|
|
|
|
|
“Not only no, Hell no,”
say state’s lawyers
Adele Ferguson
Political Columnist |
Ticking away in the rules committee of the state Supreme Court is a recommendation from the board of governors of the state bar association that so concerned Washington lawyers over 700 have written in to protest.
Under this rule, which redefines professional misconduct, a lawyer whose conduct would be interpreted by “a reasonable person” as manifesting prejudice or bias on the basis of sexual orientation, could be disbarred.
Said conduct could be a word, a look or an attitude toward almost everybody involved (judges, other parties and/or their counsel), witnesses and/or their counsel, jurors or court personnel or officers).
No other state has such a rule for its lawyers, yet this was approved unanimously by the 13-member board of governors, and has the support of the state’s No. 1 lawyer, Attorney General Christine Gregoire.
Promoting diversity is its purpose, according to the bar board. Achieving through fiat what couldn’t be achieved via the ballot is the real intent, said one opponent, since Washington voters have rejected past attempt to extend protective class status to homosexuals, most recently in 1997.
The rule change was generated by the efforts of a group of task forces on gender and justice, minorities and justice, opportunities for minorities and lesbian and gay issues which looked into the extent of stereotyping and bias within the legal community some years ago.
The reason you haven’t heard much about it its because that’s where it stayed, within the legal community, with little or no debate before the bar or discussion in the State Bar News. When the new rule was put out for comment last summer, a group of lawyers expressing themselves as the Washington Advocates for Constitutional Legal Ethics, sent briefs to all 21,000 lawyers in the state asking them to join in opposing the “unconstitutionally overbroad” and “vague” rule as a violation of the freedom of speech and due process rights of bar members.
Over 700 lawyers responded, with comments such as these: “These changes will lead to unfounded bar complaints by parties who are unsatisfied with the results of arbitration or trial and can think of no other means to attack than to claim prejudice or bias” . . . “The rule is apparently meant to protect homosexuals, so why not just say so? The term sexual orientation must be defined in the rule so that all practitioners will understand what forms of sexual conduct are subject to protection and which are not protected.”
“I am particularly concerned over the effect this rule may have on bar members who are required by law to be involved in issues such as ‘don’t ask/don’t tell’ actions involving military members!” . . . “The proposed changes involve the court more in social engineering than the administration of justice.” . . . The bar does not need more politically correct strictures posing as professional rules of conduct” . . . “Discrimination is already unlawful and unlawful conduct by an attorney is already and RPC violation.”
Responses, 95 percent of them in opposition, were published in a 5 1/2-pound book, copies of which were presented to the board of governors and members of the Supreme Court. The board refused to reconsider its recommendation but asked the court to delay any immediate action on adoption, so the rule is “pending,” i. e., alive, but in limbo. The court rules committee must make its recommendation, to be considered by the court sitting en banc.
Homosexuality is a top election year issue and voters across the country will make decisions in November on same sex marriage, teaching homosexuality in the public schools and elevating gay rights to the same civil rights protections as racial and religious minorities (which this rule would do).
Washington has been there, done that, and now the bar governors, against the counsel of 95 percent of respondents to the proposal, try an end run imposing a rule that puts bar members in jeopardy of losing their licenses if they say or do anything that aggravates the wrong people.
Just whose interest does the board represent anyway?
The Supreme Court should dump this travesty of justice, Attorney General Gregoire should examine why she wanted to be a lawyer in the first place.
(Editor’s Note: Adele Ferguson can be reached at P.O. Box 69, Hansville, WA, 98340).
|
|
| |
|
| |
