Speeches by Chesterfield - Vol. XIII, 182-191. 1977-1978

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Speeches by Chesterfield - Vol. XIII, 182-191. 1977-1978
Series Title:
Speeches, 1956-2003
Physical Description:
Unknown
Language:
English
Creator:
Smith, Chesterfield H., 1917-2003
Publication Date:
Physical Location:
Box: 132
Folder: Speeches by Chesterfield - Vol. XIII, 182-187. 1977-1978

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID:
AA00005998:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text




VOLUME XIII

SPEECH NUMBER TITLE OR GROUP ADDRESSED

#182 CHARLES MORGAN, JR. CITATION
Fellows of Young Lawyers ABA Award
August 5, 1977 Chicago
ABA Annual Meeting
(Also Introductory Remarks by CS)

#183 REMARKS BY C. SMITH
Investiture Ceremony
Judge Paul Danahy
Before the Second District
Court of Appeals
Main Courthouse, Tampa, Florida
November 4, 1977


#184 INTRODUCTION OF LEON JAWORSKI
University of Florida Homecoming
Banquet (Florida Blue Key)
November 18, 1977
Gainesville, Florida


#185 ADDRESS BY C. SMITH
PINELLAS TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
ANNUAL INSTALLATION DINNER
Pappas Restaurant, Tarpon Springs, Fla.
November 30, 1977


#186 REMARKS BY C. SMITH
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LEGAL
SERVICES AND .THEi PUBLIC
Grand Ballroom, Fairmont Hotel
New Orleans, Louisiana
December 17, 1977


#187 Address before Graduating Class
University of Tampa
December 18, 1977
"THE OLD SAID: "ENOUGH IS GOOD";
IT IS TIME FOR THE YOUNG TO SAY:
"MORE THAN ENOUGH IS BAD."
(Long Version of Address)

#187(a) Same address as #187
But it is a shorter version
#187(a) is the speech actually
delivered 12/18/77 by Mr. Smith







SPEECHES OF CHESTERFIELD SMITH


SPEECH NUMBER 182


VOLUME XIII













THE FELLOWS


OF


THE YOUNG LAWYERS SECTION


OF


THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION


FIRST ANNUAL MEETfNG
August 5, 1977
Ritz Carlton Hotel
Chicago, Illinois


Kirk McAlpin
President, The Fellows
of the Young Lawyers Section
American Bar Association


Daniel J. Piliero, II
Chairman
Young Lawyers Section
American Bar Association










1977 ANNUAL AWARD
OF THE FELLOWS OF THE YOUNG LAWYERS SECTION
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION



IN RECOGNITION OF DISTINGUISHED
SERVICE BY A LAWYER



CHARLES MORGAN, JR.






Charles Morgan, Jr. age 47, is in private

practice with his own law firm in Washington, D. C. After

attending the public schools in Birmingham, Alabama, he then

graduated with honors from the University of Alabama, securing

both a B.S. and a LL.B. degree. He is married to the former

Camille Walpole of Birmingham, and they have one son, Charles

Morgan, III, now a student at the University of Alabama. Among

many civic and professional activities, he is a former President

of the Junior Bar Section of the Birmingham Bar Association.


Since he was admitted to the bar of Alabama in 1955,

he has practiced law in Birmingham, Atlanta, and the District

of Columbia. During this past twenty turbulent years, Charles

Morgan Jr. has served as principal trial attorney in multi-

tudinous civil rights and civil liberties cases. In 1963, he

first obtained national attention as the result of a speech

made to the Birmingham Young Men's Business Club on the day










after the Birmingham church bombing in which four children

were killed. Charles Morgan there reached the conscience of

many Southerners, saying that the bombers were "each of us --

each citizen who has not consciously attempted to bring about

peaceful compliance with the decisions of the Supreme Court

of the United States."


Throughout his career, Charles Morgan, Jr. has

focused on cases that most lawyers wouldn't take because they

saw them as too controversial, or too unpopular, or simply as

lost causes. As a Southern lawyer pursuing social and political

change in the South, he did use his insider's credentials

freely -- he had the accent, he spoke the language, he under-

stood the thought processes. But while he as a trial lawyer

personally got along with almost everyone, including judges

and opposing lawyers, professionally he was, and is, a winner,

with the traditional characteristics of the lawyer who seldom

loses: fierce competitiveness, a checker-player's instinct

for strategy, a thorough grasp of the law, a phenomenal

capacity for work, boundless confidence, and the facile ability

to turn a phrase. His style was and is bonafide Southern:

direct, specific, and unequivocal. But Charles Morgan, Jr. is

not now nor has he ever been a Southern lawyer; he is an

American lawyer, committed to the unyielding representation as

an advocate of those multiple Americans who insofar as constitu-

tional rights are concerned have in the main been unrepresented


-2-










or underrepresented.


Charles Morgan, Jr., as plaintiff's attorney,

initiated the case of Reynolds v. Sims, the reapportionment

case requiring one-man, one-vote representation in both

houses of state legislatures which he successfully argued

before the Supreme Court of the United States. In the

University of Alabama desegregation case, he represented

the Negro plaintiffs who gained admission into the University

of Alabama's Huntsville Center despite Governor Wallace's

"stand in the schoolhouse door" in Tuscaloosa.


Charles Morgan, Jr. has served as plaintiff's

attorney in numerous cases to integrate the structures of

justice in the South. Among them is White v. Crook, resulting

in the integration of Lowndes County, Alabama, juries; in

that case, the Alabama statute excluding women from jury duty

(then also similarly existing in South Carolina and Mississippi),

was invalidated in the first application of the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to women's rights. He also

served as counsel in more than a score of cases to integrate

the jury systems of counties in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi,

South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. In Whitus v. Georgia,

which he argued before the Supreme Court of the United States,

racially discriminatory juries selected from racially segre-

gated tax digests were declared unconstitutional. That

decision resulted in the setting aside of at least five Georgia


-3-











death penalty convictions.


In Lee v. Washington, which Charles Morgan, Jr.

also argued before the Supreme Court of the United States,

he obtained what perhaps still is one of the broadest de-

segregation orders ever entered, literally hundreds of

Alabama penal and correctional institutions being required

to integrate their facilities. In that case, the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was construed

to cover the rights of Negro prisoners. He thereafter

served as counsel in similar actions to integrate penal

and correctional facilities and public employment in South

Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana.


In Liveright v. Joint Committee, Charles Morgan,

Jr. procured from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Tennessee the first permanent injunction

by a federal court in the United States against an investi-

gation by a state's legislature. In Hadnott v. Amos, he

successfully obtained from the Supreme Court of the United

States for the nominees of the National Democratic Party of

Alabama (NDPA) a place on the November, 1968, ballot. As a

result, seventeen NDPA candidates were elected to various

local offices in Etowah, Marengo and Sumter Counties, Alabama.

When six black candidates of the NDPA were left off the

November 1968 ballot in Greene County, Alabama, he commenced

a contempt action in the Supreme Court of the United States.


-4-










The Supreme Court called for a new election in Greene County,

with directions that the six candidates be included on the

ballot. On July 23, 1969, the new election was held and the

six candidates represented by Charles Morgan, Jr. were elected.


Truly, Charles Morgan, Jr. has been the lawyer

for the defense of some of the most controversial cases of

our time including: the selective service appeal of the world's

heavyweight champion, Muhammed Ali; the Army's court-martial

of Captain Howard B. Levy; the Army's court-martial of Green

Beret Captain John J. McCarty; the trial involving the

rights to freedom of speech by Edward R. Fields, an officer

of the ultra-rightist National State Rights Party; and the

Georgia General Assembly's exclusion from membership of then

Representative-elect and black activist Julian Bond.


In 1972, Charles Morgan, Jr. became Director of

the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington office. Soon

thereafter, he served as lawyer for the Association of State

Democratic Chairman (those whose telephones were successfully

tapped) in the Watergate Case and related legal proceedings.

Indeed, it was in the Watergate matter that he perhaps made

what will be ultimately recognized as his most lasting mark

in American legal history. Charles Morgan, Jr. is the first

lawyer, or at least one of the first, publicly to advance and

articulate the legal case for the impeachment of President

Richard Nixon. His primary role as the organizer of the


-5-











American Civil Liberties Union impeachment campaign led him

for over a year to roam the entire country with the inde-

fatigable determination and zeal usually associated with a

candidate for nomination as President of the United States --

making speeches, organizing meetings, explaining what impeach-

ment was and how it has been used in the past and why he

thought it essential now. But his nationwide mission was not

to seek office; he sought instead to invoke the constitutional

processes to determine whether the sitting President of the

United States should retain that high office.


While some people, including a few Congressmen,

then criticized the ACLU campaign as only a distractive

intrusion on the legislative-judicial process, the clearer

light of history indicates that it as the first clarion call

had a great deal to do with the gathering public consensus

for impeachment. Charles Morgan, Jr., as its guiding spirit,

worked ardously, long and unceasingly, not to "get Richard

Nixon", but simply to prove to his own satisfaction that the

American constitutional processes would work if given a fair

chance. He is, as he was so aptly entitled by the magazine

Southern Voices in May, 1974, "The Man Who Cried Impeachment

First". Charles Morgan, Jr. who had spent all of his life as

a lawyer witnessing to the utmost his faith in the Constitution

and the Bill of Rights, was of course supremely right then in

his contentment that the collective will of the people eventually


-6-









would be done. Charles Morgan, Jr at the very least in


substantial measure, hetpe4 at that time of constitutional

crisis to make the system work.


Although relatively young, Charles Morgan, Jr.

is already a living legend in the law, a person who lives

by the ethical precepts which historically have guided the

conduct of the truly great lawyers of our past and present.

By his professional conduct, by his very being, Charles

Morgan, Jr. epitomizes that which is very-good about the

free and independent American lawyer. He has been his own

person, and his past indicates that he will be in the future.

His selection as the first recipient of this meaningful award

gives recognition to those who practice law as it should be

practiced -- a high calling for the noblest of people.

Charles Morgan, Jr. verily exemplifies the best in an American

lawyer, one who sometimes is lonely but who never shirks

standing alone.


-7-








IT IS PLEASANT TO HAVE THE TASK OF INTRODUCING


AS THE SPEAKER A LAWYER WHOM I LIKE VERY MUCH AND ONE

WHO HAS IN THE PAST ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS BOTH

INFORMED AND ENTERTAINED ME IN A DELIGHTFUL WAY.

BEFORE DISCHARGING THAT ASSIGNMENT HOWEVER -

I WANT FIRST TO INTRODUCE TO YOU CAMILLE WALPOLE MORGAN -

NOW SOMETIMES KNOWN AS MRS. CHUCK MORGAN WHO BECAME

ENTWINED WITH OUR SPEAKER WHEN BOTH WERE STUDENTS AT THE


UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA.


IN THE MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS


THAT THEY HAVE BEEN MARRIED THEY ALWAYS HAVE BEEN EQUAL

PARTNERS IN FROLIC AND IN WORK; IN SPLENDOR AND IN POVERTY.

IN THE HIGHS AND LOWS THAT ARE THE INEVITABLE LOT OF TRIAL


LAWYERS IN THE CIVIL LIBERTY AREA,


CAMILLE HAS KEPT THE








MONEY WHENEVER THERE W'1AS MONEY; HAS KEPT THE CHECK BOOK


IN BALANCE; THE TAXES PAID; THE CLOTHES CLEAN; THE FOOD

COOKED; THE BEDS MADE; THE PLANE TICKETS MOTEL RESERVATIONS


AND SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS IN ORDER; AND DURING ALL OF THIS


TIME SHE HAS BEEN THE MANAGER OF THE LAW OFFICE.


PERHAPS


TO THE CURRENT DISMAY OF "WOMEN LIBBERS" SHE HAS BEEN HIS.


PERSONAL SECRETARY HIS BATMAN HIS SECOND BANANA AND


HIS CONSTANT COMPANION BOTH IN WORK AND IN PLAY.


CHUCK MORGAN IS A CONFIRMED WORKAHOLIC AND


CAMILLE MORGAN FEEDS HIS HABIT.


THEIR NAY OF LIFE AS A


TEAM SINCE COLLEGE DAYS AT TUSCALOOSA OBVIOUSLY HAS BEEN


SATISFYING AND PRODUCTIVE,


WHATEVER HE IS HE WOULDN'T


BE WITHOUT CAMILLE; WHATEVER CAMILLE IS SHE WOULDN'T BE


-2-








WITHOUT CHUCK.


IT IS MY PLEASURE TO ASK THE WIFE OF


OUR AWARD RECIPIENT MRS. CHARLES MORGAN, JR, TO STAND

AND RECEIVE YOUR GREETING.








I NOW REFER YOU TO THE PRINTED CITATION LEFT


AT EACH PLACEMAT.


IT GIVES IN DEPTH AND DETAIL THE


REASON WHY CHARLES MORGAN, JR. t'fAS SELECTED AS THE FIRST


RECIPIENT OF THE AWARD,


THERE IS LITTLE THAT I CAN ADD


TO IT -- I SHALL NOT TRY.

BUT NOTING FROM THAT CITATION THAT HE GRADUATED


FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA COLLEGE OF LAW -


IT IS


PERHAPS PROPER AS A FLORIDIAN THAT I EXPRESS MY SURPRISE

THAT THE FIRST RECIPIENT OF THIS OUTSTANDING AWARD IS A MAN


WITHOUT A FORMAL EDUCATION.


I ALSO MENTION TO CHUCK


MORGAN THAT BEFORE I CAME TO THE BANQUET TONIGHT I HEARD

ON TV OF THE TERRIBLE FLOOD IN UGANDA; IT WAS REPORTED

THAT OVER 7,000 UGANDANS AND TWO ALABAMA RECRUITERS WERE


DROWNED.








I SUGGEST THAT CHUCK MORGAN OUR SPEAKER IS


SOMEONE WHOM EACH HERE WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER.


HE IS A


MAN OF ACTION A POLITICIAN A PRAGMATIC GRASS-ROOTS


ACTIVIST; BUT HE IS ALSO TRULY AN INTELLECTUAL.


YOU


WILL SOON SEE THAT HE KNOWS THE LAW AND THAT HE KNOWS


WHY THE LAW IS THE WAY THAT IT IS.


YOU CANNOT LONG


LISTEN TO HIM SPEAK WITHOUT BEING IMPRESSED AT HOW WELL


INFORMED HE IS,


BEING A SOUTHERNER MYSELF I MIGHT


UNDERSTANDABLY THINK THAT THE REASON CHUCK MORGAN IS WHAT HE

IS IS BECAUSE HE IS A SOUTHERNER AND THAT SOUTHERNERS QUITE


OFTEN UNDERSTAND THINGS MORE CLEARLY AND MORE QUICKLY THAN


OTHERS.


UNFORTUNATELY FOR THAT THESIS CHUCK MORGAN


DISAVOWS IT.


IN A MAGAZINE ARTICLE IN 1974 HE SAID:


-5-







"I HAVEN'T MADE IT A POINT TO IDENTIFY MYSELF AS A


SOUTHERNER.


I AM SOUTHERN BY HERITAGE AND VIEWPOINT -


BUT I HAVEN'T TRIED TO MAKE MUCH OF THAT ONE WAY OR THE


OTHER.


I'M A WHITE ANGLO-SAXON PROTESTANT SOUTHERNER -


AND I DON'T HAVE ANY GUILT OR SHAME ABOUT IT OR ANY


PARTICULAR PRIDE IN IT.


THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS."


WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS THE WAY IT IS WITHOUT

ANY GUILT OR SHAME BUT WITH SOME PRIDE I PRESENT TO YOU

CHARLES MORGAN, JR.







SPEECHES OF CHESTERFIELD SMITH


SPEECH NUMBER 183


VOLUME XIII








REMARKS OF:


CHESTERFIELD SMITH
LAWYER
LAKELAND, FLORIDA


BEFORE:


CEREMONY CONDUCTED FOR THE
INVESTITURE OF DISTRICT COURT
OF APPEALS JUDGE PAUL DANAHY
BEFORE THE SECOND DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS OF FLORIDA


PLACE:


MAIN COURTHOUSE
PIERCE AND KENNEDY STREETS
TAMPA, FLORIDA


DATE:


FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1977
11:30 A.M.


TEN MINUTES


DURATION:







AS A TRIAL LAWYER SOMETIMES PRIVILEGED TO APPEAR

BEFORE THIS COURT I TAKE PERSONAL SATISFACTION IN BEING

PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INVESTITURE CEREMONY OF


JUDGE PAUL DANAHY.


THAT PLEASURE ARISES IN PART BECAUSE


OF A LONG-HELD BELIEF THAT THE CALIBER OF A STATE'S JUDICIARY

IS A PRIME YARDSTICK OF ITS CULTURE AND AS I SEE IT JUDGE

PAUL DANAHY WILL BRING ADDED LUSTER TO THIS STATE'S BENCH. IN

A SOCIETY AS SATURATED IN LAW AS FLORIDA IN A STATE WITH SUCH

A BURGEONING POPULATION IN A STATE AS LITIGIOUS AS FLORIDA

HAS BECOME THE CHOICE OF WHICH FLORIDA LAWYER IS TO SIT ON

THE BENCH AT ANY LEVEL ASSUMES PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE AND NOT

SURPRISINGLY ALMOST ALWAYS AROUSES CONTENTION AMONG OTHERS -

AMONG THOSE ALREADY ON THE BENCH AMONG THOSE WHO COMPRISE THE

BAR AND AMONG THOSE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHO ARE THEREAFTER








TO BE JUDGED BY THE LAWYER SO SELECTED.


GOVERNOR REUBIN ASKEW HAS APPARENTLY AVOIDED CONTROVERSY BY


SELECTING AS A JUDGE FOR THIS COURT OF LAST RESORT A WIDELY


ACCLAIMED LAWYER AND TRIAL JUDGE APPARENTLY WELL QUALIFIED BY


EDUCATION EXPERIENCE APTITUDE AND CHARACTER TO JOIN THE


ILLUSTRIOUS JUDGES WHO ALREADY GRACE THIS DISTINGUISHED COURT.

WHEN PAUL DANAHY CONCLUDED ONLY ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO


TO SEEK A JUDICIAL POSITION HE ALREADY WAS RECOGNIZED AS

BEING IN THE FOREFRONT OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BAR HE


WAS ACCEPTED BY OTHER LAWYERS AS THE PEER OF THAT SMALL GROUP


OF LAWYERS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BEST QUALIFIED TO SIT AS


JUDGES.


INDEED HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS AT THE BAR THEN


UNIFORMLY APPRAISED PAUL DANAHY AS A FINE LAWYER A SPLENDID


-2-


IN THIS INSTANCE -







PUBLIC SERVANT AND A GOOD PERSON.


UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT JUDGES DO OFTEN

PASS ON THE MOST PROFOUND SOCIAL AND POLITICAL QUESTIONS, WE


NEED WE MUST HAVE GOOD LAWYERS TO SERVE AS JUDGES.


THE


DUTY TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION AFFECTS THE WHOLE ROLE OF ALL

JUDGES AND IT SUGGESTS TO ME THAT OUR JUDGES SHOULD COME


FROM A DIVERSITY OF BACKGROUNDS.


IT IS MY BELIEF THAT


PAUL DANAHY CAN IN A MATERIAL WAY ADD DIVERSE AND DISPARATE

TALENTS AND QUALITIES TO THIS COURT TALENTS AND QUALITIES

NOT NOW AVAILABLE FROM THOSE JUDGES SITTING ON THIS COURT -

THUS ADDING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUND JUDICIAL CONSENSUS

WHICH THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ARE IN FUTURE YEARS

ENTITLED TO RECEIVE FROM THEIR APPELLATE COURTS,







WE ALL KNOW WHAT WE WANT IN A JUDGE: WE WANT


WISE AND GOOD MEN OR WOMEN WHO HAVE DISTINGUISHED THEMSELVES

BOTH IN THE FIELD OF LAW AND IN THE WIDER PUBLIC CONSTITUENCY -

FOR THAT ESSENTIAL COMBINATION OF WISDOM JUDGMENT AND FAIR-


NESS THAT MUST GOVERN A VIABLE LEGAL SYSTEM.


WE KNOW THAT


THE WORK OF A JUDGE IS BASICALLY REFLECTIVE AND THAT THE CASES


BEFORE HIM OR HER ARE RARELY FLAMBOYANT.


WE KNOW THAT THE


DESIRABLE JUDICIAL QUALITIES INCLUDE MODESTY SCHOLARSHIP -

BALANCE DIGNITY RESTRAINT AND REFLECTION.

AND ALTHOUGH WE KNOW THAT JUDGE DANAHY AS A JUDGE

OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY POSSESSED OR

APPEARED TO POSSESS THOSE QUALITIES AS A TRIAL JUDGE IN

ABUNDANT DEGREE WE ALSO KNOW THAT EVEN THE MOST QUALIFIED


-4-







TRIAL JUDGE WHO ASSUMES AN APPELLATE JUDGESHIP CANNOT WITH

CONFIDENCE AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS NEW JUDICIAL CAREER BE


CALLED A GREAT APPELLATE JUDGE,


"GREAT JUDGE" IS A TITLE


WHICH CAN ONLY BE EARNED EARNED BY YEARS OF DEDICATED


SERVICE.


JUDGE DANAHY AS A TRIAL JUDGE RECEIVED HIGH


MARKS IN THE RELATIVELY SHORT TIME HE SO SERVED.


BUT TO


CALL HIM A GREAT APPELLATE JUDGE NOW WOULD BE A GROSSLY

PREMATURE DECISION WHICH COULD NOT BE BASED ON FACT.

BUT IT IS BOTH PROPER AND APPROPRIATE THAT JUDGE


DANAHY BE EVALUATED FOR HIS POTENTIAL ABILITIES.


HIS


REPORT CARD AS AN APPELLATE JUDGE WILL COME OUT PERIODICALLY -

BUT THE FINAL EVALUATION MUST NECESSARILY AWAIT FUTURE EVENTS.


WHILE EACH OF US HERE TODAY HAVE OUR OWN SPECIFIC IDEAS AND


-5-








JUDGMENTS ABOUT THE JUDICIAL POTENTIAL OF JUDGE DANAHY AS AN


APPELLATE JUDGE HIS PRESENT CAPACITIES AS A LAWYER AS A


TRIAL JUDGE AND AS A PERSON HIS FUTURE PERFORMANCE OF


HONORABLE SERVICE ON THIS COURT IS NOW THE ONLY CRITERIA BY


WHICH THE FINAL APPROBATION OF OUR PEOPLE CAN BE OBTAINED.


INDEED IT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT THE ULTIMATE ACCOLADE

"GREAT JUDGE" CAN BE BESTOWED ON HIM IN YEARS TO COME BY HIS


PEERS.


BUT KNOWINGLY WE ASSEMBLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS


INVESTITURE CEREMONY HONORING THIS JUDGE BELIEVING IN VARYING


WAYS THAT HE TO A MARKED DEGREE SEEMS TO POSSESS THOSE


PRECIOUS QUALITIES WHICH IF PROPERLY EXERCISED WILL PERMIT HIM


TO BECOME IN TIME A TRULY FINE APPELLATE JUDGE.


-6-







BY TEMPERAMENT BY DEMONSTRATED CHARACTER BY


DILIGENT AND ARDUOUS LABOR BY DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE -

PAUL DANAHY PRACTICING LAWYER LEGAL WRITER LEGISLATOR -

LAW PROFESSOR TRIAL JUDGE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL -

GOOD CITIZEN APPEARS TO US TO HAVE SERVED THIS STATE AND THIS

COUNTY IN SUCH A WAY THAT HE THROUGH DILIGENT APPLICATION CAN

IN HISTORY JOIN THE MORE MAGNIFICENT OF THE GREAT JUDGES WHO

OVER THE YEARS HAVE GRACED OR NOW GRACE THIS FINE APPELLATE

BENCH,


AS A LAWYER AND OFFICER OF THIS COURT AND AS A


FLORIDA CITIZEN AND AS AN AMERICAN I RELISH BEING A

PARTICIPANT HERE BECAUSE I CHERISH THIS COURT AS AN

INSTITUTION AND AS THE JUDICIAL HOME OF SOME SPLENDID JUDGES







WHO TODAY ARE BEING JOINED BY A MAN WHOM I BELIEVE WILL ALSO


BE A SPLENDID JUDGE,


INDEED I BELIEVE IN TIME A


GREAT JUDGE,


PAUL DANAHY BY THE VERY NATURE OF THE MAN AND


HIS BACKGROUND APPEARS TO US TO HAVE THE HIGHEST POTENTIAL


TO SERVE THIS COURT AND THIS STATE IN SUCH A WAY THAT HE


CAN IN HISTORY JOIN THE MORE MAGNIFICENT OF THE GREAT JUDGES


WHO OVER THE YEARS HAVE GRACED THE APPELLATE COURTS OF FLORIDA.



THANK YOU.


-8-




# /g 3


REMARKS OF:


CHESTERFIELD SMITH
LAWYER
LAKELAND, FLORIDA


BEFORE:


CEREMONY CONDUCTED FOR THE
INVESTITURE OF DISTRICT COURT
OF APPEALS JUDGE PAUL DANAHY
BEFORE THE SECOND DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS OF FLORIDA


PLACE:


MAIN COURTHOUSE
PIERCE AND KENNEDY STREETS
TAMPA, FLORIDA


DATE:


FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1977
11:30 A.M.


TEN MINUTES


DURATION:







AS A TRIAL LAWYER SOMETIMES PRIVILEGED TO APPEAR

BEFORE THIS COURT I TAKE PERSONAL SATISFACTION IN BEING

PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INVESTITURE CEREMONY OF


JUDGE PAUL DANAHY.


THAT PLEASURE ARISES IN PART BECAUSE


OF A LONG-HELD BELIEF THAT THE CALIBER OF A STATE'S JUDICIARY

IS A PRIME YARDSTICK OF ITS CULTURE AND AS I SEE IT JUDGE

PAUL DANAHY WILL BRING ADDED LUSTER TO THIS STATE'S BENCH. IN

A SOCIETY AS SATURATED IN LAW AS FLORIDA IN A STATE WITH SUCH

A BURGEONING POPULATION IN A STATE AS LITIGIOUS AS FLORIDA

HAS BECOME THE CHOICE OF WHICH FLORIDA LAWYER IS TO SIT ON

THE BENCH AT ANY LEVEL ASSUMES PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE AND NOT

SURPRISINGLY ALMOST ALWAYS AROUSES CONTENTION AMONG OTHERS -

AMONG THOSE ALREADY ON THE BENCH AMONG THOSE WHO COMPRISE THE

BAR AND AMONG THOSE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHO ARE THEREAFTER







TO BE JUDGED BY THE LAWYER SO SELECTED.


GOVERNOR REUBIN ASKEW HAS APPARENTLY AVOIDED CONTROVERSY BY


SELECTING AS A JUDGE FOR THIS COURT OF LAST RESORT A WIDELY


ACCLAIMED LAWYER AND TRIAL JUDGE APPARENTLY WELL QUALIFIED BY


EDUCATION EXPERIENCE APTITUDE AND CHARACTER TO JOIN THE


ILLUSTRIOUS JUDGES WHO ALREADY GRACE THIS DISTINGUISHED COURT.


WHEN PAUL DANAHY CONCLUDED ONLY ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO


TO SEEK A JUDICIAL POSITION HE ALREADY WAS RECOGNIZED AS


BEING IN THE FOREFRONT OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BAR HE


WAS ACCEPTED BY OTHER LAWYERS AS THE PEER OF THAT SMALL GROUP


OF LAWYERS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BEST QUALIFIED TO SIT AS


JUDGES.


INDEED HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS AT THE BAR THEN


UNIFORMLY APPRAISED. PAUL DANAHY AS A FINE LAWYER A SPLENDID


-2-


IN THIS INSTANCE -







PUBLIC SERVANT AND A GOOD PERSON.


UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT JUDGES DO OFTEN

PASS ON THE MOST PROFOUND SOCIAL AND POLITICAL QUESTIONS.

NEED WE MUST HAVE GOOD LAWYERS TO SERVE AS JUDGES.


WE

THE


DUTY TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION AFFECTS THE WHOLE ROLE OF ALL

JUDGES AND IT SUGGESTS TO ME THAT OUR JUDGES SHOULD COME


FROM A DIVERSITY OF BACKGROUNDS.


IT IS MY BELIEF THAT


PAUL DANAHY CAN IN A MATERIAL WAY ADD DIVERSE AND DISPARATE

TALENTS AND QUALITIES TO THIS COURT TALENTS AND QUALITIES

NOT NOW AVAILABLE FROM THOSE JUDGES SITTING ON THIS COURT -

THUS ADDING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUND JUDICIAL CONSENSUS


WHICH THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ARE IN FUTURE YEARS

ENTITLED TO RECEIVE -FROM THEIR APPELLATE COURTS,


-3-







WE ALL KNOW WHAT WE WANT IN A JUDGE: WE WANT


WISE AND GOOD MEN OR WOMEN WHO HAVE DISTINGUISHED THEMSELVES


BOTH IN THE FIELD OF LAW AND IN THE WIDER PUBLIC CONSTITUENCY -

FOR THAT ESSENTIAL COMBINATION OF WISDOM JUDGMENT AND FAIR-


NESS THAT MUST GOVERN A VIABLE LEGAL SYSTEM.


WE KNOW THAT


THE WORK OF A JUDGE IS BASICALLY REFLECTIVE AND THAT THE CASES


BEFORE HIM OR HER ARE RARELY FLAMBOYANT,


WE KNOW THAT THE


DESIRABLE JUDICIAL QUALITIES INCLUDE MODESTY SCHOLARSHIP -

BALANCE DIGNITY RESTRAINT AND REFLECTION.


AND ALTHOUGH WE KNOW THAT JUDGE DANAHY AS A JUDGE

OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY POSSESSED OR


APPEARED TO POSSESS THOSE QUALITIES AS A TRIAL JUDGE IN


ABUNDANT DEGREE WE- ALSO KNOW THAT EVEN THE MOST QUALIFIED


-4-








TRIAL JUDGE WHO ASSUMES AN APPELLATE JUDGESHIP CANNOT WITH


CONFIDENCE AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS NEW JUDICIAL CAREER BE


CALLED A GREAT APPELLATE JUDGE,


- "GREAT JUDGE" IS A TITLE


WHICH CAN ONLY BE EARNED EARNED BY YEARS OF DEDICATED


SERVICE.


JUDGE DANAHY AS A TRIAL JUDGE RECEIVED HIGH


MARKS IN THE RELATIVELY SHORT TIME HE SO SERVED,


BUT TO


CALL HIM A GREAT APPELLATE JUDGE NOW WOULD BE A GROSSLY

PREMATURE DECISION WHICH COULD NOT BE BASED ON FACT.

BUT IT IS BOTH PROPER AND APPROPRIATE THAT JUDGE


DANAHY BE EVALUATED FOR HIS POTENTIAL ABILITIES,


HIS


REPORT CARD AS AN APPELLATE JUDGE WILL COME OUT PERIODICALLY -


BUT THE FINAL EVALUATION MUST NECESSARILY AWAIT FUTURE EVENTS.


WHILE EACH OF US HERE TODAY HAVE OUR OWN SPECIFIC IDEAS AND


-5-







JUDGMENTS ABOUT THE JUDICIAL POTENTIAL OF JUDGE DANAHY AS AN


APPELLATE JUDGE HIS PRESENT CAPACITIES AS A LAWYER AS A


TRIAL JUDGE AND AS A PERSON HIS FUTURE PERFORMANCE OF


HONORABLE SERVICE ON THIS COURT IS NOW THE ONLY CRITERIA BY


WHICH THE FINAL APPROBATION OF OUR PEOPLE CAN BE OBTAINED,


INDEED IT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT THE ULTIMATE ACCOLADE


"GREAT JUDGE" CAN BE BESTOWED ON HIM IN YEARS TO COME BY HIS


PEERS.


BUT KNOWINGLY WE ASSEMBLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS


INVESTITURE CEREMONY HONORING THIS JUDGE BELIEVING IN VARYING


WAYS THAT HE TO A MARKED DEGREE -.SEEMS TO POSSESS THOSE


PRECIOUS QUALITIES WHICH IF PROPERLY EXERCISED WILL PERMIT HIM


TO BECOME IN TIME A TRULY FINE APPELLATE JUDGE.


-6-








BY TEMPERAMENT BY DEMONSTRATED CHARACTER BY


DILIGENT AND ARDUOUS LABOR BY DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE -


PAUL DANAHY PRACTICING LAWYER LEGAL WRITER LEGISLATOR -


LAW PROFESSOR TRIAL JUDGE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL -


GOOD CITIZEN APPEARS TO US TO HAVE SERVED THIS STATE AND THIS


COUNTY IN SUCH A WAY THAT HE THROUGH DILIGENT APPLICATION CAN


IN HISTORY JOIN THE MORE MAGNIFICENT OF THE GREAT JUDGES WHO


OVER THE YEARS HAVE GRACED OR NOW GRACE THIS FINE APPELLATE


BENCH.


AS A LAWYER AND OFFICER OF THIS COURT AND AS A


FLORIDA CITIZEN AND AS AN AMERICAN,- I RELISH BEING A


PARTICIPANT HERE BECAUSE I CHERISH THIS COURT AS AN


INSTITUTION AND AS THE JUDICIAL HOME OF SOME SPLENDID JUDGES


-7-







WHO TODAY ARE BEING JOINED BY A MAN WHOM I BELIEVE WILL ALSO


BE A SPLENDID JUDGE.


INDEED I BELIEVE IN TIME A


GREAT JUDGE,


PAUL DANAHY BY THE VERY NATURE OF THE MAN AND


HIS BACKGROUND APPEARS TO US TO HAVE THE HIGHEST POTENTIAL


TO SERVE THIS COURT AND THIS STATE IN SUCH A WAY THAT HE


CAN IN HISTORY JOIN THE MORE MAGNIFICENT OF THE GREAT JUDGES


WHO OVER THE YEARS HAVE GRACED THE APPELLATE COURTS OF FLORIDA.



THANK YOU.


-8-







SPEECHES OF CHESTERFIELD SMITH


SPEECH NUMBER 184


VOLUME XIII










REMARKS OF: CHESTERFIELD SMITH
LAWYER
LAKELAND, FLORIDA




BEFORE: FLORIDA BLUE KEY
HOMECOMING BANQUET
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

"INTRODUCTION OF
LEON JAWORSKI"



PLACE: UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


NOVEMBER 18, 1977


DATE:








ON MAY 24, 1974, WASHINGTON THE CAPITAL CITY

OF THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD -


WAS BUZZING.


IN EVERY CONVERSATIONAL GROUP THE


DISCUSSION CENTERED AROUND THE EFFORTS OF THE WATERGATE

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO SECURE FROM PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON

CERTAIN TAPES WHICH HAD RECORDED PRESIDENTIAL CONVERSATIONS

BELIEVED TO CONTAIN RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN THE WATERGATE


INVESTIGATIONS.


INDEED THE WASHINGTON STAR HAD HEAD-


LINED JUST THAT VERY MORNING THAT LEON JAWORSKI THE

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IN AN ABSOLUTELY UNPRECEDENTED LEGAL

ACTION HAD FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

A DIRECT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT -

ASKING THAT THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE








PRESIDENT TURN OVER THOSE TAPES BE UPHELD,


RANGED WIDESPREAD AND FULL SCALE -- FROM JUBILATION TO


APPREHENSION AND FEAR.

THAT THIS WAS IT, R


THE PEOPLE EVERYWHERE KNEW


EVOLUTION WAS POSSIBLE --


UNPRECEDENTED POLITICAL STRIFE WAS ALMOST CERTAINLY A

COMPELLING NECESSITY -- THE PEOPLE CONJECTURED -- "WHAT


WILL THE PRESIDENT DO?"


LEON JAWORSKI THIS DAY HAD


BELLIED UP TO THE BUZZ SAW -- WOULD THE PRESIDENT CUT HIM

IN HALF -- WHAT A DRAMA -- A DAY OF MASSIVE HISTORICAL

SIGNIFICANCE TO OUR STURDY NATION.

I HAVE SET THIS STAGE OF WASHINGTON ON MAY 24,

1974 ONLY AS A PREDICATE FOR A PERSONAL TALE. AS PRESIDENT

OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION MY WIFE VIVIAN AND I


THE DIALOGUE








WERE HOSTING A SEATED DINNER AT OUR STATE'S EMBASSY IN


WASHINGTON "FLORIDA HOUSE"


- ON THAT VERY NIGHT FOR THE


CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES AND HIS CHARMING WIFE -

VERA BURGER.

VIVIAN AND I BOTH HAD OTHER DUTIES THAT DAY -

INCLUDING A LATE AFTERNOON RECEPTION FOR THE LAWYER MEMBERS


OF CONGRESS.


WHILE I MYSELF WAS QUITE AWARE THAT


THAT VERY MORNING LEON JAWORSKI HAD MADE HIS BOLD ATTEMPT

IN COURT TO BELL THE CAT VIVIAN HAD BEEN CONCERNED ONLY

WITH TABLEWARE THE CATERER FLOWERS WINE AND SEATING


ARRANGEMENTS.


SHE HAD NO IDEA THAT IT WAS IN ANY WAY AN


UNUSUAL DAY: -- WHILE SHE KNEW OF COURSE WHY LEON JAWORSKI


WAS IN WASHINGTON -- SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IF ANYTHING HE


-3-








WAS DOING THAT DAY TO DISCHARGE HIS ASSIGNMENT.


THE SEATING ARRANGEMENT AT FLORIDA HOUSE CALLED

FOR SIX TABLES WITH EIGHT PERSONS PER TABLE FOR OUR 48 DIS-

TINGUISHED GUESTS INCLUDING SENATORS CONGRESSMEN THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL THE SOLICITOR GENERAL MEMBERS OF THE

SUPREME COURT AND MULTIPLE WELL KNOWN LAWYERS AND JUDGES.

VIVIAN HAD DECIDED PERHAPS QUITE OBVIOUSLY TO PLACE AT

OUR TABLE WITH CHIEF JUSTICE AND MRS. BURGER OUR DEAR

FRIENDS FROM HOME THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM FLORIDA AND

HIS WONDERFUL WIFE RHEA -- AND BECAUSE VIVIAN DIDN'T

REALLY WANT TO BE TOO BOTHERED WITH WASHINGTON PROTOCOL -

SHE KNEW ONLY THAT SHE HAD TO FILL THE TABLE AND SHE LOVED

AND ENJOYED JEANNETTE JAWORSKI SO SHE ADDED AS THE LAST








COUPLE AT OUR TABLE JEANETTE JAWORSKI AND HER SPOUSE.


WHEN OUR GUESTS ARRIVED AND LOOKED AT OUR


TABLE THEY WERE AGOG AND INTRIGUED!


WORK OUT?


HOW WOULD THIS


WOULD THIS SEATING ARRANGEMENT ON THIS DAY


OF ALL DAYS BE A TREMENDOUS EMBARRASSMENT TO THE CHIEF


JUSTICE -- AND TO THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR?


HOW COULD


CHESTERFIELD AND VIVIAN HAVE FAILED TO BE SENSITIVE TO


SUCH A SITUATION?

EMBROGLIO WORK OUT?


HOW WOULD THIS POTENTIAL ETHICAL


THEIR QUESTIONS SOON WERE ANSWERED,


AT AN


APPROPRIATE TIME I CALLED ON THE CHIEF JUSTICE FOR


REMARKS.


WONDERFUL WARM AND CHARMING HUMAN BEING


THAT HE IS HE MADE A FEW. LIGHT PLEASANT STATEMENTS OF


-5-









GREETINGS -- TOLD ABOUT HIS PLEASURE OVER PAST MONTHS AS


HE HAD WATCHED MRS, CHILES CREATE AS THE SUPREME COURT'S


NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR FLORIDA HOUSE AND THEN TO THE

COMPLETE DELIGHT OF ALL ASSEMBLED HE SAID:


"I ALSO AM VERY PLEASED AND HONORED TO BE

SEATED AT THE TABLE WITH MY GOOD FRIEND LEON JAWORSKI.

WHILE I HAVEN'T SEEN HIM MUCH LATELY JUST TODAY I HEARD


THAT HE WAS IN TOWN,"

LEON JAWORSKI CERTAINLY WAS IN TOWN -- AS ALL


AMERICANS DISCOVERED.


PERHAPS IT WOULD SUFFICE IF I SIMPLY


STATED THAT TONIGHT LEON JAWORSKI IS IN TOWN AGAIN -- AS


THE SPEAKER AT THE FLORIDA BLUE KEY BANQUET.


BUT IT IS MY


PERSONAL PRIVILEGE TO SAY MORE -- AND I SHALL EXERCISE IT.


-6-








WHY?


BECAUSE I AS A FLORIDIAN AM PROUD TO PARTICIPATE

IN AN OCCASION WHICH BRINGS TO YOU AS A SPEAKER A


GREAT AMERICAN MY DEAR FRIEND LEON JAWORSKI A MAN


REVERED IN HIS ACHIEVEMENTS ACCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THIS


AGAIN HEALTHY NATION AND CHERISHED BY THOSE WHO KNOW

HIM BEST -- ABOVE AND BEYOND ALL OTHER THINGS -- AS A GREAT

TRIAL LAWYER WHO EMBODIES WHAT I PERSONALLY BELIEVE TO BE


THE SOUL THE IDEAL -- OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION,

CERTAINLY LEON JAWORSKI IS AND LONG HAS BEEN -


A GIANT IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION -- HIS VERSATILE AND


BRILLIANT CAREER AS A TRIAL LAWYER HAS TOUCHED AND ENHANCED


THE LIVES OF ALL PEOPLES IN THIS NATION.


HE HAS BEEN AN


-7-









INSPIRATIONAL LEADER OF THE ORGANIZED BAR SERVING AS


PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION THE HOUSTON


BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS.


HE HAS BEEN


A BRILLIANT PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL


LAWYERS LEADER IN THE AMERICAN JUDICATURE SOCIETY THE


AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE THE AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION THE

SOUTHWESTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION AND INDEED HE HAS HELPED

SHAPE THE CURRENT DIRECTION OF VIRTUALLY EVERY OTHER


IMPORTANT NATIONAL LEGAL ORGANIZATION.


HE BUILT ONE OF


THE GREAT LAW FIRMS IN THE COUNTRY WHICH INCIDENTALLY IS


ALSO AMONG THE NATION'S LARGEST AND MOST PROSPEROUS.


HIS


PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS HAVE BEEN

MULTITUDINOUS -- INCLUDING SERVICE AS THE CHIEF WAR CRIMES


-8-








PROSECUTOR AT NURENBURG AT THE END OF WORLD WAR II AS

A MEMBER OF PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS ON CRIME AND VIOLENCE -

AS THE U. S. MEMBER OF THE PERMANENT (INTERNATIONAL )

COURT OF ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE AS A SPECIAL ASSISTANT

AND COUNSEL AT VARIOUS TIMES TO BOTH THE UNITED STATES


ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL.


BUT HE


HAS NEVER STOPPED HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WHILE MOST OF THOSE IN HIS LEAGUE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT AND

HIS STATE OF EMINENCE WOULD HAVE NOW ACCEPTED A LIFE OF EASE -

HE JUST RECENTLY TOOK ON AN ASSIGNMENT WITH THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES TO GUIDE AND DIRECT ITS EFFORTS TO UNRAVEL

THE CURRENT CONGRESSIONAL MESS AND ETHICAL DILEMMA COMMONLY


HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DIFFICULT


CALLED "KOREAGATE".









RESPONSIBILITY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC

ACCEPTABLLITY OF THE CONGRESS IS BUT ANOTHER INDICATION

OF THE BREADTH AND DEPTH OF HIS COMMITMENT TO OUR SYSTEM

OF GOVERNMENT AND JUSTICE.


INDEED AS A TRIAL LAWYER MYSELF I KNOW QUITE

WELL THAT THE DIGNITY SCHOLARSHIP AND PROFESSIONALISM

THAT THIS MAN HAS BROUGHT TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT -

WHETHER THAT CLIENT BE THE PUBLIC OR AN INDIVIDUAL A

PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT HAS BEEN AN UNPARALLELED PUBLIC

BOOST TO LAWYERS EVERYWHERE.

SO TO WIND UP THE CLOCK TO PUT THIS HAPPY


SONG TO AN END I PRESENT TO YOU LEON JAWORSKI A MAN

WHO EMBODIES THE VERY BEST QUALITIES OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION.


-10-









IF I HAD TO SINGLE OUT ONE INDIVIDUAL AND SAY "THIS IS A


LAWYER -- THIS IS EXACTLY THE WAY A LAWYER SHOULD BE." -


MY PICK WOULD BE LEON JAWORSKI.


LEON JAWORSKI THE


GREAT TEXAS TRIAL LAWYER WHO PROVED CONCLUSIVELY TO THE


WORLD IN OUR OWN TIME THAT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

THE HIGHEST PERSON IS NOT ABOVE THE PEOPLE THE HUMBLEST IS


NOT BELOW THE PEOPLE,


-11-







SPEECHES OF CHESTERFIELD SMITH



SPEECH NUMBER 185


VOLUME XIII




if


ADDRESS OF:


DATE:


PLACE:


CHESTERFIELD SMITH
LAWYER
LAKELAND, FLORIDA


WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1977
7:00 P.M.


PINELLAS TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
ANNUAL INSTALLATION DINNER
PAPPAS RESTAURANT
TARPON SPRINGS, FLORIDA


TWENTY MINUTES


TIME:








IT IS A PERSONAL PRIVILEGE ALWAYS TO SPEAK TO

THE TRIAL BAR THE ELITE OF MY PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES.

THERE IS A DEEP SATISFACTION IN BEING A TRIAL LAWYER.

THERE ARE MANY OF US WHO CONSIDER IT THE MOST DEMANDING


ASPECT OF THE NOBLEST OF PROFESSIONS.


WHILE IT IS A


MOST BURDENSOME FIELD OF ENDEAVOR THE REWARDS TO THE


DILIGENT TRIAL LAWYER REMAINS SUBSTANTIAL.


EVERYDAY -


OUR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS FACED WITH SERIOUS PERSONAL

PROBLEMS SEEK OUT TRIAL LAWYERS AND ALMOST WITHOUT

THOUGHT ENTRUST THEM WITH THEIR PROPERTY WITH THEIR


FREEDOM AND EVEN WITH THEIR LIFE,


THAT TRUST SO


ROUTINELY IMPOSED ON TRIAL LAWYERS BY OTHERS IN MY

PERSONAL BUT ADMITTEDLY BIASED OPINION MAKE TRIAL LAWYERS








A DISTINCTIVE GROUP.


ADMITTEDLY THE TRIAL LAWYER HISTORICALLY HAS


BEEN MALIGNED AND ABUSED,


ANY DEFENSE ON MY PART IS


OBVIOUSLY SELF-SERVING BUT MOST OF THAT CRITICISM IS


NOT WELL-FOUNDED.


MY PERSONAL POSITION WAS EXPRESSED


WELL BY HARRISON TWEED OF THE NEW YORK BAR WHEN HE SAID


ABOUT ALL LAWYERS:


"I HAVE A HIGH OPINION OF LAWYERS.


WITH ALL THEIR FAULTS THEY ARE BETTER TO WORK


WITH OR PLAY WITH OR FIGHT WITH OR DRINK WITH THAN


ANY OTHER VARIETY OF MANKIND."


WHILE I AGREE THAT THE


SENTIMENT CAN BE APPLIED TO LAWYERS GENERALLY IT IN MY


JUDGMENT APPLIES WITH EMPHASIS TO LEGAL ADVOCATES -


TO TRIAL LAWYERS.


-2-








LET ME GIVE A FEW HIGHLIGHTS OF THAT AGE-OLD ABUSE


BY THOSE WHO HISTORICALLY HAVE DELIGHTED IN JUMPING LAWYERS:


IN UTOPIA. THOMAS MORE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED


THAT THERE WOULD BE NO LAWYERS. GEORGE WASHINGTON'S !ILL

PROVIDED THAT DISPUTES ARISING THEREUNDER WOULD BE RESOLVED


BY THREE ARBITRATORS "WHO WOULD NOT HEAR LAWYERS,"


RHODE


ISLAND WHILE A COLONY PROHIBITED LAWYERS FROM SERVING IN


ITS LEGISLATURE,


THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ILLINOIS GRANGE


OF 1872 PROVIDED THAT ANYONE COULD BE A MEMBER IN THE


ILLINOIS GRANGE EXCEPT ACTORS GAMBLERS AND LAWYERS.


PROBABLY THE BEST PUBLICIZED CRITICISM OF OUR


PROFESSION IS FOUND IN CARL SANDBURG'S POEM WHEREIN HE


SAID:


-3-








"---WHEN THE LAWYERS ARE THROUGH


WHAT IS THERE LEFT, BOB?
CAN A MOUSE NIBBLE AT IT
AND FIND ENOUGH TO FASTEN A TOOTH IN?

"WHY IS THERE ALWAYS A SECRET SINGING
WHEN A LAWYER CASHES IN?

"WHY DOES A HEARSE HORSE SNICKER
HAULING A LAWYER AWAY?"

HOW MUCH OF THE PUBLIC'S CRITICISM IS JUSTIFIED?


NO CANDID PERSON COULD DENY THAT ON OCCASION CERTAIN

INDIVIDUAL LAWYERS BOTH TRIAL AND OTHERWISE FAIL TO

MEASURE UP TO RECOGNIZED PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS. IF

THIS WERE NOT THE FACT THE ORGANIZED BAR WOULD NOT SPEND

MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF


LAWYER HOURS EACH YEAR IN DISCIPLINARY PROGRAMS.


IN FACT -


HOWEVER-THE DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY A SMALL









PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAWYER POPULATION.


WHEN WE LOOK AT THE MORE REPRESENTATIVE SIDE OF


THE LEGAL PROFESSION NO OTHER CALLING APPROACHES IN


NUMBERS OR PERCENTAGE THE PARTICIPATION BY LAWYERS IN


COMMUNITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

OUR STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE HIGHLY POPULATED W1ITH


LAWYERS,


OVER ONE-HALF OF THE GOVERNORS WHO HAVE SERVED


IN THE LAST 100 YEARS IN THE VARIOUS STATES HAVE BEEN LAWYERS,

PROBABLY TO A GREATER EXTENT OUR FEDERAL GOVERN-


MENT IS MANNED BY LAWYERS IN THE HIGHEST OFFICES AVAILABLE


TO OUR CITIZENS.


TWENTY-FOUR OUT OF THE THIRTY-EIGHT


PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE BEEN LAWYERS.


ABOUT


SIXTY PERCENT OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND CONGRESS ARE


-5-








REGULARLY MADE UP OF LAWYERS.


IN ADDITION TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE ASPECTS THERE


IS NOT ANOTHER PROFESSION WHERE THE FINEST OF ITS MEMBERS


SPEND AS MUCH TIME EDUCATING THEIR COMPETITION.


ALL OF


US WELL KNOW THAT THE MOST PRODUCTIVE TRIAL LAWYERS ARE


CONTINUALLY CALLED UPON TO WRITE AND TO LECTURE IN CONTINUING


LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS,


THOSE TRIAL LAWYERS SPEND


VALUABLE HOURS THAT OTHERWISE COULD BE CHARGEABLE TO CLIENTS


FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHER LAWYERS WHO SEEK TO IMPROVE THEIR


OWN LEGAL ABILITIES.


PROFESSIONAL EXCELLENCE IS ESSENTIAL BUT IT ALONE


CAN NEVER BE ENOUGH FOR THOSE TRIAL LAWYERS WHO POSSESS THE


TRADITIONAL IDEALS TO NHICH ALL GREAT LAWYERS HISTORICALLY


-6-








INVOLVEMENT IN BAR ACTIVITIES IMPROVE-


MENT IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ENHANCEMENT

OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND MODERNIZATION OF THE LAWS

THAT GOVERN OUR STATE AND COUNTRY ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT,

ABOVE ALL LAWYERS MUST TAKE ALL POSSIBLE MEANS TO ESTABLISH

A RECOGNITION IN OUR CITIZENS THAT THE RULE OF LAW IS NOT


SYNONOMOUS WITH THE STATUS QUO.


A COMMITMENT BY CITIZENS


TO OBEY LAW AND RESPECT ORDER WILL COME ONLY WHEN THEY ARE

CONVINCED THAT RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS ARE DOING THEIR UTMOST


TO REMOVE INEQUITIES AND INADEQUACIES IN THE LAW.


TRIAL


LAWYERS SHOULD DEVELOP IF THEY DO NOT HAVE AN UNRESTRICTED


WILLINGNESS TO BECOME INVOLVED IN THESE ENDEAVORS.


THAT


WAS AND MUST BE THE CONSEQUENCE OF OUR INDIVIDUAL ACCEPTANCE


HAVE ASPIRED.








OF THE MONPOLISTIC PRIVILEGE GRANTED TO US TO ACT AS THE

ADVOCATE OF OTHERS.

IF EACH PERSON WHO IS IN TRIAL PRACTICE WOULD

ASSUME AND DISCHARGE HIS OR HER INDIVIDUAL SHARE OF OUR

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY -- THERE REALLY IS NO

LIMIT TO WHAT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE FORESEEABLE

FUTURE TO IMPROVE THE ADVERSARY SYSTEM OF JUSTICE TO THE


LONG RANGE GOOD OF BOTH LAWYERS AND THE PUBLIC.


AND


I THINK THAT ON AN EVER ACCELERATING BASIS MOST OF THEM


DO -- OR WILL.


INDEED IT SEEMS TO ME THAT BOTH LAWYERS


AND THE ORGANIZED BAR REALLY ARE GETTING BETTER AND BETTER --

AND IT HAS BEEN BOTH FUN AND SATISFYING TO WATCH THEIR

EVOLVING ATTITUDE TO SOCIETAL PROBLEMS PARTICULARLY THOSE








TYPE PROBLEMS WHICH ONLY A FEW YEARS AGO WERE IN THE MAIN


IGNORED.


HOWEVER OF IMMEDIATE SIGNIFICANCE TO THE LEGAL


PROFESSION ARE THE CHANGES NOW UNDERWAY IN ITS REGULATION.


IN RECENT DECISIONS AND IT SEEMS TO ME ALMOST INEVITABLY


IN THE DECISIONS SOON TO COME THE SUPREME COURT OF THE


UNITED STATES HAS UNDERTAKEN A GROWING ROLE IN SUPERVISING


THE PRACTICE OF LAW -- AND CLEARLY SO DESPITE ITS DISCLAIMERS.


THE STATE DOES OF COURSE HAVE A LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN


SEEING THAT THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER HAS THE REQUISITE SKILLS


OF A LAWYER.


THE STATE TOO MUST INSURE THAT SUCH LAWYER


IS SUBJECT TO PROFESSIONAL CONTROLS,


EVEN SO IN ALL


HONESTY IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT IN MAY AREAS THE STATES


-9-








TRADITIONALLY HAVE REGULATED THE PRACTICE OF LAW WITHIN


THEIR BORDERS SO AS TO PRESERVE THE PROFESSIONAL STATUS QUO.


BUT AS I SEE IT CHANGE IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION IS WITH

US AND EVEN MORE DRASTIC CHANGE IS COMING.


UNTIL JUST 12 YEARS AGO A LAWYER IN PENNSYLVANIA


WAS RESTRICTED IN PRACTICE TO THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF ONE


COUNTY.


THE CHANGE TO STATEWIDE PRACTICE WAS BITTERLY


DEBATED OVER A TWENTY-FIVE YEAR PERIOD UNTIL FINALLY THE


CHANGES WERE MADE BY COURT RULE.


RELATED OR SIMILAR


CHANGES ON THE NATIONAL SCENE ARE HERE -- OR AT LEAST


ABOUT TO BE HERE,


AS A MATTER OF PRACTICAL FACT -


WE LONG HAVE HAD A DE FACTO NATIONAL MIGRATORY PRACTICE -


PARTICULARLY SO IN THE TRIAL BAR,


LARGE LAW FIRMS DO


-10-








REGULARLY SEND LAWYERS ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES TO HANDLE


DISCOVERY TO TRY ANTITRUST CASES TO CONSUMMATE A

FINANCING OR SECURITIES ISSUE TO NEGOTIATE A LABOR

CONTRACT TO ARRANGE FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND OR COMPANIES -

TRULY TO HANDLE PRACTICALLY ANYTHING EMBRACED IN THE TOTAL


SPECTRUM OF LAW PRACTICE.


ALTHOUGH MANY CONTINUE TO PAY


LIP SERVICE TO THE RULE THAT A LAWYER IS A LAWYER ONLY IN

HIS OR HER NATIVE STATE AND IS A LAYMAN AS SOON AS HE OR

SHE CROSSES THE BORDERS OF THAT STATE THAT RULE DEFINITELY

IS FADING AWAY -- AS IT MUST.

INDEED I SUGGEST THAT PRESENT ADMISSION RULES


ARE AN INTOLERABLE RESTRICTION ON THE INTERSTATE PRACTICE OF

LAW AND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEEDED LARGE NATIONAL LAW FIRMS.


-11-








HISTORICALLY THIS STURDY NATION HAS RESISTED


MOST ATTEMPTS BY THE SEVERAL STATES TO THWART THE CONCEPT

THAT OUR ECONOMIC UNIT IS THE NATION AND ITS COROLLARY


THAT THE STATES ARE NOT SEPARABLE ECONOMIC UNITS.


PERHAPS


ONE MAJOR EXCEPTION HAS BEEN STATE BARRIERS TO THE INTERSTATE


PRACTICE OF THE PROFESSIONS AND PARTICULARLY THE PRACTICE


OF LAW STATE BARRIERS ERECTED AGAINST NON-RESIDENT LAWYERS


SEEKING ADMISSION TO PRACTICE IN A STATE WITHOUT ANY DETERMINATION

BY THAT STATE OF WHETHER THEY ARE BETTER OR WORSE THAN THOSE


INTRA-STATE LAWYERS ALREADY THERE.


I SUGGEST THAT MOST WHO ADVANCE STATE BARRIERS


TO OUT-OF-STATE LAWYER ADMISSION HAVE DONE SO PRIMARILY FOR


ONE REASON:


TO DISCOURAGE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THE


ENTRANCE OF OUT-OF-STATE ATTORNEYS IN ORDER THAT THE IN-


-12-









STATE LAWYERS DO NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL COMPETITION.


NOT THE CONSUMING PUBLIC WHICH SEEKS THOSE STATE BARRIERS,


THEY COULD CARE LESS.


I AM QUITE CONVINCED MYSELF THAT


THOSE EXCLUSIONARY RULES WERE BOTH INITIATED AND ARE MAIN-

TAINED BY LAWYERS BY THE ORGANIZED BAR A GROUP INTERESTED

IN PRESERVATION WITHOUT CHANGE OF THEIR ECONOMIC MONOPOLY,

OF COURSE THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION FOR AN ATTORNEY


WISHING TO DO BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STATE IS TO BECOME A


MEMBER OF THAT STATE'S BAR.


BUT EVEN FOR A LAWYER WHO


WANTS THEREAFTER TO CONCENTRATE HIS OR HER PRACTICE IN THAT

STATE LONG AND EXPENSIVE PROCEDURES ARE INVOLVED WHICH IN


MANY IF NOT MOST INSTANCES MAKE THAT ADMISSION IMPRACTICAL. FOR

THE LAWYER WHOSE BASIC PRACTICE WILL REMAIN OUTSIDE THAT STATE -


-13-


IT IS








OR WHO BECAUSE OF CLIENT DEMAND WANTS TO PRACTICE IN MULTIPLE

STATES ADMISSION BECOMES ALMOST A PRACTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.


STATE BARRIERS TO ADMISSION REALLY DESIGNED TO REDUCE


COMPETITION CANNOT LONGER BE PERMITTED UNDER THE GUISE THAT

THE ORGANIZED BAR IS ONLY TRYING TO IMPROVE STANDARDS IN


THE LEGAL PROFESSION.


DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES DICTATE


THAT STATE BARRIERS SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO STAND ONLY IF


ESSENTIAL TO THE REGULATION OF A PROPER STATE INTEREST -

SUCH AS THAT INDIVIDUAL'S ABILITY TO RENDER WITHIN THAT STATE


ADEQUATE AND ETHICAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

IN EVERY AREA OF THE-LAW PRACTICE THERE IS AN


EVER INCREASING NEED FOR THE BROADENING NOT THE NARROWING -


OF THE RIGHT OF INTERSTATE PRACTICE,


LARGE NATIONAL LAW


-14-








FIRMS ALMOST INEVITABLY WILL SOON BE COMMONPLACE.


FACT THEY ALREADY ARE IN OUR LARGER CITIES.


A LEADER IN THE MULTI-OFFICE PRACTICE OF LAW.


FLORIDA IS

IT IS TRUE


THAT COURTS -AND ETHICS COMMITTEES CONFRONTED IN RECENT

YEARS WITH HARD DETERMINATIONS IN ACCOMMODATING MODERN


INTERSTATE PRACTICE WITH TRADITIONAL ETHICAL POSITIONS


FORMULATED FOR THE OLD IMMOBILE COUNTY-SEAT PRACTITIONER -


HAVE GENERALLY WORKED THEM OUT DELICATELY YET PROGRESSIVELY.


BUT AN EXPLOSIVE UNRESOLVABLE ADVERSARY ISSUE IN WHICH A

STATE TRIES UNREASONABLY TO RESTRICT THE INTERSTATE PRACTICE


OF LAW MUST SOON ARISE -- IT WON'T ALWAYS GO AWAY,


WHEN


IT DOES COME IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE LONG RANGE ECONOMIC


VIABILITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION DEMANDS THAT ONLY A


-15-







DEMONSTRABLE STATE-INTEREST CLEARLY OUTWEIGHING THE

BENEFITS OF A FREE FLOW OF INTERSTATE LEGAL SERVICES BE


ACCEPTABLE CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR A STATE RULE CHILLING

OR INHIBITING IN ANY WAY THE INTERSTATE PRACTICE OF LAW -

BY EITHER AN INDIVIDUAL NON-RESIDENT LAWYER OR BY A LAW FIRM


FROM OUT-OF-STATE,


I ALSO SUGGEST THAT IT IS IN THE INTEREST


OF THE NATION AND THE CONSUMERS OF LEGAL SERVICES OF THAT

NATION THAT THOSE LAWYERS INTERESTED IN INTERSTATE PRACTICE

NOW EMPLOY IN THE LEGISLATURES THE COURTS AND ELSEWHERE


ALL AVAILABLE MEANS NECESSARY TO REDUCE THOSE STATE BARRIERS.

LAW REFORM COMES IN MANY HATS AND MANY COLORS BUT LAW

REFORM THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY CHANGE IS THE

AMERICAN WAY WHEN BY ABUSES ONE STATE REPEATEDLY CAUSES HARM


TO CITIZENS IN OTHER STATES,


THOUGH THE LAWYERS IN ONE


-16-








STATE MIGHT TEMPORARILY BENEFIT FROM STANDING ALONE AND


SHUTTING OUT ALL OTHERS THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN THE LONG

RUN MUST FIND ITS ECONOMIC PROSPERITY IN NATIONAL UNION AND

NOT IN STATE DIVISION AND SELF INTEREST DICTATES THAT LAW

REFORM ON INTERSTATE BAR ADMISSIONS ORIGINATE WITHIN OUR OWN


RANKS.


AS THE WORLD BECOMES SMALLER AND INTERSTATE LEGAL


ACTIVITY INCREASES EACH STATE MUST DESIGN WAYS TO ALLOW QUALI-

FIED AND EXPERIENCED LAWYERS OF APPROVED CHARACTER AND UNDER

PROPER REGULATION TO PRACTICE LAW EVERYWHERE AND ANYWHERE


WITHIN OUR ECONOMICALLY INDIVISABLE NATION.


PERHAPS


CREATION OF A NATIONWIDE LEGAL PROFESSION BY FEDERAL LAW


IS AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION.


THE SUPREME COURT TOO COULD


DO THE JOB ON RECALCITRANT STATES UNDER OUR TRADITIONALLY


-17-








EVOLVING CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT BY DECLARING THAT UNDER


EXISTING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS INTERSTATE PRACTICE IS CON-

STITUTIONALLY MANDATED I PERSONALLY HOPE FOR THAT DECISION

SOON BUTTRESSED EITHER BY BALANCING STATE AND FEDERAL


GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST UNDER DUE PROCESS OR EQUAL PROTECTION -


OR UNDER THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL RIGHT TO PETITION RIGHT OF

FREE ASSOCIATION AND RIGHT OF POLITICAL EXPRESSION CLAUSES -


OR UNDER THE GUARANTEE THAT PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF


OUR CITIZENS WILL NOT BE INFRINGED OR UNDER THE SUPREMACY

CLAUSE TO PROTECT FEDERALLY CREATED RIGHTS OR BY ANY OTHER

CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE WHICH PRESERVES THE NATION


AS A WHOLE AS THE PROPER ECONOMIC UNIT FOR THE PRACTICE


OF LAW.


WHEN ONE STATE FOR THE ECONOMIC


-18-








PROTECTION OF ITS IN-STATE LAWYERS CAN REFUSE TO GIVE FULL

FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE ORDER OF A COURT OF LAST RESORT OF

A SISTER STATE FINDING A PERSON QUALIFIED TO PRACTICE LAW -


THE ABILITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION TO SERVE ITS NATIONAL

CLIENTS ADEQUATELY JUST HAS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY AND GRAVELY

IMPAIRED AND THAT STATE BY ITS ACTS JUST HAS TO HAVE

CHILLED THE FREE FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

I AM CONVINCED THAT ALL LEGITIMATE INTEREST OF

A STATE IN INTERSTATE BAR ADMISSIONS CAN BE PROTECTED

AND STILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE RIGHT OF ITS CITIZENS


AND THE CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES TO UTILIZE THE SERVICES

WITHIN THAT STATE OF A COMPETITIVE BUT QUALIFIED LAWYER


FROM ELSEWHERE.


IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME TO ARGUE


-19-








THAT EACH STATE MUST HAVE DIFFERENT RULES ON BAR ADMISSIONS


SO THAT STATE CAN MAINTAIN MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR ITS LEGAL


PROFESSION.


I SUBMIT THAT IT IS NOW TIMELY FOR THE


SEVERAL STATES TO ADOPT CONSISTENT APPROACHES UNIFORM

LAWS AS THEY HAVE DONE IN SO MANY OTHER AREAS WHICH WILL


ALLOW NON-RESIDENT QUALIFIED LAWYERS OF APPROVED CHARACTER


AND UNDER PROPER REGULATION TO PRACTICE INTER-STATE LAW,


BUT OF COURSE THAT IS A MOST CONTROVERSIAL POSITION -


AND CERTAINLY I DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE ORGANIZED BAR ON IT -


NOR DO I SPEAK FOR ANYONE EXCEPT MYSELF,


ACKNOWLEDGING


THAT AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE LAWYERS OF FLORIDA -


AND ELSEWHERE DO NOT AGREE WITH ME I STILL STRONGLY


REITERATE MY BELIEF THAT THE SELF-SERVING ACTIVITIES


-20-








OF LAWYERS IN CHILLING INTERSTATE BAR ADMISSIONS IS OBVIOUSLY

IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH BOTH THEIR EXISTING AND LONG-RANGE


ECONOMIC INTERESTS.


AS AN ASIDE I ALSO SHOULD OBSERVE


THAT LAY MEMBERSHIP ON STATE BAR ADMISSIONS BOARDS JUST


MAKES SENSE TO ME.


AS LONG AS THE ADMITTORS ARE


INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THOSE THEY ADMIT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE

TO TELL WHEN THE PUBLIC INTEREST STOPS AND SELF-INTEREST


BEGINS,


SINCE I BELIEVE THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE


PUBLIC INTEREST FOR LAWYERS TO RETAIN AT LEAST SOME MEASURE

OF SELF-REGULATORY ABILITY I HOPE THAT THE ORGANIZED BAR

ITSELF SOON HILL INSIST THAT BOTH LAY PERSONS AND LAWYERS

PROMPTLY BE PLACED ON ALL STATE BAR ADMISSIONS BOARDS.

LET ME CONCLUDE BY SAYING THAT THE LITIGATION


-21-








EXPLOSION THROUGHOUT OUR NATION IS REAL IT IS A CURRENT


AND BURGEONING PHENOMENON IT IS WITH US TO STAY,


WHETHER


WE CHOOSE TO ADMIT IT OR NOT THE DEMAND FOR TRIAL LAWYERS


CONTINUES TO EXCEED THE SUPPLY


- AND I PERSONALLY THINK THAT


SUCH DEMAND IS ACCELERATING AND THAT IT WILL NEVER


MATERIALLY LESSEN.


WHY? BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE WRONGS


THAN REMEDIES AND TRIAL LAWYERS ARE SOCIETY'S PROBLEM-


SOLVERS.


UNDOUBTEDLY THERE WILL CONTINUE TO BE PROBLEMS


IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TRIAL LAWYER POPULATION -- IN


THE ECONOMIC AVAILABILITY OF AN EXPERT TRIAL LAWYER TO MANY

CITIZENS OF LIMITED OR MODERATE MEANS AND IN THE DELIVERY

OF TRIAL SERVICES BY LAWYERS AND THE VARYING AND DISPARATE


STRUCTURES WHICH THE ORGANIZED BAR NOW PROVIDES FOR THAT


-22-








DELIVERY EVEN SO MY EXPERIENCES INDICATE THAT THE

PEOPLE'S DEMANDS TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH HIS OR HER


NEIGHBOR AND GOVERNMENT BY ADVERSARY LITIGATION ARE SUCH


THAT THERE APPEARS TO ME TO BE LITTLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE

SUPPLY OF TRIAL LAWYERS WILL EVER IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE


EXCEED THE MINIMUM DEMAND FOR THEIR SERVICES,


ESPECIALLY


SO IT SEEMS TO ME IS THIS TRUE BECAUSE THE EXPERIENCED


AND PROFICIENT TRIAL LAWYER FACES LITTLE IF ANY -


COMPETITION AS AN ADVOCATE FOR OTHERS FROM THOSE IN OTHER


CALLINGS OR PROFESSIONS WHO SELL PERSONAL SERVICES TO THE


GENERAL PUBLIC.


PERHAPS IT IS FIT AND PROPER AND TIMELY ALTHOUGH


ADMITTEDLY BIASED FOR ME AT THIS AFFAIR TO REITERATE JUST


-23-








HOW GRATIFYING AND PLEASING IT HAS BEEN TO ME TO BE A


TRIAL LAWYER.


OVER THE YEARS I HAVE FOUND THAT MY


FELLOW TRIAL LAWYERS ARE USUALLY FINE PEOPLE AND AS A


RULE EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD CITIZENS.


TRIAL LAWYERS -


THUS ENJOY THROUGHOUT THEIR PROFESSIONAL LIFE ASSOCIATING


WITH PROFESSIONAL PEERS BOTH KNOWLEDGEABLE AND LIKEABLE,


I HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT HE OR SHE WHO SERVES AS A PROFESSIONAL


ADVOCATE HAS AN ELITE CALLING AS THE SENIOR LAWYER IN


A LARGE GENERAL PRACTICE LAW FIRM EMBRACING ALL KNOWN LEGAL


SPECIALITIES I CONFIDENTLY ASSERT THAT TRIAL LAWYERS ARE THE

VERY BEST LAWYERS -- THE VERY BEST,

(THANK YOU.)


-24-







SPEECHES OF CHESTERFIELD SMITH


SPEECH NUMBER 186


VOLUME XIII









REMARKS BY:








BEFORE:






PLACE:


CHESTERFIELD SMITH
LAWYER
LAKELAND, FLORIDA





NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
LEGAL SERVICES AND THE PUBLIC





GRAND BALLROOM, MEZZANINE LEVEL
FAIRMONT HOTEL
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA


DATE:


SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1977
12:30 P.M. 2:30 P.M.


THIRTY MINUTES


TIME:








SINCE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSORTIUM ON LEGAL

SERVICES AND THE PUBLIC BY THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION IN

1973 THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ORGANIZED BAR AS A WHOLE AND

AND THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION IN PARTICULAR IN PROMOTING

GREATER AVAILABILITY AND BETTER DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES

HAVE BEEN PERSONALLY GRATIFYING TO ME IN BOTH DIVERSITY

AND INTENSITY.

I COULD EASILY TODAY ENUMERATE THOSE ACTIVITIES -


TELLING YOU WHAT I THINK TO BE GOOD OR BAD.


BUT INSTEAD -


I CHOSE ANOTHER ROUTE PERHAPS BECAUSE I THINK IT BETTER

THAN MAKING A LAUNDRY LIST OF SUCCESSFUL OR UNSUCCESSFUL

EFFORTS AND PERHAPS BECAUSE I COVET THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ADVANCE

TO THIS PARTICULARLY KNOWLEDGEABLE GROUP A PET IDEA OF MINE.








IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY ESTIMATED THAT AT LEAST


70% OF MIDDLE INCOME AMERICANS ARE NOT NOW ADEQUATELY SERVED


BY LAWYERS.


IT HAS ALSO BEEN ESTIMATED THAT ONLY ABOUT


ONE OUT OF SEVEN POOR OR INDIGENT AMERICANS RECEIVES LEGAL


SERVICES.


BOTH ESTIMATES APPEAR TO ME TO BE TOO LOW -


CERTAINLY THEY ARE CONSERVATIVE.


PERHAPS THE RICH ARE WELL REPRESENTED BY LAWYERS -


ALTHOUGH EVEN THERE I AM NOT CERTAIN.


WHILE MANY SUGGEST


THAT THE ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM HAS BEEN STRUCTURED ONLY TO


PROVIDE LEGAL CARE FOR THE WEALTHY.


I PERSONALLY DOUBT


THAT EVEN THE WEALTHIEST OF INDIVIDUALS FEEL THAT THE MEANS -


THE MECHANISMS FOR THE DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES OF GOOD


QUALITY AT REASONABLE PRICES ARE READILY ACCESSIBLE TO THEM,


-2-








BUT ASSUMING THAT THE RICH ARE WELL SERVED BY


LAWYERS BY COMMON ESTIMATE THERE STILL ARE MORE THAN

150000J000 AMERICANS NEITHER RICH ENOUGH TO AFFORD PRIVATE


ATTORNEYS NOR POOR ENOUGH TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR GOVERNMENT


LEGAL ASSISTANCE,


THERE ARE MILLIONS MORE ENTITLED TO


LEGAL AID WHO DO NOT GET IT BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT


LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM READILY AVAILABLE TO THEM.


CONSUMERS ARE UNDERSTANDABLY PRESSING FOR

MORE RAPID DEVELOPMENTS IN THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE LEGAL

PROFESSION AND THE MEANS AND METHODS WHEREBY LAWYERS'


SERVICES ARE DELIVERED.


THEY SEEK GREATER INVOLVEMENT


OF LAY REPRESENTATIVES IN MONITORING LAW PRACTICE.


MEAN-


WHILE THE ORGANIZED BAR HAS HELD BACK BECAUSE OF TRADITIONAL


-3-








DOCTRINES ABOUT REPRESENTATION OF CLIENTS ONE AT A TIME -

ONLY BY LAWYERS AND WITHOUT DISSEMINATION OF PUBLIC

INFORMATION ABOUT WHEN A LAWYER MIGHT BE HELPFUL AND WHICH


ONE TO CHOOSE FOR THAT HELP.


BUT THERE IS NOW INCREASING


RECOGNITION AT A GEOMETRICALLY ACCELERATING RATE BY

COMMUNITY LEADERS AND BY THE ORGANIZED BAR OF THE UNMET NEED

FOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE VAST NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HERETO-


FORE HAVE NOT HAD READY ACCESS TO LEGAL SERVICES,


LEGAL


INSTITUTIONS MUST CHANGE AND GOVERNMENT MUST PROVIDE A

HELPING HAND BY SUBSTANTIALLY ENHANCING IN ALL FEASIBLE WAYS

ACCESSIBILITY TO THE COURTS OR OTHER DISPUTE RESOLVING

MECHANISMS BY BOTH THE POOR AND OTHERS NOW GENERALLY FOR

ECONOMIC REASONS EITHER UN-REPRESENTED OR UNDER-REPRESENTED

THERE.









I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF


LAWYERS ON BOARDS CONTROLLED BY LAWYERS WHICH REGULATE


THE DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES IN FACT ARE IN DIRECT

CONFLICT WITH THEIR OWN ECONOMIC INTERESTS AND THUS AS


AN INSTITUTIONAL DEVICE WHOLLY WRONG.


THE QUESTIONS AND


DIFFERENCES SO OFTEN RAISED BY NON-LAWYERS REGARDING THE


POSITION OF THE ORGANIZED BAR ON LAW REFORM AND PROFESSIONAL


RESTRUCTURING WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE ORDER OF THE DAY UNTIL

SUCH TIMES AS INDEPENDENT NON-LAWYER GOVERNORS AND RULE-MAKERS


ARE PREVELANT THROUGHOUT THE SEVERAL STATES.


WHILE IT IS MY


OBSERVATION THAT IN GENERAL LAWYERS ON LAWYER REGULATORY BOARDS


PLACE THE PUBLIC INTEREST AHEAD OF THEIR OWN LAY MEMBERSHIP ON


-5-








SUCH BOARDS STILL MAKES SENSE TO ME.


REGULATORS ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THOSE THEY REGULATE -

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL WHEN THE PUBLIC INTEREST STOPS AND


SELF-INTEREST BEGINS.


INDEED THE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT


MAY SOMETIMES BE WORSE THAN ITS REALITY.


SINCE I BELIEVE


STILL THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR


LAWYERS TO RETAIN SOME MEASURE OF SELF-REGULATORY ABILITY I

HOPE THAT THE ORGANIZED BAR ITSELF PROMPTLY WILL PLACE LAY PERSONS

WITH LAWYERS ON ALL LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICES SPECIALIZATION


BOARDS ADMISSION BOARDS LEGAL AID AND LEGAL SERVICES BOARDS -


DISCIPLINARY BODIES LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO MILITARY PERSONNEL AGENCIES -


FEE ARBITRATION SERVICES OR OTHER LAWYER GOVERNING ENTITIES.


BUT THAT IS NOT MY THRUST TODAY.


MY TARGET


-6-


AS LONG AS THE








TODAY IS NOT THE ORGANIZED LEGAL PROFESSION AS A COLLECTIVE


ENTITY IT IS THAT INDIVIDUAL LAWYER WHO DOES NOT NOW DO


ANYTHING IN A SUBSTANTIAL WAY TO DISCHARGE HIS OR HER EXISTING


PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATION THAT EACH LAWYER SHOULD WORK TO


INSURE THAT LEGAL SERVICES ARE FULLY AVAILABLE TO ALL AMERICANS.


THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY DOES OF COURSE

IMPOSE THAT PROFESSIONAL DUTY IT IS QUITE CLEARLY SET


FORTH IN THE EXISTING ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS.


BUT WHEN


THE DISCIPLINARY RULES ARE CHECKED NO MENTION OF SUCH DUTY

IS MADE NO SANCTION IS SUGGESTED FOR THOSE WHO WHOLLY FAIL


TO DISCHARGE THAT RESPONSIBILITY,


EVEN WORSE IT IS MY


PERSONAL OPINION DISCLAIMERS TO THE CONTRARY NOTHUITHSTADING -


THAT THE LARGE MASS OF LAWYERS NOW DO LITTLE IF ANYTHING


THEMSELVES TO MEET THAT OBLIGATION AND


-7-








PARTICULARLY I THINK THAT TO BE SO FOR LAWYERS IN LARGE


CITIES IN LARGE LAW FIRMS OR SPECIALITY PRACTICE. AS


AN ASIDE I ALSO HAPPEN TO BELIEVE THAT IN MOST INSTANCES


LAWYERS IN RURAL AREAS WHO PRACTICE INDIVIDUALLY OR IN

SMALL FIRMS AS GENERAL PRACTITIONERS DO MUCH BETTER -


ALTHOUGH USUALLY IN AN UNORGANIZED SPORADIC AND

UNSYSTEMIZED WAY.


BUT THE PROSPECTS FOR PROGRESS ARE PROMISING,


OUR CHALLENGE AND PRESENT OPPORTUNITY IS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE


OF CURRENT PROSPECTS TO MAXIMIZE THE PARTICIPATION BY EACH


AND EVERY LAWYER SEVERALLY IN THE DISCHARGE OF THIS


RESPONSIBILITY.


THE DREAM OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION


COLLECTIVELY MUST BE TO PROVIDE EQUAL ACCESS TO LEGAL SERVICES


-8-








WHILE AVOIDING THE NIGHTMARE OF UNCONTROLLED COSTS AND


UNEVEN QUALITY OF SERVICE.


THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IF


EACH AND EVERY LAWYER WILL DO HIS OR HER PART.


WHAT CAN THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION DO?


LEGAL SERVICES MOVEMENT ALREADY IS A REALITY.


THE


WHILE


THOUSANDS DO LITTLE OR NOTHING THERE ARE OTHER THOUSANDS


WHO PARTICIPATE IN IT ON AN ALMOST DAILY BASIS,


BUT


WITH CAREFUL NURTURING I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE


THAT THE MOVEMENT DEVELOPS FASTER YET IN AN ORDERLY AND


EFFICIENT WAY.


ADMITTEDLY BEING OVERLY SIMPLISTIC I SUBMIT

THAT THE MAJOR EFFORT OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION MUST


SIMPLY BEGIN FULLY TO IMPLEMENT THOSE GOLDEN PRINCIPLES TO


-9-







WHICH IT HAS ALREADY SUBSCRIBED.


OF THE LAWYER TO ASSIST IN MAKING LEGAL SERVICES FULLY

AVAILABLE SOMETHING ABOUT THE LEGAL PROFESSION AS A

TOTALITY AND THAT OF LAWYERS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY -


SADLY IS AMISS.


THOSE LAWYERS WHO NOW DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING


IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL WAY TO INSURE THE AVAILABILITY OF QUALITY

LEGAL SERVICES AT REASONABLE COST TO ALL AMERICANS MUST BE

MOTIVATED TO PARTICIPATE AS FULLY AS THOSE THOUSANDS WHO

ALREADY DO THEIR PART AND OFTEN EVEN MORE.

WHAT IS THE ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PROFESSIONAL


OBLIGATION OF EACH LAWYER FOR THE DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES


TO ALL?


IS IT TIME FOR EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESS BY IMPOSING


SANCTIONS ON THOSE WHO UNREASONABLY IGNORE THEIR ETHICAL DUTY?

SHOULD THOSE LAWYERS WHO AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING REFUSE TO


-10-


IF IT TRULY IS THE DUTY








DO THE PART SPECIFIED BY THEIR PEER GROUP BE DISBARRED?


I THINK YES!


THERE WILL BE OF COURSE TREMENDOUS


OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL I NOW ADVANCE.


BUT IT IS


TIMELY -- THE MECHANISM FOR EFFECTING SUCH CHANGE IS ALREADY


AVAILABLE AND WE SHOULD GO NOW.


ON AUGUST 22, 1977 -


THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AT THE INSTIGATION OF

PRESIDENT BILL SPANN CREATED A SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON


EVALUATION OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CHAIRED BY BOB KUTAK -


A WONDERFUL LAWYER FROM NEBRASKA.


THE COMMITTEE AT ITS


FIRST MEETING REACHED A CONSENSUS THAT THERE EXISTS WITHIN


THE BAR A SOMEWHAT VAGUE THOUGH WIDESPREAD APPREHENSION -

OVER THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CURRENT CODE AND ITS UTILITY -


AND SIMULTANEOUSLY THAT CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN AMONG


-11-








OTHER THINGS TO THE IMPACT OF CONSUMERISM ON THE DELIVERY


OF LEGAL SERVICES.


THE COMMITTEE AT ITS FIRST MEETING


FAILED TO RESOLVE WHETHER A STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL


RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD BE MORE MANDATORY THAN PRESENTLY IS

THE CASE OR WHETHER A "RESTATEMENT OF ETHICS" FORMAT MIGHT


BE PREFERABLE LEAVING THE FORM OF ITS FINAL REPORT TO


EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENTS.

I AM MOST HOPEFUL THAT THE COMMITTEE WILL DO A


SPLENDID AND COMPREHENSIVE JOB.


BELIEVING AS I DO THAT


ITS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ARE A FIRST-RATE GROUP INDEED -


ONE OF THE FINEST THAT COULD BE ASSEMBLED I ANTICIPATE


SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN THE PRESENT CODE AND I AM HOPEFUL


THAT ONE OF THEM WILL BE ALONG THE LINES I HERE ADVOCATE


-12-









AS I UNDERSTAND THE COMMITTEE IS HOLDING ITS SECOND MEETING

TODAY IN NEW YORK CITY.

ADMITTEDLY IT IS HARD TO MAKE A LIVING BY WORKING


FREE EVEN IF ONLY FOR A PART OF THE TIME -


AND EVEN IF


SUCH WORK IS LABELED "PRO BONO" OR "PUBLIC SERVICE" OR JUST


"PROFESSIONAL DUTY".


THAT UNDERSTANDABLY IS THE ECONOMIC


REASON THAT LAWYERS OFTEN SIDESTEP WITH RHETORIC THEIR

INDIVIDUAL OBLIGATION TO SEE THAT ALL AMERICANS HAVE AVAILABLE


TO THEM QUALITY LEGAL SERVICES.


BUT BECAUSE AMERICA AND


THE WORLD IS PASSING THROUGH AN EPOCH OF EXTRAORDINARILY

RAPID CHANGE IN ALMOST EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE I SUBMIT THAT

THE TIME HAS NOW COME FOR A RECOGNITION BY THE ORGANIZED BAR

THAT EVERY LAWYER WHO UNREASONABLY IGNORES THE PROFESSIONAL

OBLIGATION FOR AT LEAST SOME FREE PUBLIC SERVICE WARRANTS


-13-








I EMPHASIZE AS I SHALL AGAIN -


"UNREASONABLY IGNORES",

SUCH ETHICAL PROGRESSION BY THE ORGANIZED BAR IS


OBTAINABLE.


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


REFUSING TO DISCIPLINE LAWYERS FOR NEGLIGENCE.


THE


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,


-14-


PROFESSIONAL SANCTIONS.








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


OF THOSE PERSONS WHO WEAR THE LEGAL MANTLE.


IN MOST


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 AT LEAST ORALLY -

ACKNOWLEDGE SOME
-15-








RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUBLIC SERVICE BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND


COLLECTIVELY BUT THE 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


AND PUBLICLY HONORED LAWYERS HAVE DONE LITTLE OR NO FREE

PUBLIC SERVICE DONE LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DISCHARGE THEIR


INDIVIDUAL OBLIGATION TO SEE THAT LEGAL SERVICES ARE FULLY


AVAILABLE TO ALL.


CONCEIVABLY AT LEAST 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


-16-








GROUND AWAY AT THEIR CLIENTS' DEMANDS DAY AFTER DAY AND


YEAR AFTER YEAR TENDING TO THE STORE NEVER LEAVING THE


OFFICE EXCEPT TO GO TO THE BANK 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,


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 FREE PUBLIC SERVICE INCLUDING A REASONABLE PORTION OF


THAT EFFORT TO INSURING THE AVAILABILITY OF A LAWYER TO ALL


WHO NEED ONE.


IF THAT ETHICAL GOAL IS ENUNCIATED THE


-17-








DECISIONAL PROCESS NOW UNIVERSALLY UTILIZED SO SUCCESSFULLY


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 SERVICE THAT SOCIETY SHOULD RECEIVE FROM

LAWYERS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE GRANT OF THE EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE


TO PRACTICE LAW,


CERTAINLY LAWYERS HAVE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS

AND PRACTICE DEMANDS WHICH WILL PREVENT THEM FROM BEING


"EQUAL" IN THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO MAKING LEGAL SERVICES


AVAILABLE TO ALL NOW EITHER UNREPRESENTED OR UNDER-REPRESENTED,


-18-






LAWYERS OF NECESSITY MUST BE JUDGED ON THEIR SUBSCRIPTIONS

WITH A FULL RECOGNITION OF DIFFERING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER

GENERAL ASPIRATIONAL GOALS OUTLINED BY THE ORGANIZED BAR. IT


MIGHT WELL INVOLVE SOME LAWYERS MANDITORILY WORKING TO IMPROVE

THE STRUCTURES FOR 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 EMPLOY COMPETENT

COUNSEL PROVIDING COUNSEL TO MILITARY PERSONNEL WORKING

IN A LEGAL AID OFFICE OR REPRESENTING DIFFUSED INTERESTS IN


A PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS.


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


-19-








ISSUE OF MAKING QUALITY LEGAL SERVICES WIDELY AVAILABLE WILL

OF A CERTAINTY BE OF EVER INCREASING IMPORTANCE OVER THE

NEXT QUARTER CENTURY.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A LAWYER'S EFFORTS TO MEET

HIS OR HER PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO ASSIST IN MAKING

LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE TO ALL SHOULD NEVER BE EXCLUSIONARY.

THE PARAMETERS MUST BE AS BROAD AND FLEXIBLE AS THE MINDS OF


THOSE WHO WILL DISCHARGE THAT RESPONSIBILITY.


A COUNTY-


SEAT GENERAL PRACTITIONER A LAW PROFESSOR A MILITARY

LAWYER A HOUSE COUNSEL A BAR EXECUTIVE A SPECIALTY

PRACTITIONER A GOVERNMENT LAWYER A JUDGE AND A LARGE-

FIRM CITY LAWYER OBVIOUSLY MUST EACH PERFORM THEIR RESPECTIVE

PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS TO THE PUBLIC IN VARYING


-20-








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.


THAT PRICELESS AND UNIQUE


MEASURE OF PROFESSIONAL DEVOTION CONTRIBUTED TIME SHOULD


BE THE ONLY CURRENCY FULLY ACCEPTABLE IN DISCHARGE OF A

LAWYER'S PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS,


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.


IT MUST ALWAYS BE REASONABLE UNDER THE INDIVIDUALS


PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED ONLY


IF A RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY DETERMINES THAT THE LAWYER


-21-


AND WIDELY DIFFERING WAYS,








UNREASONABLY IGNORED PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS.


BE MULTIPLE OTHER WAYS THAN THE FEW AREAS THAT I HAVE


SUGGESTED WHICH AS ALTERNATIVES OR SUPPLEMENTS ARE BETTER

SUITED TO BOTH SOCIETY AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION FOR THE


REASONABLE DISCHARGE OF PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS.


ONLY A


BAR DISCIPLINARY GROUP SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER VARIOUS


ACTIVITIES PERFORMED ON A RECURRING AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS

ARE AMONG THOSE THINGS WHICH A PARTICULAR LAWYER FREELY


SHOULD HAVE DONE.


IN ALL SUCH DETERMINATIONS DIVERSITY


AND EXPERIMENTATION MUST BE FOSTERED AND SUPPORTED.


IS NO SINGLE APPROACH.


RATHER THROUGH VARIETY THROUGH


EXPERIMENTATION THROUGH EVOLUTION THE ORGANIZED BAR CAN


GAIN A PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAYS IN WHICH INDIVIDUAL


-22-


THERE


THERE WILL








LAWYERS MOST MEANINGFULLY MAY DISCHARGE THEIR PROFESSIONAL

DUTY,


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 TRADITIONALLY DEMANDS HIGHER AND HIGHER STANDARDS


FROM ALL PROFESSIONALS INCLUDING LAWYERS AND THE ORGANIZED


BAR HAS GENERALLY RESPONDED.


YET ENOUGH HAS NOT BEEN DONE,


IT CAN DO MORE BY IMPOSING DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS ON THOSE


-23-








LAWYERS WHO CLEARLY AND ADAMATLY IGNORE IN A CONTINUING


PATTERN THE PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS OF ALL LAWYERS,


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 A MEASURED AMOUNT -


PERHAPS A MINIMUM OF ONE-TENTH OF FREE SERVICE TO THOSE


WHO CANNOT OTHERWISE OBTAIN LEGAL SERVICES AS ONE OF THEIR


PRIME PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE LAWYER WHO


UNREASONABLY REFUSES TO GIVE THAT LIMITED AMOUNT OF HIS

PROFESSIONAL TIME WARRANTS BAR CENSURE.


OF COURSE IN ADDITION TO RESPONSIBILITIES TO


THE PUBLIC THE LAWYER ALSO OWES CORRELATIVE DUTIES TO


-24-




Full Text