I’ve been defending my profession a lot here lately, but I also recognize that there is a very good reason why such incidents as the surprisingly generous sentence in the “Affluenza” case and the drug court judge who suffered an alcoholic relapse on the bench are wrongly interpreted as proof of inequities and double standards in the legal system. The reason is that those who oversee the system do inexplicable things that appear to the outside world as not only a lack of integrity but also the apparent inability to realize how such conduct undermines the public trust.

Both of these recent news stories are cases in point:

I. The Imaginary Government Lawyer

In 2012, the Nebraska state supreme court disbarred lawyer David Walocha for not paying his bar dues and proceeding to practice law for 13 years with a suspended license. At the end of 2013, the District of Columbia Bar had to decide what to do with former Justice Department attorney Laura Heiser, who practiced 21 years with a suspended license in the District. What was her punishment? She received an informal admonition, which is the least severe form of disciplinary action.  I know some of the staff members involved with the decision, like and respect them. I know that there are, in their view, mitigating factors—she doesn’t practice any more, she was never in court, no cases were messed up by her lack of authorization to practice. The Bar found that her mistake was inadvertent, and I’m sure she’s nice to dogs and children, but for the love of God, she practiced law for more than two decades without authorization!  Here’s what Nebraska said about the lawyer it kicked out after doing the same thing for eight years less:

“Every pleading, every court appearance, every meeting with a client constituted a separate act of dishonesty,” the court wrote in its opinion. “His misconduct is egregious and unacceptable.”

Why wouldn’t this also be true of Ms. Heiser?  It gets worst: A Justice Department  lawyer is required to certify each year that she possesses active membership in at least one bar. Heiser’s defense was that because she rarely appeared in court, the Justice Department needed to notify courts that she was licensed attorney in”only a few cases.”  Oh…well its all right that you misled the DOJ on those occasions, then. What?  The D.C. Bar is very strict about lawyers misrepresenting material  facts about their bar status, or used to be. This aspect of the case alone warrants more than a slap on the wrist.  Further causing the pressure gauge on by skull to build to dangerous levels was that the D.C. Bar apparently gave weight to Heiser’s claim that her failure to pay her bar dues for  21 years while continuing to practice law and collect a taxpayer-funded salary to do so wasn’t “intentional”? Was she hypnotized? Did she never fully the gasp the annual dues concept? Has she been doing the same with her car insurance, her water bill, and her driving license? If one’s cat starves to death because you don’t feed it, I don’t think you can argue that it just slipped your mind—the cat, after all, keeps getting thinner, and at some point you knew that it needed food. I don’t think anyone practicing law without a license for 21 years can be fairly called “unintentional.” Stupid, careless and outrageous, yes.

I know, D.C. isn’t Nebraska. Surely the Justice Department wouldn’t use its power to get special treatment for its lawyers–would it?.  Well, surely the DC Bar wouldn’t cave if it did. Would it? I know the people involved to be solid professionals, and the public doesn’t. To the public, this looks like special treatment. A government lawyer should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one, for this very reason.

2. The Suspect Judge

Back in 2012, I wrote about the fascinating Grants of Seattle, an acclaimed area “power couple” with a twist. She was a local prosecutor, he was a prominent attorney, with an unusual hobby (allegedly): he was a serial rapist. The thrust of my commentary was that a prosecutor who apparently can’t discern that her husband is raping women on the side doesn’t make a very trustworthy prosecutor, and should probably step down—especially when authorities think she took incriminating evidence from her husband’s car after she, without authorization, removed the vehicle from the scene of one of the rapes before police had a chance to examine it.

Mrs. Grant is back in the news. She stepped down as prosecutor (good), and was then appointed to a new job in Seattle as a judge. (WHAT??????)

No, she hasn’t been cleared of tampering with evidence in a rape investigation, or being an accomplice after the fact to her alleged rapist spouse. He’s still awaiting trial. Although the prosecutor in her husband’s case determined that her”relocation of the car and the removal of items is potentially evidence of consciousness of guilt and/or tampering with evidence,” Gary Ireland,  executive assistant to the court administrator, confirmed this week that Jennifer Grant was indeed appointed to the bench “after an extensive evaluation of her qualifications, standing with the Washington State Bar Association and a criminal background check.” Apparently the fact that local papers and law enforcement officials have fingered he as a possible accessory to rape isn’t on the check list.

No wonder the public doesn’t trust an institution that conducts itself like this. As a lawyer, these stories make me distrust myself.

__________________________

Pointer: Bruce M.

Sources: Legal Times, KIROTV

Graphic: Jail For Judges