In Which I Am Admonished For A Slur, And Am Unapologetic

Former US senator John Edwards speaks 30

An episode today raised echos of a couple of Ethics Alarms topics this week, such as incivility and the use of uncomplimentary words.

Today’s presentation of the musical legal ethics seminar “Ethics Rock 2021” began with my partner Mike Messer singing “Ethics Man,” a parody of Billy Joel’s classic “Piano Man.” It was about the tenth version of that wonderfully adaptable song that I have written. This was today’s chorus (it’s usually a sing-along, but not on Zoom):

Sing us the Rules, you’re the ethics man!
Sing us the Rules today!
We’re stuck in an ethics dilemma here
And it’s your job to show us the way!

I had returned an old verse to this installment because I felt the issue of character and the fitness to practice law was an especially relevant topic. The verse was first written shortly after the John Edwards scandal was exposed.. Edwards, as you may know, never faced any professional discipline from the North Carolina bar despite what I have been told were thousands of complaints, though none were related to his legal practice…

Now John, he was running for President
While running around on his wife
And he fathered a daughter and lied like a rotter
Constructing the scam of his life.
But some lawyers say, “Hey, all that’s personal!
He isn’t unworthy of trust!
Like that guy with the huge student loan he owes
So his bar application’s a bust.”

The last part was a reference to Robert Bowman, a hard-working, honorable law grad denied membership in the New York bar for years because his student loan debt had ballooned due to no fault of his own. (He was eventually admitted.) Bowman was found to lack the character to practice law, while Edwards was (and is) still officially a lawyer in “good standing.” This is a sore point for me; I have said many times that I wouldn’t trust Edwards to mail my water bill, and for the profession to assert that he has the “moral character” to practice law is not just a double standard but a ridiculous one.

Somewhere in my riff on Edwards versus Bowman I used the term “scumbag” to describe the former Senator, and quickly got a message from one of the participants claiming that it was “inappropriate” to refer to Edwards with that slur.

I replied to the entire group,

In 2008, John Edwards was prepared to accept the nomination of his party to run for President of the United States, while making a morality-based argument for his candidacy. While he was doing this, he was engaged in an adulterous sexual affair. His wife was campaigning for him and supporting him, and she had terminal cancer. When a tabloid tracked down his mistress and their child, Edwards denied the story, and paid an aide to pretend that he was his mistress’s lover, and that he had fathered the love-child featured in the story. Edwards also persuaded another trial lawyer, a friend, to facilitate the deception by transferring funds to the fake couple.

I’m a lawyer and an ethicist. My duty is to be clear and direct. Edward’s despicable conduct was a betrayal of his wife, his profession, his party and the country. I’m not sure what term is sufficiently vivid to describe the character of someone who would behave like that, but at the moment, “scumbag” was my choice. If anything, it is too mild. I believe that conduct that dishonest and vile should disqualify an individual from the practice of law, and I wanted to leave no doubt about that. My choice of the word I used was not inappropriate. It was deserved.

I expect to receive flack from the incident.

So be it.

14 thoughts on “In Which I Am Admonished For A Slur, And Am Unapologetic

  1. G.K. Chesterton put it succinctly: “It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”

    Thank you, Jack, for clearly stating the issue without reservation.

      • The truth can’t be a slur.

        Telling the truth about Edwards is likely to damage his reputation!

        Scumbag is just short-hand.

        I don’t get the criticism.

        -Jut

        • Me either. I sort of assumed it was an insult to scumbags? Is there a pressure group defending scumbags as an aggrieved group? I’ll need to research the etymology of “scumbag.”

    • Once upon a time, Indiana Rep. Dan Burton called President Bill Clinton a scumbag.

      All of a sudden, Democrats decided that the origin of the term scumbag was a “used condom” and made sure that everyone understood that Burton literally meant to call the POTUS this particular thing. This narrative was repeated ad nauseum. Letters to the editor of our local paper from outraged citizens who probably never bothered to consider the etymology of any of the words they used for name-calling repeatedly included phrases like, “calling the President a scumbag (used condom)…”, etc, as if they, too, were in on the workings of Dan Burton’s mind.

      So…it would appear that scumbag is considered a derogatory slur by Democrats…if one uses it to refer to Democrats, of course. If our host had called Donald Trump a scumbag, I’m sure no one would have batted an eye..

      • Speaking as a used condom, I’m in pain. I feel unsafe by Jack’s using the term. I identify as an experienced prophylactic device. My pronouns are Trojan and … I forget. Anyway, Latex Lives Matter.

      • It certainly does seem as though even listening to what they say, much less taking it to be a serious matter of discussion, is always a mistake – like ceding the premise that they’re being sincere, in spite of decades of direct, uncontestable evidence to the contrary, plays into their hands. My response to their constant dissembling, when I ever even bother to give one, never rises above “shut your ugly, wet mouth you filthy, lying reprobate!” There can never be common cause with someone whose only cause is to destroy you by any means available.

  2. I ended up going off on Edwards a bit because at the last minute I was informed that a poll in which I asked attendees to compare various non-legal practice examples of dubious conduct by lawyers hadn’t been set up. So I was improvising, and in the course of describing why Edwards’ conduct should disqualify him for the practice of law, I found myself needing a characterization. “Asshole” not only is deemed too vulgar, but it’s also not harsh enough. Most politicians are assholes, but a lesser proportion are scumbags. So that’s what popped out. “Lying bastard” might have worked. “Dastardly cur” isn’t my style….

      • That’s too close to an assertion of an unprovable fact as opposed to an opinion.What won my case against ol’ Walt was that the reason why I said he was “a few sandwiches short of a picnic” was right there for anyone to read, meaning it was my opinion based on an apparent fact. I’m not calling any trial lawyer the spawn of Satan—Edwards is a scumbag, but he’s also a very god lawyer, unlike the last guy who sued me for defamation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.