the 'practice of law' five years later. Most are engaged in a wide range of careers choices that allow them to use their training in quasi-legal positions.

Third, you cannot paint 'all lawyers' with a broad brush. THis country has an adversary system of representation which means lawyers represent 'both sides' in issues for the court to decide. If you want to get a fair representation of the individuals allegedly making the statements you quoted, you have to know who they represent on a regular basis and their interests.

Fourth, lawyers are bound to keep client confidences under the attorny/client privilege, and they are prohibited from representing anyone who might create a conflict of interest with a former or present client.

Fifth, not all lawyers are capable of representing clients on all issues. The rise of specialization means that real estate, domestic, and immigration attorneys would not be good choices to pursue constitutional and criminal issues in court.

Sixth, the American Bar Association has consistently voted to uphold the very principles you are attacking all lawyers for not supporting.

You obviously know very little about lawyers, how they operate, and their contribution to preserving the rights you have today. If you are not going to take the time to educate yourself, you should take your own advice --go find a corner and cry.

[donsu]

3. get a grip. I didn't write the article

the writer can broad brush all he wants

and I'll second it.

[Blackhatjack]

4. People still have the right to open their mouthes and confirm they are idiots, That's true...

... or they can remain silent and people will only wonder if they are idiots.

IF you want to sign on to this obviously flawed understanding of the system and arguments made in this article, you will be subject to the same criticism.

[JDPriestly]

2. I am a lawyer. I am willing to volunteer (and have and do volunteer my work)

but I am unaware of any organization calling for lawyers to volunteer to save the Constitution. I have done lots of volunteer work as a lawyer, including work on election fraud issues in 2004 and am now volunteer work for the Edwards campaign. One lawyer can't do much. Is Nader organizing something? I checked his website and found this article, but no information about who to contact if you can volunteer.

[flashl]

5. Is this representative?

Eighty Percent of White Collar Criminal Defense Attorneys Would Preserve Corporate Criminal Liability

Eighty percent of white collar criminal defense attorneys favor preserving corporate criminal liability, according to a survey released today by Corporate Crime Reporter.

But a majority of those who would preserve it would strictly limit its application.

The survey question – Should corporate criminal liability be eliminated? – was e-mailed to partners at the nation’s top 100 law firms who practice in the field of white collar criminal defense.

Of the 157 attorneys who responded, 126 (80 percent) said no, corporate criminal liability should not be eliminated – while only 31 (20 percent) said yes, they would eliminate it totally.

But of those who answered “no, it should not be eliminated” – the vast majority said that corporate criminal liability should be restricted or narrowed.

[terisan]

6. Consider that it took a Journalism class to start getting prisoners freed using DNA evidence.

A lot of lawyers have stepped up since. It often takes people outside the system to buck challenge a system.

Bugliosi was one lawyer who started an impeachment attack on the Supreme Court re election 2000 but allowed himself to get de-railed by 9/11.

John Dean is a an attorney.

[Blackhatjack]

7. That journalism class has 3 filing cabinets full of case records TO BE REVIEWED for possible appeals

People have no idea what is involved in reviewing the records of a criminal trial and following up on issues. It is no exaggeration that some cases take over 100 hours of time to do an adequate job of identifying and understanding all the issues.

And there are hundreds of thousands of prisoners pleading for assistance who have no money to finance such a task.

And that addresses people already given a trial, and does not address the thousands of new cases generated every month which require extensive preparation for trial when the defendant refuses a plea offer and goes to trial 'because they insist they are innocent.'

It is a huge challenge --especially since the government does little to fund any more than the bare minimum of defense representation.

[flashl]

8. Hat's off to those who try. n/t

[terisan]

9. It does seem immense. nt