Speeches by Chesterfield - Vol. X, 152-161. 1976-1977

VOLUME X

SPEECH NUMBER TITLE OR GROUP ADDRESSED

#152 REMARKS BEFORE NATIONAL CONFERENCE
OF BAR PRESIDENTS PANEL ON
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW -
ABA MIDYEAR MEETING
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
February 13, 1976

#153 INTRODUCTION OF CHIEF JUSTICE
BEN F. OVERTON -
Bicentennial Town-Meeting -
Criminal Justice Luncheon -
Tampa Chamber of Commerce
Tampa, Florida
March 5, 1976

#154 MERIT RETENTION OF JUDGES:-
Orange .County Democratic.
Executive Committee -
Orlando, Florida
.March 25, 1976

#155 LAWYERS WHO TAKE MUST PUT --
AT-LEAST A BIT: THE PUBLIC
RESPONSIBILITIES OF.,LAWYERS -
Drake Uhiversity .L W School -
Des Moines, Iowa
March 27, 1976

#156 INSTITUTIONS IN CONFLICT:
LEGISLATIVE ,AND CORPORATE.
PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRESS -
Legis 50 The Center for
Legislative Improvement -
Corporate Seminar -
Williamsburg, Virginia
April 1, 1976

SPEECHES OF CHESTERFIELD SMITH

SPEECH NUMBER 152

VOLUME X

MR. CHESTERFIELD SMITH: My thesis today is that

the legal profession owes to society as a whole a greater

return for the grant of the personal service monopoly than

has been made heretofore. One of the more effective ways

in which the bar can easily repay part of its debt is by a

little tampering, a little ethical restructuring that rec-

ognizes its collective obligation to public interest law.

Admittedly, there are lawyers who disagree with

my thesis, who sincerely contend that the legal profession

now has little fault, and that changes are not needed. They

earnestly proclaim that lawyers who seek professional re-

structuring are agitators creating more problems than they

solve. Often, quite complacent in their own practice, they

sometimes assert that all who do not cherish the law as it

is should leave it. "Love it," they say, "or go." Bunk.

No lawyer should be required to accept the legal

profession as it is. Lawyers must aspire to the elimination

of imperfections in their chosen profession and in the law

itself. Those lawyers who cannot overlook the social ills

of the justice system, the legal profession's deficiencies,

its warts, its failures to make adequate legal services

available to all, its inability to render justice and fair-

ness alike to rich and'poor, seem to me to be the good guys --

the white hats.

It is those lawyers who placidly accept the inequities,

the perversions, the injustices, the corruptions, the ineffi-

ciencies and the unfairnesses in the law who do not honor and

cherish their chosen profession. They love only their status

and special privilege and security, not.the law itself. They

seem to me, frankly, to be the bad guys -- the black hats.

All of that is a prelude to proclaiming my belief,

a personal belief, that all American lawyers, whether they are

trial lawyers or not, have a very special interest, an over-

riding obligation, to see that our adversary system of trial

justice really works. Each of us owes to the public weal our

best efforts to insure continuous access of all segments of

the public to the justice system. Each of us must accept as

an unyielding fact the constitutional truism that those ad-

versaries contending before the courts for justice must be

represented by lawyers who are as nearly equal as possible in

skill, opportunity, and resources, or that the adversary system

won't work, justice will not be done.

The slight restructuring of the legal profession

which occurred when the so-called "public interest" law firms

first emerged has already begun to correct at least in part

this existing imbalance between those who from time to time

seek justice under the adversary system. In fact, at the

-2-

present time this type of device -- the public interest

law firm -- in my judgment offers the real and best

possibility of enhancing and increasing legal representation

for those who heretofore have been largely unrepresented or

underrepresented before our courts.

By definition "public interest" law is the name

lawyers have assigned to the extensive efforts now undertaken

by many legal practitioners in recognition that the ordinary

marketplace for legal services has failed to provide adequate

services to significant segments of the population, and to

significant interests in our society. Such groups include

the poor, environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic

minorities, mental patients, and many others similarly

situated. Public interest lawyers working either under

foundation subsidy or government support at reduced rates,

or for court awarded attorney fees, have with marked success

enlarged citizen access to the legal mechanisms by which

social decisions are made and resources allocated in this

country. It seems to me that such public interest law firms

now merit the full approval of both the organized bar and

lawyers individually.

I very earnestly suggest that all lawyers and the

organized bar itself support public interest law firms by now

acknowledging as a professional obligation that every lawyer

owes a substantial portion of his time, or at least the-

monetary equivalent of that time, to the perfection of our

adversary system by supporting public interest law, and that

our disciplinary standards should be reformulated to that end.

There is no magic in the term "public interest".

As lawyers when we rigorously and competently represent our

own private clients, we are serving the public interest in the

same sense that a lawyer with a so-called public interest law

firm serves it by rigorously and competently representing his

or her clients. In any adversary proceeding, the opposing

sides may each think that they are representing the public

interest; and realistically, they both may well be right.

The peculiar obligation we have as advocates is not

to any specific cause, but rather to the provision of repre-

sentation for that cause whatever it may be. The public's

true interest, from the lawyer's standpoint, is in an adver-

sary system whose decisions are based upon the full exposition

of all relevant positions. That, thus, is the true public

interest that we the lawyers who live and die by the law -

must promote.

Why should lawyers be among the members of society

singly called upon to render such a service free? Society

long ago made a determination that an independent, vigorous

-4-

and free legal profession is essential to our system of

government and to the individual rights of its citizens.

It placed lawyers in a free and independent position by

establishing a monopoly for those of us who practice law.

In granting to lawyers that privilege, the nurturing of

certain skills utilized extensively in the practice of

law, such as advocacy, negotiation, drafting and counseling,

were chilled and perhaps denied to non-lawyer members of

society. Monopolistic privilege granted by society to

render professional services creates an obligation to make

available to all segments of society those special skills

nurtured by the monopoly. If that obligation is not met,

the public as a whole inevitably will, in time, permit

encroachment by others.

The question, why lawyers, then can be.answered

simply by saying, self-interest, If a legal monopoly is a

viable social institution, lawyers in order to maintain that

monopoly must see that those essential needs which will not

otherwise be met unless lawyers meet them are filled, including

the rendering of those special legal services which the monopoly

itself makes lawyers peculiarly qualified to perform.

It seems to me that such ethical restructuring must

occur soon or the multiple ways in which lawyers presently

perform services for the public will be curtailed. Lawyers'

-5-

patrons, the populous as a whole, may already be near a

conclusion that their interests will be best served if other

professionals share in the work which traditionally has been

performed only by the lawyers. The adversary system itself

may be well at the brink of public disavowal.

What is important initially as I see it is a simple

recognition by the organized bar of the proposition that

every lawyer should contribute a substantial portion ...

perhaps a minimum of one-tenth ... of professional time to

the betterment of society in general and to the adversary

system in particular. Of course, that obligation cannot

be in lieu of the individual obligation of lawyers to serve

clients effectively or to discharge professional assignments

with fidelity, nor should it diminish our ever increasing

efforts in those areas; it is, and should be recognized as,

an equally important part of lawyering. That unmet obliga-

tion is a recognition by the rest of us of the special interests

which public interest law firms now serve and which without

them would not be served.

In summary, it is in my personal judgment very impor-

tant that the public know that each and every lawyer at this time

is interested in more than making money, in more than personal

aggrandizement, in more than.achieving public recognition.

-6-

They should know that the least of lawyers is interested in

serving well the public good, in filling now the partial void

in special skills created in society when the lawyer was

given the monopoly for legal services by society. They should

know that the organized bar as a quasi-public institution is

willing to eliminate from its ranks those lawyers who only

take and do not put. They should know that we want a strong

public interest law system to make our adversarysystem work

better, even if its cost to some of those in the present system

is dear. In my opinion, timely action by the organized bar

recognizing that each and every lawyer must now help public

interest law firms is essential if substantial self-regulation

by lawyers is to continue.

SPEECHES OF CHESTERFIELD SMITH

SPEECH NUMBER 153

VOLUME X

INTRODUCTION OF CHIEF JUSTICE BEN F, OVERTON

BICENTENNIAL TOWN MEETING -

CRIMINAL JUSTICE LUNCHEON

TAMPA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

HOLIDAY INN CENTRAL

TAMPA, FLORIDA

FRIDAY NOON, MARCH 5, 1976

THIS TOWN MEETING TODAY IS IN THE BEST TRADITION

OF OUR AMERICAN HERITAGE,

JEFFERSON WE MEET AS:

IN THE WORDS OF MR. TOM

"ACTING MEMBERS OF THE COMMON

GOVERNMENT DEBATING THE COURSE OF PUBLIC POLICY,"

TO SOME WHAT WILL BE DISCUSSED HERE MAY SEEM

FAR REMOVED FROM SUCH LOFTY INTENTIONS.

THEY MAY SAY THAT

WE HAVE MET SIMPLY TO SEE WHAT KIND OF A MAN IS THIS NEW

CHIEF JUSTICE OF FLORIDA.

THE FACT IS THOUGH THAT WE COME HERE FOR MORE,

WE COME TO SPEAK OF THE QUALITY OF JUSTICE.

WE COME TO

SPEAK OF CRIME AND OF THE RESPONSE THAT THE LAW CAN -

WE SPEAK OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE

AND MUST MAKE TO IT,

SYSTEM AN INSTITUTION WHICH TOUCHES OUR PEOPLE ONLY AT

IMPORTANT TIMES OF CRISIS THROUGHOUT THEIR LIVES.

AND WE

SPEAK TOO OF SOMETHING DIFFICULT TO DEFINE YET SOMETHING

VITAL TO A VIABLE SOCIETY:

A SENSE OF TRUST IN THE WAY THAT

OUR GOVERNMENT ENFORCES THE RULES OF SOCIETAL CONDUCT AND

WITH CONFIDENCE THAT SUCH ENFORCEMENT WILL BE FAIR.

LET ME ASK YOU WHICH OF US DOES NOT WANT TO SEE

CRIMINALS BROUGHT TO SWIFT JUSTICE AND INNOCENT PEOPLE

PROMPTLY AND COMPLETELY EXONERATED,

WHICH OF US DOES NOT

WANT OUR DISPUTES WITH GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS

DETERMINED BY THE MOST COMPETENT AND IMPARTIAL OF OUR

CITIZENRY.

NO CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM HOWEVER WELL

-2-

CONCEIVED IS SELF EXECUTING,

WISDOM AND CONSUMMATE SKILL TO MAKE THE SYSTEM PROPERLY

FUNCTION.

FOR EVEN IN A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS PEOPLE

MAKE THE DECISIONS.

AND THOSE PEOPLE WHO LITERALLY

OFTEN MAY DETERMINE WHETHER WE LIVE OR DIE WHETHER WE ARE

FREE OR CAGED THOSE MEN AND WOMEN ARE THE PERSONS WHOM WE

CHOOSE TO PUT ON THE BENCH.

FLORIDA IN YEARS PAST HAS HAD MANY FINE JUDGES -

ALONG WITH SOME MEDIOCRITIES AND AN OCCASIONAL CORRUPT JUDGE,

BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE HERE OF NECESSITY HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL

INTEREST IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WE EACH ARE AWARE

OF THE CANCERS AND FESTERING SORES SURROUNDING THE FLORIDA

-3-

IT REQUIRES PEOPLE OF

SUPREME COURT WHICH RECENTLY HAVE BURST INTO THE OPEN.

IN MY OPINION THAT IS NOW ALL BEHIND US.

COLLECTIVELY -

THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT ON THIS DAY IS COMPRISED OF ABLE -

HONEST DEDICATED REFLECTIVE JUDGES WORTHY OF OUR STATE AND

THE NOBLE INSTITUTION WHICH THEY SERVE.

BUT ABOVE ALL -

THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA CRIMINAL JUSTICE

SYSTEM YEA EVEN FLORIDA JUSTICE ITSELF HAS A NEW AND

REMARKABLY EXPERIENCED LEADER WHO WILL HENCEFORTH SET THE

TONE AND TENOR OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN FLORIDA.

ON MONDAY OF THIS WEEK MARCH 1, 1976 BEN

OVERTON BECAME FLORIDA'S CHIEF JUSTICE.

IT WAS A SIGNAL

EVENT BECAUSE IN THE EYES OF MANY LAWYERS AND NON-LAWYERS

-4-

THROUGHOUT THIS STURDY STATE OUR NEW CHIEF JUSTICE SEEMS

DESTINED IN A UNIQUE WAY FOR GREATNESS,

THE CHALLENGE

HE FACES AS A JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR IS UNPARALLELED YET

HE IS SINGULARLY WELL PREPARED FOR THE MASSIVE UNDERTAKING

UPON WHICH HE SO RECENTLY EMBARKED.

IT HAS BEEN SAID "A GOOD MAN IS HARD TO FIND."

FOR MY PURPOSES I WOULD RESTATE THAT MAXIM TO SAY THAT -

"A GOOD CHIEF JUSTICE IS HARD TO FIND AND IN FLORIDA

EVEN HARDER TO KEEP."

CHIEF JUSTICE BEN OVERTON WAS THE

FIRST SUPREME COURT JUSTICE TO BE SELECTED UNDER THE NEW

MERIT SELECTION PROCESS DESIGNED TO REMOVE FLORIDA'S JUDICIAL

SYSTEM FROM POLITICS,

FROM A LIST OF THREE FROM THROUGHOUT

-5-

FLORIDA WHOSE NAMES WERE FINALLY SUBMITTED AS BEING MOST

QUALIFIED GOVERNOR ASKEW PICKED HIM AS THE BEST OF THE

LITTER AND HE ON MARCH 27, 1974 WAS THEREAFTER APPOINTED

AND THEN ELECTED TO A FULL SIX-YEAR TERM.

BEFORE HIS SELECTION AS A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

BEN OVERTON SERVED WITH ADMIRABLE VERVE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF

TAMPA BAY IN ST. PETERSBURG FOR NEARLY TEN YEARS AS A CIRCUIT

JUDGE DURING WHICH TIME HE WAS CHIEF JUDGE FOR THREE AND

ONE-HALF YEARS.

CHIEF JUSTICE OVERTON WAS BORN IN GREEN BAY,

WISCONSIN FORTY-NINE YEARS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA.

HE GRADUATED FROM THE

HE WAS ADMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW

-6-

IN 1952 AND HIS LEGAL CAREER BEGAN AS SPECIAL ASSISTANT

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA.

FOLLOWING THAT SERVICE -

HE ENTERED THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW IN ST. PETERSBURG.

HE AND HIS WIFE MARILYN WERE MARRIED IN 1951 AND

THEY HAVE THREE CHILDREN CATHY, ROBERT AND WILLIAM.

JUSTICE OVERTON HAS ALWAYS BEEN A STRONG BELIEVER

IN EDUCATION TO IMPROVE THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.

FOR MANY

YEARS HE WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FLORIDA BAR CONTINUING

LEGAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE.

FOR AN EVEN LONGER PERIOD HE

SERVED WITH MATCHLESS DISTINCTION ON THE FACULTY OF THE NATIONAL

COLLEGE OF THE STATE JUDICIARY IN RENO, NEVADA TEACHING

COURSES ON JUDICIAL DISCRETION NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CRIMINAL

-7-

LAW AND INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT,

NEW CHIEF JUSTICE HAS WRITTEN SO MANY ARTICLES FOR BOTH LEGAL

AND JUDICIAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND HAS LECTURED AT SO MANY

JUDICIAL SEMINARS THROUGHOUT THE NATION THAT UNQUESTIONABLY

HE HAS ESTABLISHED AN OVERWHELMING NATIONAL REPUTATION AS

FLORIDA'S MOST EMINENT JURIST.

FLORIDA IS BLESSED TO HAVE BEN OVERTON AS ITS

DISTINGUISHED NEW CHIEF JUST

HAVE HIM AS OUR SPEAKER,

WE ARE BLESSED TODAY TO

WITH UNBLEMISHED PRIDE AND

UNTRAMMELED DELIGHT I PRESENT TO YOU THE HONORABLE BEN F.

OVERTON CHIEF JUSTICE OF FLORIDA,

-8-

IN FACT OUR

SPEECHES OF CHESTERFIELD SMITH

SPEECH NUMBER 154

VOLUME X

-t/- /-47'

EXCERPT FROM THE.
REMARKS OF:

ON:

BEFORE:

DATE AND PLACE
OF DELIVERY:

CHESTERFIELD SMITH
LAWYER
LAKELAND, FLORIDA

"MERIT RETENTION OF JUDGES"

ORANGE COUNTY DEMOCRATIC
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1976
8:00 P.M.
FIRST FEDERAL BUILDING
ORLANDO, FLORIDA

NO SINGLE ELEMENT IS OF MORE VITAL IMPORTANCE

TO THE EFFECTIVE AND EVEN-HANDED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

THAN THE MAINTENANCE OF A HIGH QUALITY JUDICIARY. IT

HAS BEEN APTLY SAID THAT THE QUALITY OF OUR JUDGES DETERMINES

THE QUALITY OF OUR JUSTICE,

OBVIOUSLY THAT IS SO -

BECAUSE IT IS THE JUDGES WHO MAKE OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM WORK

FOR GOOD OR ILL. NO JUSTICE SYSTEM EVEN IN A GOVERNMENT

OF LAWS IS SELF-EXECUTING, IT IS INDISPUTABLY TRUE

THAT POOR JUDGES CAN MAKE A SHAMBLES OF EVEN THE MOST FINELY*

CONTRIVED JUSTICE SYSTEM WHILE CONVERSELY GOOD JUDGES

CAN MAKE EVEN A POOR SYSTEM FUNCTION AT LEAST ADEQUATELY,

JUDGES THEN ARE THE HEART OF OUR JUSTICE-SYSTEM AND

THEIR QUALITY OR LACK OF QUALITY DETERMINES IN LARGE MEASURE

HOW JUSTICE IS DISPENSED TO OUR CITIZENS.

IF YOU ACCEPT THAT PREMISE YOU WILL AGREE THAT

WE MUST THUS OPT ONLY FOR UNIFORM EXCELLENCE ON THE BENCH.

FROM MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE I KNOW THAT THE TASK WILL

NOT BE EASY BUT IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE DEMANDS ON OUR

JUDICIARY ARE GREATER TODAY THAN AT ANY OTHER PERIOD IN OUR

HISTORY.

THOSE DEMANDS REQUIRE THAT WE HAVE NOTHING

LESS THAN OUR BEST LAWYERS AS OUT SITTING JUDGES AND TO

DO SO WE MUST CHANGE THE SYSTEM SO THAT WE CAN INDUCE

THOSE SUPERIOR LAWYERS THROUGH JOB CONSIDERATIONS TO ACCEPT

JUDICIAL POSITIONS,

WHILE WE HAVE MANY FINE JUDGES IN

-2-

FLORIDA AND EVEN A FEW SUPERIOR ONES IT CERTAINLY IS

CLEAR TO ME THAT WE CAN DO MUCH BETTER IF WE WILL SO MODIFY

THE SYSTEM THAT THE PREVAILING REASONS WHY GOOD LAWYERS

OFTEN ESCHEW JUDICIAL POSITIONS EVEN WHEN THEY WOULD LIKE

IN MANY PROFESSIONAL WAYS TO BE A JUDGE ARE ELIMINATED

OR AT LEAST CURTAILED,

MANY FACTORS HAVE ATTRIBUTED TO OUR NOT ATTRACTING

OUR BEST LAWYERS TO POSITIONS ON THE BENCH.

THE PRESENT

INADEQUATE COMPENSATION OF MOST JUDGES AT LEAST AS COMPARED

TO THE INCOME OF PRIVATE PRACTITIONERS POOR WORKING CONDI-

TIONS AND AN ABSENCE OF JOB SECURITY AND A LACK OF

RETIREMENT BENEFITS CONTINUE TO MAKE JUDICIAL POSITIONS LESS

-3-

ENTICING THAN THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW,

THOSE GRAVE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN ALLEVIATED AT LEAST IN PART -

IN FLORIDA BY RECENT LEGISLATIVE AND GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS

AND APPROPRIATIONS,

EQUALLY AS DETRIMENTAL HOWEVER TO THE WHOLE

SITUATION HAS BEEN THE PROCEDURES EMPLOYED IN FLORIDA INITIALLY

TO SELECT AND RETAIN JUDGES.

.BEFORE GETTING IN DEEP -

LET ME HASTEN TO ADMIT THAT THERE IS OF COURSE NO SINGLE

METHOD FOR SCREENING CANDIDATES FOR THE JUDICIARY WHICH WILL

INSURE THAT THE BEST LAWYERS ARE ALWAYS SELECTED AS JUDGES.

EVEN SO IT IS MY PERSONAL BELIEF THAT THE SYSTEM

CURRENTLY USED IN FLORIDA THE CONTESTED POLITICAL RACE -

ADMITTEDLY -

IS THE WORST THE SORRIEST POSSIBLE WAY TO SELECT JUDGES,

THAT IS SO WHETHER THE JUDICIAL ELECTION CONTEST INVOLVES AN

INCUMBENT OR NOT.

THE CASES BEFORE JUDGES ARE RARELY

FLAMBOYANT AND THE QUALITIES OF SCHOLARSHIP RESTRAINT -

AND REFLECTION SO VITAL TO A GOOD JUDICIAL OFFICER ARE NOT

ALWAYS COUPLED WITH THE SKILLS OF A POLISHED CAMPAIGNER -

AND ARE OFTEN EVEN DETRIMENTAL TO POLITICAL SUCCESS,

I AM NOT SAYING THAT MEN ESPECIALLY ADAPTED TO

THE POLITICAL PROCESS MAY NOT ALSO MAKE FINE JUDGES,

CERTAINLY EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN OTHERWISE.

OVERALL -

HOWEVER IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS OFTEN MORE AN ACCIDENTAL

RESULT RATHER THAN A LEGITIMATE BY-PRODUCT OF THE

-5-

CONTESTED ELECTIVE PROCESS.

LAWYERS WHO WOULD MAKE EXCELLENT JUDGES WOULD NOT FOR

VARIOUS REASONS ENTER INTO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS WHICH I

BELIEVE EMPHASIZE QUALITIES AND ABILITIES IRRELEVANT AND

UNDESIRABLE TO JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE,

THE CAMPAIGN OF AN HONORABLE JUDGE IS A RATHER

LACKLUSTER AFFAIR,

COMPARED TO THE ISSUES AVAILABLE TO

THOSE WHO RUN FOR OTHER PUBLIC OFFICES HE MAY WITH HONOR

SAY NO MORE THAN THAT HE WILL CONTINUE TO METE OUT JUSTICE

EQUALLY TO ALL THAT APPEAR BEFORE HIM AND WITH ALL THE

IMPARTIALITY THAT IS AT HIS COMMAND,

RESTRAINED STATEMENTS

OF THIS NATURE ARE NOT DESIGNED TO CAPTURE THE. PUBLIC

-6-

CERTAINLY MANY OF OUR FINE

AN OPPONENT OF AN INCUMBENT JUDGE IS

CONSTANTLY FACED WITH THE NECESSITY TO APPEAR MORE WORTHY

THAN THE OFFICEHOLDER,

FURTHER WHILE IT MAY BE TRUE

THAT A GOOD CAMPAIGNER CAN MAKE A GOOD JUDGE IT IS ALSO

IRREFUTABLE THAT A JUDGE CANNOT RENDER EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL

SERVICE AT THE SAME TIME HE IS RUNNING A TIME-CONSUMING -

FAR-FLUNG CAMPAIGN FOR RE-ELECTION.

AN INDICATION OF THE FAILURE OF THE CONTESTED

POLITICAL PROCESS IS MIRRORED IN THE PUBLIC REACTION TO

JUDICIAL RACES.

CLOSE ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT VOTERS DISPLAY

REMARKABLE DISINTEREST IN RACES FOR THE JUDICIARY.

VOTERS

IN MOST INSTANCES MERELY VOTE FOR THE FIRST NAME ON THE BALLOT -

-7-

IMAGINATION,

OR FOR A PARTY LABEL,

I BELIEVE THIS SEEMING DISINTEREST ON THE PART

OF THE PUBLIC CAN BE READILY UNDERSTOOD.

IF CANDIDATES

ADHERE CLOSELY TO THE VARIOUS CANONS AND CODES OF JUDICIAL

ETHICS MANY OF THE TRADITIONAL METHODS FOUND IN MOST

OTHER POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS FOR EXCITING THE PUBLIC SUCH

AS PERSONAL ATTACKS ON OPPONENTS LARGE-SCALE PROMISES TO

SELF-INTEREST GROUPS AND COMMITMENTS FOR PATRONAGE ARE

NECESSARILY MISSING.

JUDICIAL RACES ARE RARELY EXCITING

AND INVOLVE FEW IF ANY CATCHY ISSUES.

THEY MOST

OFTEN TAKE BACK SEATS TO GUBERNATORIAL LEGISLATIVE AND

OTHER RACES,

-8-

WE HAVE HAD MANY INSTANCES IN FLORIDA IN THE PAST

OF "GIMMICK" CAMPAIGNS FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE.

FOR EXAMPLE -

I REMEMBER A CANDIDATE WHO PLEDGED TO SO ABLY REPRESENT BOTH

SIDES.THAT EACH WOULD BE SPARED THE COST OF -A LAWYER.

ANOTHER CANDIDATE PROMISED TO DEVOTE ONE DAY A WEEK TO THE

DISPENSING OF FREE LEGAL ADVICE TO THOSE WITHIN HIS JURIS-

DICTION,

A CAMPAIGN FOR A JUDGESHIP ON THE WEST COAST OF

FLORIDA SEVERAL YEARS AGO DEGENERATED INTO AN UNDIGNIFIED

NAME-CALLING CONTEST IN WHICH BOTH THE INCUMBENT AND THE

CANDIDATE VIED WITH EACH OTHER TO COUPLE THE NAME OF HIS

OPPONENT WITH THE CRIMINAL ELEMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY. THE

VOTER.HAD ONLY TO DECIDE WHICH OF THE TWO WAS LESS INFLUENCED

-9-

BY THE "MAFIA."

CONTESTED ELECTIONS ALSO REQUIRE CANDIDATES TO SEEK

CONTRIBUTIONS TO FINANCE EXPENSIVE CAMPAIGNS.

THIS

RAISES SERIOUS ETHICAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE INDEPENDENCE

OF THE JUDICIARY,

THE SPECTRE OF POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF

INTEREST AND FAVORITISM INEVITABLY JEOPARDIZES THE REPUTATION

OF A JUDGE,

CANDIDATES IN A CONTESTED ELECTION FOR A

JUDGESHIP ARE IN A POOR POSITION TO ACCEPT POLITICAL CONTRI-

BUTIONS USUALLY FROM THE LAWYERS WHO WILL APPEAR BEFORE

THEM IF THEY ARE ELECTED.

THE JUDGE.MAY SUBCONSCIOUSLY

BE PREDISPOSED TOWARD A MAN WHO HAS DEDICATED TIME AND EFFORT -

OR MONEY TO HIS ELECTION.

PERHAPS A MORE FREQUENT PROBLEM

-10-

IS THAT OF THE JUDGE WHO LEANS OVER SO FAR TO COMPENSATE FOR

ANY POSSIBLE FAVORITISM TO A BENEFACTOR THAT HE OR SHE IN

FACT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST A FORMER SUPPORTER,

IF NEITHER

OCCURS ALMOST AS MUCH HARM IS DONE TO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

BY THE WIDESPREAD BELIEF BY LITIGANTS THAT SUCH ATTITUDES

MAY HAVE AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF THEIR OWN CASE,

EVEN WITHOUT SUCH DIRECT INTERFERENCE THE

SPECTRE OF POSSIBLE CONFLICT INEVITABLY JEOPARDIZES THE

REPUTATION OF A JUDGE.

IF A REAL ESTATE INVESTOR HAPPENS

TO BE A FRIEND OF THE POLITICAL LEADER WHO SUPPORTED A JUDGE -

HOW CONFIDENT CAN A LITIGANT BE OF JUSTICE IF HE OR SHE IS

INVOLVED IN A SUIT WITH THAT INVESTOR IN THE JUDGE'S COURT?

-11-

HOW SECURE WOULD ANY OF US FEEL WITH THAT KIND OF INFLUENCE -

EVEN IF IT IN FACT DID NOT BECOME A REALITY?

IN ADDITION THE ATTENDANT JOB INSECURITY ALSO

MAKES.JUDICIAL OFFICES LESS ATTRACTIVE TO LAWYERS SINCE

THEY MAY SUMMARILY BE THROWN OUT OF A JOB AFTER HAVING GIVEN

UP ALL OF THEIR CLIENTS THE PRACTICE WHICH IT TOOK A LIFE-

TIME TO BUILD TO BECOME A JUDGE SOMETIMES FOR A SHORT

PERIOD.

IF THE JUDGE IS TURNED OUT OF OFFICE THE CLIENTS

DO NOT COME BACK,

THEY WILL HAVE FOUND A NEW HOME AND

THERE THEY WILL STAY,

IN DISCUSSING THOSE FLORIDA EXPERIENCES IN ELECTING

JUDGES I MEAN NO DISRESPECT TO THE ABLE AND DEDICATED

-12-

JUDGES NOW SERVING ON THE FLORIDA COURTS,

WITH MOST OF THEM AND IN THE MAIN THEY WOULD DO CREDIT TO

ANY COURT SYSTEM.

THE ISSUE HOWEVER IS NOT WHETHER

GOOD MEN HAVE BEEN CHOSEN IN THE PAST;

IT IS WHETHER THE

SYSTEM PROVIDES THE MOST RELIABLE METHOD OF GETTING GOOD

JUDGES,

I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THE ELECTION OF SOME

EXCELLENT JUDGES DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE BEST -.OR EVEN THAT

A GOOD METHOD OF SELECTING THEM IS NOW IN OPERATION IN

FLORIDA,

I FURTHER SUGGEST TO YOU THAT CONTRARY TO PLEASANT

MYTH THE ELECTION SYSTEM IS NOT DEMOCRATIC IN ANY REAL

SENSE. THE TRUTH IS THAT FEW VOTERS KNOW WHO OR WHAT THEY

-13-

I AM ACQUAINTED

ARE VOTING FOR WHEN THEY VOTE FOR A JUDGE,

POLLS TAKEN IN DIFFERING CONSTITUENCIES IN FLORIDA AFTER A

RECENT JUDICIAL ELECTION IT WAS FOUND THAT ONE DAY AFTER

ELECTION LESS THAN ONE PER CENT OF A SAMPLED GROUP REMEMBERED

THE NAME OF THE MAN WHO HAD JUST BEEN ELECTED TO THE HIGHEST

JUDICIAL POSITION IN THE STATE;

AND -WHEN ASKED ABOUT OTHER

JUDGES MOST RESPONSES INDICATED THAT THEY COULD NOT REMEMBER

THE NAME OF ANY JUDICIAL CANDIDATE.

MORE THAN APATHY;

SUCH RESPONSES SUGGEST

THEY SUGGEST IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE

JUDICIAL ELECTION PROCESS SIMPLY DOES NOT GENERATE THE

CONCERNS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE IN ELEVATING MEN TO THE BENCH.

IN ESSENCE THE CONTESTED POLITICAL PROCESS IS

-14-

IN UNOFFICIAL

VERY VERY BAD FOR JUSTICE,

SIDERATIONS I HAVE MENTIONED THE OVERWHELMING INDICTMENT

OF THE POPULAR ELECTION SYSTEM IS THAT IT SIMPLY RUNS TOO

HIGH A RISK OF PRODUCING JUDGES WHO ARE LESS THAN THE BEST.

IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT A GOOD MAN IS HARD TO FIND, I

SUBMIT THAT A GOOD JUDGE IS HARD TO FIND AND EVEN HARDER

TO KEEP ESPECIALLY THROUGH THE CONTESTED ELECTIVE PROCESS.

THE FLORIDA BAR HAS LONG ADVOCATED THAT THE GOVERNOR

BE DIRECTED THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE ALL INITIAL

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS FROM A LIST OF LAWYERS SELECTED BY A

NONPARTISAN JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION COMPOSED OF

OUTSTANDING LEGAL EXPERTS AND LAY CITIZENS.

THIS SYSTEM

-15-

EVEN BEYOND ALL OF THE CON-

IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE MERIT SELECTION SYSTEM AND

INSOFAR AS THE FILLING OF A JUDICIAL VACANCY FOR AN UNEXPIRED

TERM IS CONCERNED MERIT SELECTION HAS BEEN CONSTITUTIONALLY

UTILIZED IN FLORIDA SINCE 1972,

IT HOWEVER IS RESTRICTED

TO FILLING VACANCIES FOR AN UNEXPIRED TERM IT DOES NOT

APPLY TO A FULL TERM WHERE THE JUDICIAL OFFICER IS ELECTED

FROM ALL QUALIFIED CANDIDATES IN A FREE-FOR-ALL CONTESTED

NONPARTISAN ELECTION,

AS A LAWYER WHO HAS LONG SUPPORTED MERIT SELECTION

AND MERIT RETENTION I AM GLAD THAT NATIONWIDE EFFORTS

AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES TO ESTABLISH FULL MERIT SELECTION

AND RETENTION HAVE BEEN RECEIVING EVER-INCREASING SUPPORT.

-16-

TODAY THERE ARE TWENTY-SEVEN STATES THAT HAVE ESTABLISHED

SOME SORT OF MERIT SELECTION AND RETENTION SYSTEMS. IT

IS SIGNIFICANT I BELIEVE THAT NO STATE NOT ONE SINGLE

STATE.- THAT HAS ADOPTED THE PLAN HAS EVER RESCINDED IT.

JUDICIAL SELECTION TO FILL VACANCIES FROM'LISTS

SUPPLIED TO THE GOVERNOR OR EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY BY CONSTITU-

TIONALLY ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSIONS INSURES -

I BELIEVE THAT POLITICS WILL BE KEPT OUT OF THE INITIAL

JUDICIAL SELECTION.

I AM GLAD THAT WE HAVE IT AT LEAST

PARTIALLY IN FLORIDA AS WE USE IT IN THE FILLING OF JUDICIAL

VACANCIES,

WE HAVE FOUND IN FLORIDA IN OUR SHORT EXPERIENCE

THAT THE JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION SEEKS ONLY TO CHOOSE

-17-

FOR THE PANEL FROM WHICH THE GOVERNOR SELECTS THE JUDGE

THOSE PERSONS WHO CAN MOST EFFECTIVELY RENDER EXCELLENT

JUDICIAL SERVICE,

BUT THAT WHICH IS GOOD SHOULD NOT BE

RESTRICTED TO THE FILLING OF JUDICIAL VACANCIES. WE

HAVE AT BEST GONE ONLY HALF WAY WE HAVE NOT DONE ENOUGH.

THE TRUE MERIT SYSTEM MUST ALSO ENCOMPASS A METHOD FOR

RETAINING OUTSTANDING JUDGES ON THE BENCH IN FLORIDA -

WE MUST NOW ELIMINATE CONTESTED JUDICIAL ELECTIONS.

BUT

JUST AS IMPORTANT OR PERHAPS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THE

OPTION OF REMOVING UNDESIRABLE JUDGES WHETHER THEY GOT ON

THE BENCH BY ELECTION OR MERIT APPOINTMENT SHOULD AND

MUST BE RETAINED BY THE CITIZENS OF FLORIDA.

AS AN

-18-

ASIDE I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT LIFETIME APPOINTMENT OF A JUDGE

SUCH AS IS UTILIZED IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM REMOVES TOO COMPLETELY

THE ELEMENT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY,

WHILE STABILITY OF

JUDICIAL TENURE IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF A SUPERIOR JUDICIARY -

THE PUBLIC SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET RID OF AN UNWORTHY

OR UNACCEPTABLE JUDGE,

WE IN FLORIDA SHOULD COUPLE THAT.

RIGHT WITH MERIT SELECTION.

I SUGGEST THAT THIS CAN BEST BE ACCOMPLISHED

THROUGH NON-CONTESTED VOTES OF THE ELECTORATE IN WHICH THE

PEOPLE DECIDE WHETHER THE JUDGE WILL REMAIN IN OFFICE.

FIRST THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH

A JUDICIAL RECORD AND THEN THE ELECTORATE SHOULD HAVE AN

-19-

OPPORTUNITY TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF THAT RECORD. IF

THE PEOPLE APPROVE THE JUDGE SHOULD SERVE A FULL TERM AND

THEN AGAIN SUBMIT.HIS RECORD TO THE PEOPLE.

IF THE

PEOPLE AT ANY SUBSEQUENT ELECTION DISAPPROVE OF THE JUDICIAL

RECORD OF THE JUDGE HE SHOULD GO OUT OF OFFICE AND THE

VACANCY THUS CREATED SHOULD AGAIN BE FILLED THROUGH THE

MERIT SELECTION PROCESS.

IN THAT WAY AND PERHAPS ONLY

THAT WAY CAN WE UTILIZE MERIT SELECTION AND CITIZEN

ELECTION AND STILL SECURE THE BEST POSSIBLE JUDGES FOR OUR

STATE,

I REITERATE MY BELIEF THAT UNDER ANY SYSTEM THE

CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE THE PERIODIC RIGHT TO VOTE FOR EITHER

-20-

RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF ALL JUDGES.

NOT WANT A JUDGE THEY SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION OF

REMOVING HIM,

I AM CONVINCED THAT THIS SYSTEM WOULD

ATTRACT OUR BEST LAWYERS TO THE BENCH AND MORE FULLY INSURE

THAT OUTSTANDING MEN AND WOMEN ARE SELECTED AS JUDGES.

(END)

-21-

IF THE CITIZENRY DOES

EXCERPT FROM THE
REMARKS OF:

ON:

CHESTERFIELD SMITH
LAWYER
LAKELAND, FLORIDA

"MERIT RETENTION OF JUDGES"

ORANGE COUNTY DEMOCRATIC
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

BEFORE:

DATE AND PLACE
OF DELIVERY:

THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1976
8:00 PM.
FIRST FEDERAL BUILDING
ORLANDO, FLORIDA

"u

NO SINGLE ELEMENT IS OF MORE VITAL IMPORTANCE

TO THE EFFECTIVE AND EVEN-HANDED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

THAN THE MAINTENANCE OF A HIGH QUALITY JUDICIARY, IT

HAS BEEN APTLY SAID THAT THE QUALITY OF OUR JUDGES DETERMINES

THE QUALITY OF OUR JUSTICE,

OBVIOUSLY THAT IS SO -

BECAUSE IT IS THE JUDGES WHO MAKE OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM WORK

FOR GOOD OR ILL. NO JUSTICE SYSTEM EVEN IN A GOVERNMENT

OF LAWS IS SELF-EXECUTING. IT IS INDISPUTABLY TRUE

THAT POOR JUDGES CAN MAKE A SHAMBLES OF EVEN THE MOST FINELY

CONTRIVED JUSTICE SYSTEM WHILE CONVERSELY GOOD JUDGES

CAN MAKE EVEN A POOR SYSTEM FUNCTION AT LEAST ADEQUATELY,

JUDGES THEN ARE THE HEART OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM AND

THEIR QUALITY OR LACK OF QUALITY DETERMINES IN LARGE MEASURE

HOW JUSTICE IS DISPENSED TO OUR CITIZENS.

IF YOU ACCEPT THAT PREMISE YOU WILL AGREE THAT

WE MUST THUS OPT ONLY FOR UNIFORM EXCELLENCE ON THE BENCH,

FROM MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE I KNOW THAT THE TASK WILL

NOT BE EASY BUT IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE DEMANDS ON OUR

JUDICIARY ARE GREATER TODAY THAN AT ANY OTHER PERIOD IN OUR

HISTORY,

THOSE DEMANDS REQUIRE THAT WE HAVE NOTHING

LESS THAN OUR BEST LAWYERS AS OUT SITTING JUDGES AND TO

DO SO WE MUST CHANGE THE SYSTEM SO THAT WE CAN INDUCE

THOSE SUPERIOR LAWYERS THROUGH JOB CONSIDERATIONS TO ACCEPT

JUDICIAL POSITIONS,

WHILE WE HAVE MANY FINE JUDGES IN

-2-

FLORIDA AND EVEN A FEW SUPERIOR ONES IT CERTAINLY IS

CLEAR TO ME THAT WE CAN DO MUCH BETTER IF WE WILL SO MODIFY

THE SYSTEM THAT THE PREVAILING REASONS WHY GOOD LAWYERS

OFTEN ESCHEW JUDICIAL POSITIONS EVEN WHEN THEY WOULD LIKE

IN MANY PROFESSIONAL WAYS TO BE A JUDGE ARE ELIMINATED

OR AT LEAST CURTAILED,

MANY FACTORS HAVE ATTRIBUTED TO OUR NOT ATTRACTING

OUR BEST LAWYERS TO POSITIONS ON THE BENCH,

THE PRESENT

INADEQUATE COMPENSATION OF MOST JUDGES AT LEAST AS COMPARED

TO THE INCOME OF PRIVATE PRACTITIONERS POOR WORKING CONDI-

TIONS AND AN ABSENCE OF JOB SECURITY AND A LACK OF

RETIREMENT BENEFITS CONTINUE TO MAKE JUDICIAL POSITIONS LESS

-3-

ENTICING THAN THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW.

THOSE GRAVE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN ALLEVIATED AT LEAST IN PART -

IN FLORIDA BY RECENT LEGISLATIVE AND GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS

AND APPROPRIATIONS,

EQUALLY AS DETRIMENTAL HOWEVER TO THE WHOLE

SITUATION HAS BEEN THE PROCEDURES EMPLOYED IN FLORIDA INITIALLY

TO SELECT AND RETAIN JUDGES,

BEFORE GETTING IN DEEP -

LET ME HASTEN TO ADMIT THAT THERE IS OF COURSE NO SINGLE

METHOD FOR SCREENING CANDIDATES FOR THE JUDICIARY WHICH WILL

INSURE THAT THE BEST LAWYERS ARE ALWAYS SELECTED AS JUDGES,

EVEN SO IT IS MY PERSONAL BELIEF THAT THE SYSTEM

CURRENTLY USED IN FLORIDA THE CONTESTED POLITICAL RACE -

-4-

ADMITTEDLY -

IS THE WORST THE SORRIEST POSSIBLE WAY TO SELECT JUDGES.

THAT IS SO WHETHER THE JUDICIAL ELECTION CONTEST INVOLVES AN

INCUMBENT OR NOT.

THE CASES BEFORE JUDGES ARE RARELY

FLAMBOYANT AND THE QUALITIES OF SCHOLARSHIP RESTRAINT -

AND REFLECTION SO VITAL TO A GOOD JUDICIAL OFFICER ARE NOT

ALWAYS COUPLED WITH THE SKILLS OF A POLISHED CAMPAIGNER -

AND ARE OFTEN EVEN DETRIMENTAL TO POLITICAL SUCCESS.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT MEN ESPECIALLY ADAPTED TO

THE POLITICAL PROCESS MAY NOT ALSO MAKE FINE JUDGES,

CERTAINLY EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN OTHERWISE.

OVERALL -

HOWEVER IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS OFTEN MORE AN ACCIDENTAL

RESULT RATHER THAN A LEGITIMATE BY-PRODUCT OF THE

-5-

CONTESTED ELECTIVE PROCESS,

LAWYERS WHO WOULD MAKE EXCELLENT JUDGES WOULD NOT FOR

VARIOUS REASONS ENTER INTO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS WHICH I

BELIEVE EMPHASIZE QUALITIES AND ABILITIES IRRELEVANT AND

UNDESIRABLE TO JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE.

THE CAMPAIGN OF AN HONORABLE JUDGE IS A RATHER

LACKLUSTER AFFAIR,

COMPARED TO THE ISSUES AVAILABLE TO

THOSE WHO RUN FOR OTHER PUBLIC OFFICES HE MAY WITH HONOR

SAY NO MORE THAN THAT HE WILL CONTINUE TO METE OUT JUSTICE

EQUALLY TO ALL THAT APPEAR BEFORE HIM AND WITH ALL THE

IMPARTIALITY THAT IS AT HIS COMMAND.

RESTRAINED STATEMENTS

OF THIS NATURE ARE NOT DESIGNED TO CAPTURE THE PUBLIC

-6-

CERTAINLY MANY OF OUR FINE

AN OPPONENT OF AN INCUMBENT JUDGE IS

CONSTANTLY FACED WITH THE NECESSITY TO APPEAR MORE WORTHY

THAN THE OFFICEHOLDER,

FURTHER WHILE IT MAY BE TRUE

THAT A GOOD CAMPAIGNER CAN MAKE A GOOD JUDGE IT IS ALSO

IRREFUTABLE THAT A JUDGE CANNOT RENDER EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL

SERVICE AT THE SAME TIME HE IS RUNNING A TIME-CONSUMING -

FAR-FLUNG CAMPAIGN FOR RE-ELECTION.

AN INDICATION OF THE FAILURE OF THE CONTESTED

POLITICAL PROCESS IS MIRRORED IN THE PUBLIC REACTION TO

JUDICIAL RACES,

CLOSE ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT VOTERS DISPLAY

REMARKABLE DISINTEREST IN RACES FOR THE JUDICIARY,

VOTERS

IN MOST INSTANCES MERELY VOTE FOR THE FIRST NAME ON THE BALLOT -

-7-

IMAGINATION.

OR FOR A PARTY LABEL.

I BELIEVE THIS SEEMING DISINTEREST ON THE PART

OF THE PUBLIC CAN BE READILY UNDERSTOOD.

IF CANDIDATES

ADHERE CLOSELY TO THE VARIOUS CANONS AND CODES OF JUDICIAL

ETHICS MANY OF THE TRADITIONAL METHODS FOUND IN MOST

OTHER POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS FOR EXCITING THE PUBLIC SUCH

AS PERSONAL ATTACKS ON OPPONENTS LARGE-SCALE PROMISES TO

SELF-INTEREST GROUPS AND COMMITMENTS FOR PATRONAGE ARE

NECESSARILY MISSING.

JUDICIAL RACES ARE RARELY EXCITING

AND INVOLVE FEW IF ANY CATCHY ISSUES,

THEY MOST

OFTEN TAKE BACK SEATS TO GUBERNATORIAL LEGISLATIVE AND

OTHER RACES,

-8-

WE HAVE HAD MANY INSTANCES IN FLORIDA IN THE PAST

OF "GIMMICK" CAMPAIGNS FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE.

FOR EXAMPLE -

I REMEMBER A CANDIDATE WHO PLEDGED TO SO ABLY REPRESENT BOTH

SIDES THAT EACH WOULD BE SPARED THE COST OF A LAWYER.

ANOTHER CANDIDATE PROMISED TO DEVOTE ONE DAY A WEEK TO THE

DISPENSING OF FREE LEGAL ADVICE TO THOSE WITHIN HIS JURIS-

DICTION.

A CAMPAIGN FOR A JUDGESHIP ON THE WEST COAST OF

FLORIDA SEVERAL YEARS AGO DEGENERATED INTO AN UNDIGNIFIED

NAME-CALLING CONTEST IN WHICH BOTH THE INCUMBENT AND THE

CANDIDATE VIED WITH EACH OTHER TO COUPLE THE NAME OF HIS

OPPONENT WITH THE CRIMINAL ELEMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY. THE

VOTER HAD ONLY TO DECIDE WHICH OF THE TWO WAS LESS INFLUENCED

-9-

BY THE "MAFIA."

CONTESTED ELECTIONS ALSO REQUIRE CANDIDATES TO SEEK

CONTRIBUTIONS TO FINANCE EXPENSIVE CAMPAIGNS.

THIS

RAISES SERIOUS ETHICAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE INDEPENDENCE

OF THE JUDICIARY.

THE SPECTRE OF POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF

INTEREST AND FAVORITISM INEVITABLY JEOPARDIZES THE REPUTATION

OF A JUDGE,

CANDIDATES IN A CONTESTED ELECTION FOR A

JUDGESHIP ARE IN A POOR POSITION TO ACCEPT POLITICAL CONTRI-

BUTIONS USUALLY FROM THE LAWYERS WHO WILL APPEAR BEFORE

THEM IF THEY ARE ELECTED.

THE JUDGE MAY SUBCONSCIOUSLY

BE PREDISPOSED TOWARD A MAN WHO HAS DEDICATED TIME AND EFFORT -

PERHAPS A MORE FREQUENT PROBLEM

OR MONEY TO HIS ELECTION,

-10-

IS THAT OF THE JUDGE WHO LEANS OVER SO FAR TO COMPENSATE FOR

ANY POSSIBLE FAVORITISM TO A BENEFACTOR THAT HE OR SHE IN

FACT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST A FORMER SUPPORTER,

IF NEITHER

OCCURS ALMOST AS MUCH HARM IS DONE TO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

BY THE WIDESPREAD BELIEF BY LITIGANTS THAT SUCH ATTITUDES

MAY HAVE AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF THEIR OWN CASE.

EVEN WITHOUT SUCH DIRECT INTERFERENCE THE

SPECTRE OF POSSIBLE CONFLICT INEVITABLY JEOPARDIZES THE

REPUTATION OF A JUDGE,

IF A REAL ESTATE INVESTOR HAPPENS

TO BE A FRIEND OF THE POLITICAL LEADER WHO SUPPORTED A JUDGE -

HOW CONFIDENT CAN A LITIGANT BE OF JUSTICE IF HE OR SHE IS

INVOLVED IN A SUIT WITH THAT INVESTOR IN THE JUDGE'S COURT?

-11-

HOW SECURE WOULD ANY OF US FEEL WITH THAT KIND OF INFLUENCE -

EVEN IF IT IN FACT DID NOT BECOME A REALITY?

IN ADDITION THE ATTENDANT JOB INSECURITY ALSO

MAKES JUDICIAL OFFICES LESS ATTRACTIVE TO LAWYERS SINCE

THEY MAY SUMMARILY BE THROWN OUT OF A JOB AFTER HAVING GIVEN

UP ALL OF THEIR CLIENTS THE PRACTICE WHICH IT TOOK A LIFE-

TIME TO BUILD TO BECOME A JUDGE SOMETIMES FOR A SHORT

PERIOD,

IF THE JUDGE IS TURNED OUT OF OFFICE THE CLIENTS

DO NOT COME BACK.

THEY WILL HAVE FOUND A NEW HOME AND

THERE THEY WILL STAY,

IN DISCUSSING THOSE FLORIDA EXPERIENCES IN ELECTING

JUDGES I MEAN NO DISRESPECT TO THE ABLE AND DEDICATED

-12-

JUDGES NOW SERVING ON THE FLORIDA COURTS,

WITH MOST OF THEM AND IN THE MAIN THEY WOULD DO CREDIT TO

ANY COURT SYSTEM,

THE ISSUE HOWEVER IS NOT WHETHER

GOOD MEN HAVE BEEN CHOSEN IN THE PAST;

IT IS WHETHER THE

SYSTEM PROVIDES THE MOST RELIABLE METHOD OF GETTING GOOD

JUDGES,

I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THE ELECTION OF SOME

EXCELLENT JUDGES DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE BEST OR EVEN THAT

A GOOD METHOD OF SELECTING THEM IS NOW IN OPERATION IN

FLORIDA,

I FURTHER SUGGEST TO YOU THAT CONTRARY TO PLEASANT

MYTH THE ELECTION SYSTEM IS NOT DEMOCRATIC IN ANY REAL

SENSE.

THE TRUTH IS THAT FEW VOTERS KNOW WHO OR WHAT THEY

-13-

I AM ACQUAINTED

ARE VOTING FOR WHEN THEY VOTE FOR A JUDGE,

POLLS TAKEN IN DIFFERING CONSTITUENCIES IN FLORIDA AFTER A

RECENT JUDICIAL ELECTION IT WAS FOUND THAT ONE DAY AFTER

ELECTION LESS THAN ONE PER CENT OF A SAMPLED GROUP REMEMBERED

THE NAME OF THE MAN WHO HAD JUST BEEN ELECTED TO THE HIGHEST

JUDICIAL POSITION IN THE STATE;

AND WHEN ASKED ABOUT OTHER

JUDGES MOST RESPONSES INDICATED THAT THEY COULD NOT REMEMBER

THE NAME OF ANY JUDICIAL CANDIDATE,

MORE THAN APATHY;

SUCH RESPONSES SUGGEST

THEY SUGGEST IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE

JUDICIAL ELECTION PROCESS SIMPLY DOES NOT GENERATE THE

CONCERNS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE IN ELEVATING MEN TO THE BENCH.

IN ESSENCE THE CONTESTED POLITICAL PROCESS IS

-14-

IN UNOFFICIAL

VERY VERY BAD FOR JUSTICE,

SIDERATIONS I HAVE MENTIONED THE OVERWHELMING INDICTMENT

OF THE POPULAR ELECTION SYSTEM IS THAT IT SIMPLY RUNS TOO

HIGH A RISK OF PRODUCING JUDGES WHO ARE LESS THAN THE BEST.

IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT A GOOD MAN IS HARD TO FIND. I

SUBMIT THAT A GOOD JUDGE IS HARD TO FIND AND EVEN HARDER

TO KEEP ESPECIALLY THROUGH THE CONTESTED ELECTIVE PROCESS.

THE FLORIDA BAR HAS LONG ADVOCATED THAT THE GOVERNOR

BE DIRECTED THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE ALL INITIAL

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS FROM A LIST OF LAWYERS SELECTED BY A

NONPARTISAN JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION COMPOSED OF

OUTSTANDING LEGAL EXPERTS AND LAY CITIZENS,

THIS SYSTEM

-15-

EVEN BEYOND ALL OF THE CON-

IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE MERIT SELECTION SYSTEM AND

INSOFAR AS THE FILLING OF A JUDICIAL VACANCY FOR AN UNEXPIRED

TERM IS CONCERNED MERIT SELECTION HAS BEEN CONSTITUTIONALLY

UTILIZED IN FLORIDA SINCE 1972.

IT HOWEVER IS RESTRICTED

TO FILLING VACANCIES FOR AN UNEXPIRED TERM IT DOES NOT

APPLY TO A FULL TERM WHERE THE JUDICIAL OFFICER IS ELECTED

FROM ALL QUALIFIED CANDIDATES IN A FREE-FOR-ALL CONTESTED

NONPARTISAN ELECTION,

AS A LAWYER WHO HAS LONG SUPPORTED MERIT SELECTION

AND MERIT RETENTION I AM GLAD THAT NATIONWIDE EFFORTS

AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES TO ESTABLISH FULL MERIT SELECTION

AND RETENTION HAVE BEEN RECEIVING EVER-INCREASING SUPPORT.

-16-

TODAY THERE ARE TWENTY-SEVEN STATES THAT HAVE ESTABLISHED

SOME SORT OF MERIT SELECTION AND RETENTION SYSTEMS. IT

IS SIGNIFICANT I BELIEVE THAT NO STATE NOT ONE SINGLE

STATE THAT HAS ADOPTED THE PLAN HAS EVER RESCINDED IT.

JUDICIAL SELECTION TO FILL VACANCIES FROM'LISTS

SUPPLIED TO THE GOVERNOR OR EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY BY CONSTITU-

TIONALLY ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSIONS INSURES -

I BELIEVE THAT POLITICS WILL BE KEPT OUT OF THE INITIAL

JUDICIAL SELECTION,

I AM GLAD THAT WE HAVE IT AT LEAST

PARTIALLY IN FLORIDA AS WE USE IT IN THE FILLING OF JUDICIAL

VACANCIES.

WE HAVE FOUND IN FLORIDA IN OUR SHORT EXPERIENCE

THAT THE JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION SEEKS ONLY TO CHOOSE

-17-

FOR THE PANEL FROM WHICH THE GOVERNOR SELECTS THE JUDGE

THOSE PERSONS WHO CAN MOST EFFECTIVELY RENDER EXCELLENT

JUDICIAL SERVICE.

BUT THAT WHICH IS GOOD SHOULD NOT BE

RESTRICTED TO THE FILLING OF JUDICIAL VACANCIES. WE

HAVE AT BEST GONE ONLY HALF WAY WE HAVE NOT DONE ENOUGH,

THE TRUE MERIT SYSTEM MUST ALSO ENCOMPASS A METHOD FOR

RETAINING OUTSTANDING JUDGES ON THE BENCH IN FLORIDA -

WE MUST NOW ELIMINATE CONTESTED JUDICIAL ELECTIONS.

BUT

JUST AS IMPORTANT OR PERHAPS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THE

OPTION OF REMOVING UNDESIRABLE JUDGES WHETHER THEY GOT ON

THE BENCH BY ELECTION OR MERIT APPOINTMENT SHOULD AND

MUST BE RETAINED BY THE CITIZENS OF FLORIDA,

AS AN

-18-

ASIDE I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT LIFETIME APPOINTMENT OF A JUDGE

SUCH AS IS UTILIZED IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM REMOVES TOO COMPLETELY

THE ELEMENT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY,

WHILE STABILITY OF

JUDICIAL.TENURE IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF A SUPERIOR JUDICIARY -

THE PUBLIC SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET RID OF AN UNWORTHY

OR UNACCEPTABLE JUDGE,

WE IN FLORIDA SHOULD COUPLE THAT

RIGHT WITH MERIT SELECTION.

I SUGGEST THAT THIS CAN BEST BE ACCOMPLISHED

THROUGH NON-CONTESTED VOTES OF THE ELECTORATE IN WHICH THE

PEOPLE DECIDE WHETHER THE JUDGE WILL REMAIN IN OFFICE.

FIRST THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH

A JUDICIAL RECORD AND THEN THE ELECTORATE SHOULD HAVE AN

-19-

OPPORTUNITY TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF THAT RECORD. IF

THE PEOPLE APPROVE THE JUDGE SHOULD SERVE A FULL TERM AND

THEN AGAIN SUBMIT HIS RECORD TO THE PEOPLE.

IF THE

PEOPLE AT ANY SUBSEQUENT ELECTION DISAPPROVE OF THE JUDICIAL

RECORD OF THE JUDGE HE SHOULD GO OUT OF OFFICE AND THE

VACANCY THUS CREATED SHOULD AGAIN BE FILLED THROUGH THE

MERIT SELECTION PROCESS.

IN THAT WAY AND PERHAPS ONLY

THAT WAY CAN WE UTILIZE MERIT SELECTION AND CITIZEN

ELECTION AND STILL SECURE THE BEST POSSIBLE JUDGES FOR OUR

STATE.

I REITERATE MY BELIEF THAT UNDER ANY SYSTEM THE

CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE THE PERIODIC RIGHT TO VOTE FOR EITHER

-20-

RETENTION OR REMOVAL OF ALL JUDGES,

NOT WANT A JUDGE THEY SHOULD'ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION OF

REMOVING HIM.

I AM CONVINCED THAT THIS SYSTEM WOULD

ATTRACT OUR BEST LAWYERS TO THE BENCH AND MORE FULLY INSURE

THAT OUTSTANDING MEN AND WOMEN ARE SELECTED AS JUDGES,

(END)

-21-

IF THE CITIZENRY DOES

SPEECHES OF CHESTERFIELD SMITH

SPEECH NUMBER 155

VOLUME X

ADDRESS OF:

BEFORE:

PLACE:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

TIME:

CHESTERFIELD SMITH
LAWYER
LAKELAND, FLORIDA

DRAKE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
SUPREME COURT DAY

HOTEL FORT DES MOINES
DES MOINES, IOWA

SATURDAY, MARCH 27, 1976
7:00 P.M.

LAWYERS WHO TAKE
AT LEAST A BIT:
RESPONSIBILITIES

THIRTY MINUTES

MUST PUT --
THE PUBLIC
OF LAWYERS

AS I SEE IT THE OCCUPATION OF LAWYER GENERALLY

ENCOMPASSES AT LEAST FOUR FUNDAMENTAL AND BASIC CONCEPTS:

MAKING A LIVING;

MAINTAINING SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE;

WORKING WITH OTHER LAWYERS COLLECTIVELY;

SOCIETY THROUGH PUBLIC SERVICE. OBVI

AND GIVING TO

OUSLY THE FIRST

OF THESE CONCEPTS IS A PRAGMATIC NECESSITY WHICH COUNTERACTS

THE LAST.

IT IS HARD TO MAKE A LIVING BY WORKING FREE -

EVEN IF SUCH WORK IS LABELED "PUBLIC SERVICE,"

THAT

UNDERSTANDABLY IS THE REASON THAT THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC SERVICE

BY LAWYERS IS OFTEN SIDESTEPPED WITH RHETORIC RATHER THAN

BY DIRECT ACTION.

BECAUSE AMERICA AND THE WORLD IS

PASSING THROUGH AN EPOCH OF EXTRAORDINARILY RAPID CHANGE

IN ALMOST EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE PERHAPS THE QUESTION SHOULD

BE ASKED OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION WHETHER THAT CIRCUMSTANCE

PLACES UPON LAWYERS ENLARGED PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITIES, I

BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS YES.

INDEED I SUBMIT THAT THE

TIME HAS NOW COME FOR A RECOGNITION BY THE ORGANIZED BAR

THAT EVERY LAWYER HAS AN OBLIGATION FOR PUBLIC SERVICE WHICH

IF UNREASONABLY IGNORED WARRANTS PROFESSIONAL SANCTIONS,

SUCH ETHICAL PROGRESSION BY THE ORGANIZED BAR IS

IN MY OWN TIME I HAVE SEEN DISCIPLINARY

MEASURES FOR PARTICULAR ETHICAL VIOLATIONS EVOLVE FROM

CLUCKING DISAPPROVAL TO DISBARMENT,

INITIALLY IN MY

EXPERIENCES AS A BAR OFFICIAL I JOINED WITH OTHERS IN

-2-

OBTAINABLE.

REFUSING TO DISCIPLINE LAWYERS FOR NEGLIGENCE.

PROFESSIONAL INCOMPETENCE OF A MEMBER OF THE BAR WAS NOT

EVEN DISCUSSED THEN AS GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS.

INDEED IT WAS RATIONALIZED THAT TO DO SO WOULD BE CONTRARY

TO THE SUPREME COURT ORDER CERTIFYING THAT LAWYER AS ONE

COMPETENT TO SELL LEGAL SERVICES TO THE CONSUMING PUBLIC,

ALL OF THAT HAS CHANGED FOR ME AND FOR THE ORGANIZED BAR -

OR AT LEAST IT IS RAPIDLY CHANGING.

THE ETHICAL CODES OF LAWYERS BEING ASPIRATIONAL

STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE AT THE TOP AND BEING

DISCIPLINARY RULES GOVERNING LAWYER CONDUCT AT THE BOTTOM -

HAVE OF COURSE DEVELOPED TRADITIONALLY TO REQUIRE EVER MORE

-3-

THE

OF THOSE PERSONS WHO WEAR THE LEGAL MANTLE.

JURISDICTIONS REPEATED OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE BY A LAWYER

NOW WARRANTS THE SEVEREST CENSURE.

NO LONGER DO WE AS

A COLLECTIVE PROFESSION ALLOW MARGINAL LAWYERS REPEATEDLY

TO ACCEPT LEGAL MATTERS WHICH THEY CANNOT COMPETENTLY AND

PROFICIENTLY HANDLE,

IT IS CLEAR THAT MOST LAWYERS ACKNOWLEDGE SOME

RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUBLIC SERVICE BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND

COLLECTIVELY BUT THE TYPE OR EXTENT OF ACTIVITIES THAT

WILL DISCHARGE THAT OBLIGATION HAVE YET TO BE DEMARCATED

BY THE ORGANIZED BAR.

PERHAPS THAT LACK OF AFFIRMATIVE

GUIDANCE IS ONE REASON MANY OF OUR MORE ECONOMICALLY SUCCESSFUL

-4-

IN MOST

AND PUBLICLY HONORED LAWYERS HAVE DONE LITTLE OR NO PUBLIC

SERVICE.

CONCEIVABLY UP TO NOW IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTABLE

TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION AS A WHOLE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL LAWYER

TO RESTRICT HIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ONLY TO PAYING CLIENTS,

BUT THE SUBSTANTIAL RECOGNITION WHICH HAS BEEN AFFORDED IN

YEARS PAST TO THOSE LAWYERS WHO HAVE GROUND AWAY AT THEIR

CLIENTS' DEMANDS DAY AFTER DAY AND YEAR AFTER YEAR TENDING

TO THE STORE NEVER LEAVING THE OFFICE MINDING WHAT HAS

BEEN TRADITIONALLY STYLED AS "THEIR OWN BUSINESS" IS

UNDERGOING SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.

NO LONGER CAN THE LEGAL

PROFESSION COLLECTIVELY MERIT PUBLIC APPROBATION UNDER SUCH

A RANDOM AND HAPHAZARD STANDARD,

-5-

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF LAWYERS

MUST BE AND I SUGGEST EASILY CAN BE TRANSLATED IN A

DEFINED PROFESSIONAL DUTY THAT EACH LAWYER TITHE HIS SHARE

OF PUBLIC SERVICE.

IF THAT ETHICAL GOAL IS ENUNCIATED -

THE DECISIONAL PROCESS NOW UNIVERSALLY UTILIZED BY THE

ORGANIZED BAR IN ESTABLISHING ETHICAL BOUNDARIES WILL IN TIME

EVOLVE DEFINITIVE GUIDELINES FOR ITS APPLICATION,

THROUGH

TRIAL AND ERROR THROUGH EXPERIMENTATION LAWYERS ULTIMATELY

CAN INCORPORATE INTO DECISIONS INTERPRETING THE CODE OF

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY THE WHO HOW WHAT AND WHEN

OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE THAT SOCIETY SHOULD RECEIVE IN EXCHANGE

FOR THE GRANT OF THE EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW.

-6-

CERTAINLY LAWYERS HAVE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS

AND PRACTICE DEMANDS WHICH WILL PREVENT THEM FROM BEING

"EQUAL" IN ALL PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS,

LAWYERS OF

NECESSITY MUST BE JUDGED ON THEIR SUBSCRIPTIONS TO PUBLIC

SERVICE WITH A FULL RECOGNITION OF DIFFERING CIRCUMSTANCES

UNDER GENERAL ASPIRATIONAL GOALS OUTLINED BY THE ORGANIZED

BAR,

IN SOME CASES PUBLIC SERVICE ACTIVITIES MAY

EMBRACE EXTENSIVE WORK WITHIN THE ORGANIZED BAR SUCH AS

BAR LEADERSHIP DISCIPLINARY ACTIVITIES BAR PUBLIC

RELATIONS OR LAW REFORM,

IN OTHERS IT MAY MEAN

WORKING WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM RENDERING LEGAL

SERVICES TO THE POOR OR REPRESENTING CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS.

-7-

TO SOME LAWYERS PERHAPS MANDATORY PUBLIC SERVICE WILL ONLY

MEAN THAT ALL LAWYERS WILL HAVE TO DO WHAT SO MANY LAWYERS

HAVE DONE SO LUSTROUSLY IN THE PAST PARTICIPATE IN THE

PUBLIC DISCOURSE AS CITIZENS WITH THE UNIQUE SKILLS THEY

HAVE DEVELOPED IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY.

TO OTHERS -

IT MIGHT WELL INVOLVE MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING THE LEGAL

COMPETENCE OF OTHER LAWYERS WORKING TO IMPROVE THE AVAILA-

BILITY AND DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES HELPING WITH CIVIL

RIGHTS LAW OR POVERTY LAW WORKING AS A DEFENDER OF THOSE

CHARGED WITH CRIME WHO ARE UNABLE TO SECURE COMPETENT COUNSEL -

OR REPRESENTING DIFFUSED INTERESTS IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS

INVOLVING THE PUBLIC AT LARGE,

ALMOST CERTAINLY ETHICAL

RECOGNITION OF PUBLIC SERVICE WILL ENCOMPASS AT LEAST A

MODICUM OF ACTIVITY DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL

OR STATUTORY REVISION THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AS A UNIT.

SINCE

MANY INTERESTS IN FIELDS SUCH AS THE ENVIRONMENT CONSUMER

PROTECTION CIVIL LIBERTIES PRIVACY AND THE POOR CONTINUE

TO BE EITHER NOT REPRESENTED OR UNDER-REPRESENTED BEFORE

LEGISLATURES EXECUTIVE AGENCIES AND COURTS THE ISSUE

OF MAKING QUALITY LEGAL SERVICES WIDELY AVAILABLE WILL BE OF

INCREASING IMPORTANCE OVER THE NEXT QUARTER CENTURY.

LAWYERS WHO WORK TO ELIMINATE THOSE DEFICIENCIES UNDOUBTEDLY

ARE RENDERING VALUABLE PUBLIC SERVICE,

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF SUCH PUBLIC SERVICE ACTIVITY

-9-

SHOULD NEVER BE EXCLUSIONARY.

BROAD AND FLEXIBLE AS THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO WILL DISCHARGE

THAT RESPONSIBILITY.

A LAW PROFESSOR A HOUSE COUNSEL -

A BAR EXECUTIVE A PRIVATE PRACTITIONER A GOVERNMENT

LAWYER AND A JUDGE OBVIOUSLY MUST EACH PERFORM THEIR

RESPECTIVE PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS TO THE PUBLIC IN VARYING

AND WIDELY DIFFERING WAYS,

INDEED A LAWYER'S CONTRI-

BUTION TO THE PUBLIC WEAL MUST NEVER BE JUDGED BY WHAT WAS

ACHIEVED OR BY THE MONETARY VALUE OF THE SERVICE CONTRIBUTED

OR OBLIGATED TO BE CONTRIBUTED,

IN ALL EVENTS THAT

PRICELESS AND UNIQUE MEASURE OF PROFESSIONAL DEVOTION -

CONTRIBUTED TIME MUST BE THE ONLY CURRENCY FULLY ACCEPTABLE

-10-

THE PERIMETERS MUST BE AS

IN DISCHARGE OF A LAWYER'S OBLIGATIONS FOR PUBLIC SERVICE,

THE BEST WAY FOR THE ORGANIZED BAR TO MEASURE

THE INDIVIDUAL SERVICE REQUIRED OF A LAWYER WILL VARY FROM

AREA TO AREA AND PERHAPS FROM BRANCH OF THE LAW TO BRANCH OF

THE LAW.

ADDITIONALLY THERE WILL BE MULTIPLE AREAS OF

PUBLIC SERVICE OTHER THAN THOSE FEW THAT I HAVE SUGGESTED -

WHICH AS ALTERNATIVES OR SUPPLEMENTS ARE BETTER SUITED TO

BOTH SOCIETY AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION,

ONLY A LAWYER'S

PEER GROUP SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER VARIOUS ACTIVITIES

PERFORMED ON A RECURRING AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS ARE AMONG THOSE

THINGS WHICH A PARTICULAR LAWYER FREELY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO

SOCIETY,

IN ALL SUCH DETERMINATIONS DIVERSITY AND

-11-

EXPERIMENTATION MUST BE FOSTERED AND SUPPORTED.

NO SINGLE APPROACH.

RATHER THROUGH VARIETY THROUGH

EXPERIMENTATION THROUGH EVOLUTION THE ORGANIZED BAR

BEST CAN GAIN A PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAYS IN WHICH

INDIVIDUAL LAWYERS MOST MEANINGFULLY MAY RENDER PUBLIC SERVICE.

THERE ARE OF COURSE INHERENT DIFFICULTIES IN AN

ADJUDICATION OF PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE INVOLVING SUCH

SUBJECTIVE CONSIDERATIONS AS WORK HABITS ORGANIZATION AND

SELF-DISCIPLINE INTELLIGENCE INTEGRITY PERSONAL CHARACTER -

AND PROFESSIONAL KNOW-HOW.

HOWEVER PERPLEXITY IN

ENFORCEMENT HAS NEVER PREVENTED THE ORGANIZED BAR FROM

ADOPTING EVER STRICTER STANDARDS NOR SHOULD IT.

THE PUBLIC

-12-

THERE IS

TRADITIONALLY DEMANDS HIGHER AND HIGHER STANDARDS FROM ALL

PROFESSIONALS INCLUDING LAWYERS AND THE ORGANIZED BAR

HAS GENERALLY RESPONDED.

YET ENOUGH HAS NOT BEEN DONE.

IMAGINATIVE LAWYERS CAN AND INDEED MUST WITHOUT DELAY

DESIGN BAR STRUCTURES TO ENFORCE AND MAINTAIN EVEN MORE

DEMANDING LEVELS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT,

THE LEGAL PROFESSION OWES TO SOCIETY AS A WHOLE A

GREATER RETURN FOR THE GRANT OF A PERSONAL SERVICE MONOPOLY

THAN HAS BEEN MADE HERETOFORE,

ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE

LAWYERS WHO DISAGREE WHO SINCERELY CONTEND THAT THE LEGAL

PROFESSION HAS LITTLE FAULT AND THAT CHANGES ARE NOT

NEEDED.

THEY EARNESTLY PROCLAIM THAT LAWYERS WHO SEEK

-13-

PROFESSIONAL RESTRUCTURING ARE AGITATORS CREATING MORE

PROBLEMS THAN THEY SOLVE.

QUITE OFTEN COMPLACENT IN

THEIR OWN PRACTICE THEY SOMETIMES ASSERT THAT ALL WHO DO

NOT CHERISH THE LAW AS IT IS SHOULD LEAVE.

THEY SAY OR GO.

HOGWASH'

PROFESSION AS IT IS.

LOVE IT -

NO LAWYER SHOULD ACCEPT THE LEGAL

LAWYERS MUST ASPIRE FOR THE ELIMI-

NATION OF IMPERFECTIONS IN THEIR CHOSEN PROFESSION AND IN THE

LAW ITSELF.

THOSE LAWYERS WHO CANNOT OVERLOOK THE SOCIAL

ILLS OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM THE LEGAL PROFESSION'S WARTS -

ITS FAILURE TO MAKE ADEQUATE LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE TO

ALL ITS INABILITY TO RENDER JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS ALIKE TO

-14-

RICH AND POOR SEEM TO ME TO BE THE GOOD GUYS THE WHITE

HATS.

IT IS THOSE LAWYERS WHO PLACIDLY ACCEPT THE

INEQUITIES THE PERVERSIONS THE INJUSTICES THE CORRUPTIONS -

THE INEFFICIENCIES AND THE UNFAIRNESSES IN THE LAW WHO DO

NOT HONOR AND CHERISH THEIR CHOSEN CALLING,

THEY LOVE

ONLY THEIR STATUS AND SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AND SECURITY NOT

THE LAW ITSELF.

THEY SEEM TO ME TO BE THE BAD GUYS THE

BLACK HATS,

MY THESIS THUS IS A SIMPLE ONE:

THE PUBLIC WHO

GRANTS A SMALL SEGMENT OF THE POPULACE THE EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE

OF MAKING A LIVING PRACTICING LAW HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND

THAT THOSE SO FAVORED ACCEPT PUBLIC SERVICE AS ONE OF THEIR

-15-

IF THE LEGITIMATE ASPIRATIONS OF

SOCIETY IN CREATING THE PROFESSION OF LAWYER ARE TO BE

REALIZED THE TITLE "LAWYER" MUST DENOTE TO ALL PEOPLE

INTEGRITY UNITY COURAGE SPECIALIZED COMPETENCE AND

UNSELFISH INVOLVEMENT IN PUBLIC SERVICE,

IT DOES NOT NOW,

WHY SHOULD LAWYERS BE AMONG THE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY

CALLED UPON TO RENDER PUBLIC SERVICE WITHOUT COMPENSATION?

SOCIETY LONG AGO MADE A DETERMINATION THAT AN INDEPENDENT

AND FREE LEGAL PROFESSION IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR SYSTEM OF

GOVERNMENT AND TO THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF ITS CITIZENS,

IT PLACED LAWYERS IN A POSTURE TO BE BOTH FREE AND INDEPENDENT

BY ESTABLISHING A MONOPOLY FOR THOSE WHO PRACTICE LAW. IN

-16-

PRIME RESPONSIBILITIES.

GRANTING TO LAWYERS THAT PRIVILEGE THE NURTURING OF CERTAIN

SKILLS UTILIZED EXTENSIVELY IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW SUCH AS

ADVOCACY COUNSELING NEGOTIATING AND DRAFTING WERE

CHILLED AND PERHAPS DENIED TO NON-LAWYER MEMBERS OF SOCIETY.

MONOPOLISTIC PRIVILEGES GRANTED BY SOCIETY TO RENDER SERVICES

CREATE AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO SOCIETY THOSE

SPECIAL SKILLS NUTURED BY THE MONOPOLY.

IF THAT OBLIGATION

IS NOT MET THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE INEVITABLY WILL PERMIT

ENCROACHMENT BY OTHERS.

THE LAW IS ONE OF THE GREAT NORMATIVE FORCES OF

SOCIETY AND ONLY THE LAWYER IS FULLY EQUIPPED BY EDUCATION -

TRAINING APTITUDE AND EXPERIENCE TO OPERATE THE LEVERS

-17-

ONE OF THE LAWYER'S ROLES IS AND SHOULD

BE TO SERVE AS A FOCAL POINT OF CHANGE TO EASE THE NEW FROM

THE OLD AND TO BRING FORTHTHAT ESSENTIAL AND DESIRABLE

CHANGE WITHOUT VIOLENCE AND WITHOUT AN AVULSIVE RUPTURE FROM

THE PAST,

PERHAPS ONLY AN INVENTIVE LAWYER DEDICATED TO

PUBLIC SERVICE CAN FORMULATE THAT CHANGE IS SUCH A MANNER

THAT IT WILL PROCEED EASILY FROM THE OLD TO THE NEW,

WHETHER

THE LINE OF GROWTH IS IN CIVIL RIGHTS OR IN THE CARE OF THE

ENVIRONMENT OR IN THE PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS THE LAWYER

UNIQUELY OR SO IT SEEMS TO ME IS BEST EQUIPPED OF ALL OF

THOSE IN OUR SOCIETY TO CHART ITS PROGRESS,

INDEED TO SOCIETY IN GENERAL THE LAWYER IS

-18-

OF THAT FORCE,

UNDER THE HEAVIEST BURDEN OF OBLIGATION.

LAWYER DERIVES HIS OR HER UNIQUE INTERCESSORY ROLE.

THE LAW-

YER'S TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE MAKE HIM OR HER ESPECIALLY SENSITIVE

TO THE ROLE OF THE LAW IN A FREE SOCIETY.

THE LAWYER SHOULD

BE AMONG THE FIRST TO SOUND THE ALARM WHEN THE LAW IS SUBVERTED -

WHEN THE CONSTITUTION IS DEFIED WHEN THE LIBERTIES OF THE

CITIZENS ARE THREATENED AND PROUDLY WE FIND THAT IS QUITE OFTEN

THE CASE,

CERTAINLY THAT ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SUSTENANCE WILL BE

REDUCED TO MEAGER PORTIONS IF LAWYERS AS A PROFESSIONAL GROUP FAIL

TO PARTICIPATE IN MEANINGFUL WAYS IN PUBLIC SERVICE,

THE QUESTION "WHY LAWYERS" THEN CAN BE ANSWERED

SIMPLY BY SAYING SELF INTEREST.

IF A LEGAL MONOPOLY IS

-19-

FROM SOCIETY THE

A VIABLE SOCIETAL INSTITUTION LAWYERS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN

THAT MONOPOLY MUST FILL THOSE ESSENTIAL NEEDS WHICH WILL NOT

OTHERWISE BE MET UNLESS LAWYERS MEET THEM INCLUDING THE

RENDERING OF THOSE SPECIAL PUBLIC SERVICES WHICH THE MONOPOLY

ITSELF MAKES LAWYERS PECULIARLY QUALIFIED TO PERFORM,

THAT ETHICAL RESTRUCTURING SHOULD OCCUR SOON OR

THE MULTIPLE WAYS IN WHICH LAWYERS ALONE NOW CAN FULFILL

PUBLIC NEEDS WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAILED,

LAWYERS'

PATRONS THE POPULACE AS A WHOLE MAY ALREADY BE NEAR A

CONCLUSION THAT THEIR INTEREST WILL BE BEST SERVED IF OTHER

PROFESSIONALS SHARE IN THE WORK WHICH TRADITIONALLY HAS BEEN

PERFORMED ONLY BY LAWYERS,

ADMITTEDLY FURTHER EXAMINATION

-20-

OF ALL POSSIBILITIES BY THE ORGANIZED BAR IS WARRANTED BEFORE

SUBSTANTIAL REVISIONS OF THE ETHICAL CANONS OF THE LEGAL

PROFESSION SHOULD FORMALLY BE UNDERTAKEN BUT CLEARLY THE

TIME FOR RE-ANALYSIS AND RE-EXAMINATION IS HERE.

WHAT IS IMPORTANT INITIALLY AS I SEE IT IS

THE SIMPLE RECOGNITION BY THE ORGANIZED BAR OF THE PROPOSITION

THAT EVERY LAWYER SHOULD CONTRIBUTE A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION -

PERHAPS A MINIMUM OF ONE-TENTH OF PROFESSIONAL TIME TO THE

BETTERMENT OF SOCIETY IN GENERAL AND OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

IN PARTICULAR,

THAT OBLIGATION CANNOT BE IN LIEU OF THE

INDIVIDUAL OBLIGATION OF LAWYERS TO SERVE CLIENTS EFFECTIVELY

OR TO DISCHARGE PROFESSIONAL ASSIGNMENTS WITH FIDELITY NOR

-21-

SHOULD IT DIMINISH OUR EVER INCREASING EFFORTS IN THOSE

AREAS BUT IT IS AND SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS AN EQUALLY

IMPORTANT PART OF LAWYERING.

OF COURSE IN ADDITION TO PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITIES -

THE LAWYER ALSO OWES CORRELATIVE DUTIES TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

AND TO OTHER LAWYERS,

THAT INDIVIDUAL DUTY TO THE COLLEC-

TIVE LEGAL PROFESSION IS A HEAVY ONE BUT THE INDIVIDUAL DUTY

TO OTHER LAWYERS IS ONLY A VERY MODEST BURDEN,

IT TRULY

AND SIMPLY CAN BE SAID THAT ALL THAT LAWYERS OWE TO OTHER

LAWYERS IS COURTESY AVOIDANCE OF SHARP PRACTICE AND

INTEGRITY IN THEIR DEALINGS,

BUT TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION COLLECTIVELY THE

-22-

INDIVIDUAL LAWYER OWES A GREAT DEAL.

BREADTH AND DEPTH OF THAT OBLIGATION MAY BE SUMMARIZED IN

ONE SENTENCE:

IT IS THAT EACH LAWYER SHOULD SO CONDUCT

HIMSELF OR HERSELF AS CONTINUALLY TO ENHANCE THE REGARD IN

WHICH THE LEGAL PROFESSION AS AN ENTITY IS HELD BY OTHERS.

THAT OF COURSE PRESUPPOSES A PERSONAL STANDARD OF CONDUCT

OF IMPECCABLE RECTITUDE,

BUT IT GOES FURTHER IT INCLUDES

THE AFFIRMATIVE DUTY OF CLEANSING THE BAR OF ITS SHYSTERS -

ITS CROOKS ITS EMBEZZLERS ITS LIARS AND CHEATS ITS

INCOMPETENTS OF PURGING PROMPTLY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY FROM

ITS RANKS ALL OF THOSE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS WHO DO NOT ADD

LUSTRE TO THE LAW.

-23-

I SUGGEST THAT THE

IN SUMMARY IT IS IN MY JUDGMENT IMPORTANT NOW

THAT THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT EACH AND EVERY LAWYER IS INTERESTED

IN MORE THAN MAKING MONEY IN MORE THAN PERSONAL AGGRANDIZE-

MENT IN MORE THAN ACHIEVING PUBLIC RECOGNITION.

THEY

SHOULD KNOW THAT THE LEAST OF LAWYERS IS INTERESTED IN SERVING

WELL THE PUBLIC GOOD IN FILLING THE PARTIAL VOID IN SPECIAL

SKILLS CREATED IN SOCIETY WHEN THE LAWYER WAS GIVEN THE MONOPOLY

FOR LEGAL SERVICES BY SOCIETY,

THEY SHOULD KNOW THAT THE

ORGANIZED BAR AS A QUASI-PUBLIC INSTITUTION IS WILLING

TO ELIMINATE FROM ITS RANK THOSE LAWYERS WHO ONLY TAKE AND DO

NOT PUT.

IN MY OPINION TIMELY ACTIONS BY THE ORGANIZED

BAR RECOGNIZING THAT EACH AND EVERY LAWYER MUST DO SOME

-24-

PUBLIC SERVICE ARE ESSENTIAL IF SUBSTANTIAL SELF-REGULATION

BY LAWYERS IS TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE WIDESPREAD APPROVAL,

HOWEVER IN SAYING THAT I HASTEN ALSO TO ACKNOW-

LEDGE THAT THE LAWYER IN ACTUAL FACT AND IN THE PAGES OF

HISTORY HAS STEADILY EXPANDED HIS OR HER ROLE IN SOCIETY,

I MUST RECOGNIZE THAT THE LAWYER'S SERVICE HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY

INDISPENSABLE TO A MODERN LIFE AND THAT HIS OR HER UNIQUE

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF OUR LIBERTIES HAS BEEN

RECOGNIZED IN EVERY DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY AS THE MAINSPRING OF

OUR WELL-BEING.

LAWYERS NOW ARE,

YES I AM PROUD TO BE A LAWYER AS

YES I AM PROUD THAT THIS STURDY AND

RUGGED NATION OF OURS HAS ALWAYS BEEN SENSITIVE TO THE

-25-

PECULIAR AND SINGULAR ROLE OF THE LAWYER.

I WANT THE LEGAL PROFESSION AS AN ENTITY AND THE ORGANIZED

BAR AS OUR COLLECTIVE VOICE TO BE EVER MORE AND MORE

COGNIZANT OF THE PUBLIC WEAL.

I THUS REITERATE MY PERSONAL

BELIEF THAT EACH AND EVERY LAWYER HAS A JOINT AND SEVERAL

OBLIGATION FOR PUBLIC SERVICE WHICH IF UNREASONABLY IGNORED

WARRANTS THAT LAWYER'S REMOVAL FROM THE LEGAL PROFESSION,

(THANK YOU)

-26-

BUT EVEN SO -

SPEECHES OF CHESTERFIELD SMITH

SPEECH NUMBER 156

VOLUME X

ADDRESS OF:

BEFORE;

PLACE:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

CHESTERFIELD SMITH
LAWYER
LAKELAND, FLORIDA

LEGIS 50 THE CENTER FOR
LEGISLATIVE IMPROVEMENT -
CORPORATE SEMINAR

WILLIAMSBURG LODGE
WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA

THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1976
9:30 A.M.

INSTITUTIONS IN CONFLICT:
LEGISLATIVE AND CORPORATE
PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRESS.

THIRTY MINUTES

TIME:

THE ISSUES AND QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED HERE ARE

OF COURSE OF SIGNIFICANT IMPORTANCE.

THEY RELATE DIRECTLY

TO THE FAILURE OF THREE FUNDAMENTAL SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONS -

THE PRESS BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT TO UNDERSTAND EACH

OTHER TO WORK TOGETHER IN REASONABLE HARMONY TO BEHAVE -

IN SHORT IN A MANNER COMMENSURATE WITH THE DIGNITY OF THE

CHARTER FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO SERVE

OUR SOCIETY IN THEIR RESPECTIVE WAYS,

THE OBVIOUS FOCUS OF THIS CONFERENCE IS TO PERSUADE

THE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS WHO RUN MANAGE AND SHAPE

THOSE SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONS THE BUSINESS LEADERS THE

LEGISLATORS AND THE PRESS TO TRY HARDER TO ACCOMMODATE

THE PRINCIPLES DISCUSSED HERE AS PROPER GUIDES FOR THEIR OWN

PURSUIT WITH THE OVERRIDING PRINCIPLES CRUCIAL TO THE

EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.

INDEED IT IS VERY HARD TO SEE WHY INTELLIGENT -

HIGHLY MOTIVATED INDIVIDUALS CANNOT ACT UPON THESE PRINCIPLES

IN THEIR OWN CALLING WITH MORE RESPECT AND MORE CONCERN FOR

THE ACCOMMODATION OF SIMILAR PRINCIPLES TO OTHER INSTITUTIONS?

WHY HAVE WE AT THIS STAGE OF NATIONAL LIFE SHIFTED OUR CONCERNS

FROM POLICIES TO PERSONALITIES FROM MATTERS OF TANGIBLE

CONSEQUENCE TO THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE TO MATTERS OF UNCERTAIN

RELEVANCE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST?

WHY ARE EACH OF US

APPARENTLY MORE PRONE TO CRITICIZE THAN TO SUPPORT OTHERS?

WHAT IN FACT DOES THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAVE TO DO WITH POWER

BROKERAGE BY A PUBLISHER?

WHAT IN TRUTH DOES THE FREE

ENTERPRISE SYSTEM HAVE TO DO WITH THE RAPING OF A FOREST?

WHAT DOES A LEGISLATOR'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SERVE

CONSTITUENTS HAVE TO DO REALLY WITH ACCEPTANCE OF FAVORS

FROM SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS?

WHEN THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN IT

ASSUMED STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR BASED UPON HISTORICALLY ACCEPTED

TENETS.

THE FOUNDERS BELIEVED THAT A GOVERNMENT COULD

SUCCEED WHICH WAS PREDICATED UPON HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE AND

THE INSIGHTS OF GREAT PHILOSOPHERS,

THIS BELIEF LED THE

FOUNDERS TO DESIGN A DEMOCRATIC EXPERIMENT THAT ASSUMED THAT

-3-

INSTITUTIONS COULD EXIST IN HEALTHY CONFRONTATION BECAUSE

THERE WOULD BE AMONG ALL PEOPLES AND ALL INSTITUTIONS

GENERAL RESPECT FOR THE PURPOSES OF EACH OTHER INSTITUTION -

EVEN IF THERE WAS NOT ALWAYS TO BE ACCEPTANCE OF SPECIFIC

INSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS OR ACTIONS,

IT HAS NOT ALWAYS

WORKED OUT THAT WAY.

TRULY ETHICS CONFLICTS STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

HAVE BECOME A MODERN POLITICAL OBSESSION AT THIS PARTICULAR

TIME IN AMERICA BECAUSE WE ARE LIVING IN A PROSPEROUS ERA

OF UNPARALLELED HONESTY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION A TIME

WHEN WE THE PEOPLE CAN AFFORD THE LUXURY OF WORRYING ABOUT

PUBLIC HARMS BEFORE THEY HAPPEN,

I SUGGEST THAT THUS IT

-4-

IS THAT A RECOGNITION BY EACH OF THE THREE INSTITUTIONS

OF THE VITAL ROLE OF MORAL IMAGERY IN THE OTHER INSTITUTIONS

IS NOW BOTH PROPER AND BENEFICIAL,

THE BUILDING OF PUBLIC

ESTEEM FOR ONE OF THOSE INSTITUTIONS CAN ONLY ENHANCE THE

EFFECTIVENESS AND VIABILITY OF THE OTHERS,

TO ME IT IS OBVIOUS THAT MOST STATE LEGISLATORS

AND OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE NOT CORRUPT ARE NOT

IMMORAL ARE NOT UNETHICAL:- AND NOT IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE

FOR FINANCIAL BENEFITS DERIVED FROM EXPLOITATION OF INFLUENCE

OR OVERT MISCONDUCT,

YET BOTH BUSINESS LEADERS AND THE

PRESS AND WE THE PEOPLE OF THIS INDIVISIBLE UNION USE THE

WORD "POLITICIAN" AS AN EPITHET,

THE CURRENT DISAFFECTION

-5-

IS NOT WITH THE SYSTEM ITSELF NOR WITH THE PEOPLE WHO RUN

THAT SYSTEM.

THE PEOPLE RETAIN AT LEAST A TEMPERED

BELIEF IN GOVERNMENTAL GOALS.

BUT TO RESTORE PUBLIC

CONFIDENCE IT IS NOT SUFFICE FOR THE PRESS OR GOVERNMENTAL

LEADERS TO BREAK LOOSE WITH MORE OLD-FASHIONED STATEMENTS ON

MORALITY ETHICS AND PUBLIC TRUST.

THE PEOPLE MUST HAVE

DEEDS MUTUAL SUPPORT AND RECIPROCAL CONFIDENCE,

THE

PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RHETORIC AND REALITY,

THOUGH SOME MAY DISAGREE THE PROVABLE FACT IS

THAT IN AMERICA WE ARE CURRENTLY LIVING IN AN ERA OF UNEXAMPLED

HONESTY IN STATE GOVERNMENT.

THE ELECTED LEGISLATORS NOW

IN OFFICE SEEM TO ME TO BE BOTH UNIQUELY AND UNQUESTIONABLY

-6-

	Table of Contents
	Remarks before national conference...
	Introduction of chief justice Ben...
	Merit retention of judges
	Lawyers who take must put -- at...
	Institutions in conflict: legislative...
	Keynote address
	Partial remarks of Chesterfield...
	Random thoughts about recertification,...
	The Florida bar center dedicat...
	United Nations day recognition...

MILLISECOND	CLASS.METHOD	MESSAGE
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor	Application State validated or built
0	sobekcm_database.verify_item_lookup_object
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor	Navigation Object created from URI query string
0	sobekcm_database.verify_item_lookup_object
0	sobekcm_page_globals.display_item	Retrieving item or group information
0	sobekcm_page_globals.get_entire_collection_hierarchy	Retrieving hierarchy information
0	sobekcm_assistant.get_entire_collection_hierarchy
0	cached_data_manager.retrieve_item_aggregation
0	cached_data_manager.retrieve_item_aggregation	Found item aggregation on local cache
0	item_aggregation_builder.get_item_aggregation	Found 'all' item aggregation in cache
0	system.web.ui.page.page_load (ufdc.page_load)
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor.on_page_load
0	html_echo_mainwriter.add_style_references	Adding style references to HTML
0	html_echo_mainwriter.add_text_to_page	Reading the text from the file and echoing back to the output stream
38	html_echo_mainwriter.add_text_to_page	Finished reading and writing the file