Law & Law Enforcement

And Speaking of Fake News: NPR!

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

See? “I’m smart! I’m not dumb like everybody says! I’m smart, and I want respect!“

Excuse me while I gleefully gloat over pointing out once again what a rotten, biased, disgrace of a news organization NPR is (and has been for a long while) right before it beclowned itself spectacularly yesterday by breaking the imaginary story that Justice Samuel Alito was retiring from the Supreme Court.

No, you can’t excuse this putrid example of the variety of fake news I call “Wishin’ and Hopin’ News” (in honor of the late, great Dusty Springfield) with the rationalization (#19 on the list) “Anyone can make a mistake!” For a professional news organization that has any scruples or legitimate editorial procedures literally never makes a mistake like this. NPR didn’t check its “facts” with the subject of the story. It didn’t get confirmation from the Supreme Court. It literally broke a story that didn’t exist because the Axis and the Axis propaganda network and the Trump Deranged and so, so many fans of NPR wanted this to be true so badly that NPR decided that Ethics Don’t Matter….though, to be fair, NPR decided this long, long ago, as when, oh, just to pick a random example out of the air, they blacklisted me as the network’s go-to ethics expert after a woke hostess deemed my 100% accurate explanation of how celebrities are vulnerable to late-hit sexual harassment accusations intolerable because, she told me, “I thought you were trying to defend Donald Trump.”

I may use the Alito episode from now on as my routine example of confirmation bias. The fiasco is so wonderful for Ethics Alarms in so many ways!

Pages: 1 2

SCOTUS Reaches The Only Fair, Factual, Logical, Ethical, and Legal Decision Regarding Biological Males in Women’s Sports

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

Late yesterday, while everyone was concentrating on the Supreme Court’s rejection of the President’s Executive Order on birthright citizenship, the Court upheld two state laws barring the participation of biological males “identifying” as female (a.k.a. “transgender females”) in girls’ and women’s sports teams. Although the 6-to-3 ruling involved upholding laws in West Virginia and Idaho, 25 states also restrict biological males from cheating in women’s sports, and the decision represents a decisive splash of ice water in the faces of those who support one of the silliest and most unpopular of the Woke Left’s delusions.

Of course it is unfair, dangerous and absurd to allow individuals who have gone through puberty as males to compete with girls and women in sports involving strength and speed, and where size and weight are an advantage. That the radical Left insists otherwise (because life ought to be different than it really is, a prime driver of so much progressive cant) should be one of the most damning tells on the whole ideology as well as strong evidence that the Democratic Party has jumped Fonzi’s metaphorical shark. The Democrat-stuffed U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 9th and 4th Circuits struck down sensible “no biological males in female sports” laws, but it was inconceivable that their biased and partisan reasoning would prevail at the U.S. Supreme Court. Sure enough, it didn’t.

West Virginia v. B.P.J. should have been a unanimous, 9-0 decision, but the Left’s fealty to the LGBTQLMNOP++ wing of the Democratic party is so strong that the three knee-jerk progressives on the Court just couldn’t manage it. Before noting Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion which didn’t need a judge, a legal scholar or a lawyer to write, just, you know, someone reasonablyintelligent with functioning eyes and brain cells, I have to begin with the Authentic Frontier Gibberish of Justice Jackson. Again. She wrote a remarkable dissent which, perhaps in a SCOTUS first, makes a persuasive argument for the opinion she’s railing against in its incoherence and “Don’t confuse me with facts my mind’s made up!” obtuseness. Seriously: what the hell is she babbling about?

“But there is reason to doubt the soundness of the concession that Title IX’s reference to “sex” means only sex assigned at birth….A transgender woman penalized for being perceived as aggressive has experienced discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ just as much as a cis-gender woman has, no matter that the transgender woman’s behavior matches expectations of her sex assigned at birth. Either way, the institution has imposed its gender-based expectations upon her. And either way, the institution may have violated Title IX. In short, the majority is wrong to suggest that the term ‘sex’ in Title IX ‘ cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.’ Title IX makes room for individuals to live in the gender they choose; it cares not just about sex assigned at birth but also about individuals’ ability to match (or not) their gender presentation to their gender identity…”

No wonder Jackson infamously said in her confirmation hearing that she could not define what a woman is. After reading that mess, neither can I. I’m not sure I can understand English any more, either.

Pages: 1 2

Today’s “Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” Note, NPR Division

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

This is hack, bottom-of-the-barrel journalism at its worst.

The statistics show that the “The United States almost certainly had the lowest murder rate ever recorded in 2025” according to crime data analyst Jeff Asher. “And the available evidence suggests that we’re going to go even lower this year,” he predicts based on the numbers and trend so far.

Here is how NPR starts its story:

“As the U.S. nears its 250th birthday, it’s doing pretty well by at least one measure: the national murder rate.”

That’s not news reporting. That’s partisan damnation with faint praise, while also engaging in deliberate misrepresentation. The story states that President Trump has achieved the best result in reducing the murder rate since at least 1960. That’s not, by any reasonable use of the English language, doing “pretty well.” It is an extraordinary success, and should be reported as such.

Then there is “at least one measure,” because, you see, everything else is terrible, but NPR’s Trump Deranged listeners assume that, so a major Trump accomplishment has to be minimized in the reporting. The technique is called “poisoning the well” and it isn’t journalism, it is pure bias. NPR, like the rest of the Axis, can’t tell a straight news story fairly, directly or honestly without applying a negative spin if President Trump is involved. You can almost hear the sneers: the outlet might as well had written,

“Well, how about that, the asshole did something right!”

“Look! Trump lucked out this time!”

“Hey, I guess everything the President does can’t blow up in his face!”

“Even a blind squirrel will find a nut now and then!”

As Clarence Darrow memorably said at the end of his closing argument in the Sweet case,

“I am the last one to come here to stir up race hatred, or any other hatred. I do not believe in the law of hate… I believe in the law of love, and I believe you can do nothing with hatred.”

So I am wrestling my brain to the ground to fight hating these awful, arrogant, unprofessional, smug and destructive people. They refuse to extend even moderate respect and decency to the President of the United States. They do everything in their power to distort facts, data, reality and analysis to confuse the public and turn it against their own leader. They will not give credit when it is due, and they will not assign responsibility where it belongs, if there is any way to twist the facts to impugn President Trump.

Pages: 1 2

Supreme Court Ethics 1: Birthright Citizenship Is Here To Stay

/ Jack Marshall / 37 Comments

I didn’t venture an opinion on whether President Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship would fly with the Supreme Court (I did post about Justice Jackson making a fool of herself during oral argument), but I would have been surprise if today’s decision had turned out differently than it did.

The Supreme Court ruled today that President Donald Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional. The ruling was announced just as I was preparing commentary on earlier decisions this week: that post will arrive later today.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the 6-3 ruling. “If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design,” Roberts wrote. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the result but dissented on the reasoning. Such concurring opinions are for professors and geeks, to be cited in law review articles and wild-hair judicial opinion dicta.

Justice Samuel Alito made some interesting points in his dissent about how birthright citizenship has very different, and potentially perilous implications today that never occurred to the Founders, writing,

Pages: 1 2

A Fine Example of “Legal But Unethical”: Gwar’s Trump Massacre— The Justice Department Should Know the Difference

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Gwar, an American heavy metal band, has been contacted by the Secret Service because it held a mock execution of President Trump onstage. A theatrical “science-fiction musical project” formed in 1984, the satirical band has been doing this kind of thing at its concerts for decades. Fake Trump was “killed” during the group’s performance at Warped Tour in Washington, D.C. this month. There’s a video: someone in a Donald Trump costume walks onstage and is disemboweled by the band, fake blood spurting.

The Band’s mock murders of public figures have offed such prominent figures as former President Barack Obama, former President Joe Biden, Queen Elizabeth, Elon Musk, Hillary Clinton, and Kanye West, and others. This is clearly non-partisan sick humor.

Trump’s Justice Department does itself, Republicans and conservatives no favors when it engages in dumb abuses of process and power like this. It is even more futile and less defensible than arresting James Comey for posting a numerical threat to President Trump written on the beach in sea shells. Demonstrating a sense of proportion as well as humor would be wise as well as endearing. I mean, Gwar’s manager is named Sleazy P. Martini. Reacting with fear as if a theatrical bad joke is a genuine threat makes the Administration and the President look weak, thin-skinned and foolish.

Pages: 1 2

“It Can’t Happen Here”? Brazil Gives Us A Glimpse Of What The Woke Passionately Wish For America

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

In April, Brazilian father and mother, Audato and Ieda Denardi were found guilty of the crime of “intellectual neglect” and were sentenced to 50 days in prison for homeschooling their two daughters without sufficient instruction on“gender and sex education” or “tolerance and diversity.”

The court also found that the girls, aged 15 and 11, not enjoying popular Brazilian musical genres such as “trap” or “sertanejo” was evidence of a criminal deficiency in their cultural education.

Even though the prosecutors in the São Paulo trial requested an acquittal after concluding that the minors were not suffering from any neglect and were demonstrating appropriate academic and social development, the conviction was handed down. It is currently under appeal before the Seventh Criminal Court Chamber of the São Paulo State Court of Justice. The Christian legal organization ADF International is representing the family, and it denounced the case as “a grotesque abuse of criminal law.”

Ya think?

Despite the fact that both girls are pianists with advanced training and are fluent in several languages, the judge accused the parents of “using their daughters as pawns in an ideological struggle, subjecting them to a form of unregulated education, the effectiveness and quality of which lack adequate metrics within the Brazilian legal system, while completely excluding the state’s involvement.” Julio Pohl, legal counsel for Latin America at ADF International, neatly pointed out the obvious: to be concise, the verdict is crackers.

“An independent educational psychologist found no sign of neglect. The girls themselves described rigorous daily education,” Pohl said. “The judge convicted anyway because a fifteen-year-old said she finds some music lyrics morally questionable, and because the curriculum didn’t include state-approved content on gender. A parent has been sentenced to prison not for failing to educate her children, but for educating them according to her own values. This is a grotesque abuse of the criminal law, and we will not let it stand.”

Let’s go through the occupants of Congress, the Senate, state houses and mayors’ offices and speculate which of them secretly (or not so secretly) would like to see similar “justice” in the United States. Do we even have to speculate on the how the leadership of the teachers unions would regard the Denardi case?

The Rest of the Story: The Brandan Sorsby Debacle Has The Predictable Domino Effect, and Where It Stops, Nobody Knows…

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

In this post I wrote about the dispiriting tale of Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby, an admitted gambling addict whom a ADA-addled judge ruled could not be banned from playing Big 12 football this season. I wrote then,

“The larger issue is what kind of society this will become if the progressive obsession with empathy and forgiveness for all wrongdoing continues on its current path. Sorsby is an addict, not a bad guy! He shouldn’t be prevented from doing what he loves just because his addiction makes him likely to cheat. It isn’t his fault that he has this affliction! And really, aren’t all criminals just addicts or emotionally damaged in some way? They shouldn’t be in prison. This is why “restorative justice” is the only caring way to deal with our fellow human beings who deceive, cheat, rob, and harm us.”

Meanwhile, the loopy decision was throwing all of football into chaos. After the excessively empathetic judge granted a temporary injunction that allowed Sorsby to return to the team with a slap-on-the-wrist two-game suspension, The Big Ten considered a ban on playing Texas Tech altogether. Athletic directors at other schools erupted in anger. Kansas State AD Gene Taylor called the judge’s ruling “fucking bullshit.” “I think there needs to be serious conversations about not playing Texas Tech in any sports,” University of Georgia athletic director Josh Brooks said. “We cannot in good conscience put our student-athletes on a field where the competitive integrity of the contest is compromised and overridden by the courts.”

This month, Sorsby came to his senses and Texas Tech finally realized the school, its reputation and its athletic program would suffer more than any quarterback was worth if he wasn’t gone. Sorsby dropped his lawsuit against the NCAA and opted to enter the NFL Supplemental Draft, ending his Texas Tech affiliation. But yesterday the NFL announced that it was cancelling its 2026 supplemental draft, and that the decision was entirely because of Sorsby,. The NFL doesn’t wantito have to deal with the controversy. As of now, however, the player is still eligible for the 2027 NFL draft.

The gambling in sports pathogen is not going away, and will continue to spread because of greed, stupidity and the fact that most of the people running collegiate and professional sports, especially football and basketball, have no ethics alarms at all.

Ethics Quiz: “The View”

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

The recent visit of Vice-President J.D. Vance to “The View,” one of the rare occasions when the panel of ignorant, Trump-Deranged women deigned to host a non-progressive that they weren’t ready to drool over, brought into sharp focus what is so wrong with the ABC “news” program. Here are “highlights” from that episode on June 16. Note the thoroughly professional and even-handed attitude of the “news commentators”:

[Vice President J.D. Vance was beginning to answer a question from co-host Sara Haines]

ANA NAVARRO: And you actually say in the book – You talk about this. You talk about this struggle in the book.

VP J.D. VANCE: I do. Of course.

NAVARRO: You talk about moral tradeoffs that result in favoring a strict migration policy without dehumanizing anyone. But listen, over 50 people have died in ICE custody. There are thousands of children, 6,200, that are being held in places like Dilly Detention Center that people that have visited — I don’t know if you have — talk about the subhuman, infrahuman conditions, the lack of clean water, the lack of medical attention, lack of education. I would urge you as a Christian and as a father to visit those detention centers where the children are being held, and make sure that the conditions are up to the values that we hold in this country.

JOY BEHAR: Let him answer.

[Applause]

VANCE: You have thrown a lot at me and I see we have 30 seconds left here, but let me say –

NAVARRO: You are the vice president. You can go long.

VANCE: I’d like to pick up on this theme because I think it’s really important. We do have to strike a balance, of course, between enforcing our laws. We don’t want to dehumanize people. That is the balance. Look, law enforcement – What I’d say about this: law enforcement is always inherently not a very pretty process. Especially when you dealing sometimes with violent people, with people who are resisting arrest. Some of the people that I have been told by the media were completely peaceful, have never violated any laws, you look actually look into the record and find out that those people were actually being violent or they did have a criminal record. They had a sex traffic conviction.

SUNNY HOSTIN: The majority people don’t have criminal records, the majority of people that ICE is rounding up and taking out of their homes from their families, they are separating families, they’re using children as bait, the majority are not criminals!

[Applause]

VANCE: But can I respond to that? Guys, let me just say this. Okay. So, you talk about the children. Here’s what I’d say: do we know that during the last administration we had tens of thousands of children who were sex trafficked by the cartels, who were brought into our country in profoundly dangerous and predatory conditions —

HOSTIN: Talk about this administration!

VANCE: But here’s the point, unless you enforce the border, you invite that conduct. You think that our immigration policies are inhuman based on the reporting of one person with a political bias. What I’m telling you is that it’s inhumane –

NAVARRO (interrupting): It’s not one person.

VANCE: – to allow cartels to sex traffic people across our border.

[Crosstalk]

NAVARRO: And you guys have done a great job of closing the border.

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Please hold on.

VANCE: I appreciate that.

(…)

[Loud crosstalk as Vance finishes an answer to a question from Goldberg]

GOLDBERG: No, no! Let me do my follow-up! Let me do my follow-up! Because you were talking about people. What did black people do to this administration that has allowed it to really stigmatize folks of color? And you know how hard it is. You have folks of color in your family.

VANCE: Sure.

GOLDBERG: So, when you see things — the Emmitt Till stuff coming down or them doing all kinds of removal of information of black heroes, how do you — how does that sit with you?

VANCE: What exactly are you talking about, Whoopi because you just –

GOLDBERG: I’m talking about –

[Audience reacts negatively]

VANCE: Emmitt Till was the kid –

GOLDBERG: I can tell you —

VANCE: No, no. I want to know what she’s — I want to respond to your actual point.

GOLDBERG: In a lot of the – um

HOSTIN: Museums?

GOLDBERG: Museums –

[Crosstalk]

GOLDBERG: There’s so many. You know, where they’re taking down the actual history that happened in this country. Slavery happened. All kinds of stuff happened. And it seems that it has been very easy for this administration to remove that and also to denigrate black folks who have worked their behinds off to get this American dream. How – I mean, you know better!

[Applause]

VANCE: Let me – So, Sunny, that was actually very helpful intervention because I think the story you are talking about is where allegedly the administration is holding back the appointments of people based on skin color.

HOSTIN: I’m talking about a host of things. I’m talking about black history getting erased from public spaces. Black voter districts are being dismantled. Black leaders are being sidelined from our ranks. Where do Americans of color fit in this vision?! Because it doesn’t seem like we fit!

VANCE: I think, Sunny, my view –

[Applause]

NAVARRO: And if I may, since October of last year there’s been something like 6,668 refugees allowed in the country. All but three were white South Africans.

HOSTIN: South Africans.

VANCE: So, first of all, I’m very skeptical of that number because we have a lot of different immigration pathways in the United States of America. But let me just address Whoopi’s point. Look, first of all, you asked the question; and maybe you don’t believe this coming from me, but I think everybody is welcome in our political coalition. Frankly, even if you didn’t vote for us, everybody is welcome in our country so long as you are an American citizen, with the duties and the legal obligation and rights to be here.

GOLDBERG: Right.

VANCE: But let me just give you an example. Okay, so you say we’re anti-minority or anti-black —

GOLDBERG: NO, I didn’t say that! I asked. See.

VANCE: Okay, fine. Fair. Fair.

GOLDBERG: Don’t start any stuff with me man. Don’t get me in trouble.

[Applause]

Don’t start that stuff with me.

VANCE: I misinterpreted your question.

GOLDBERG: That’s all right.

VANCE: But let me answer your actual question there. What I’m saying, I think — Okay, look at Washington, D.C. One of the most Democratic and one of the blackest – by share of population – blackest cities in the United States of America, has seen a radical decrease in violent crimes and sexual assaults and murders. We have tried to take the crime issue seriously in part because we believe everybody, whether you are black or white or rich or poor, deserves to live in a safe neighborhood.

GOLDBERG: But why was – why does the crime – where does the crime step in? This is not about crime. This is about —

HOSTIN: 300,000 black women lost their jobs!

[Crosstalk]

GOLDBERG: This is about human rights, sir.

VANCE: What you are saying is, we have to do more on the economy.

HOSTIN: And black history has been erased from public spaces!

VANCE: Black history is not erased from public spaces.

HOSTIN: That is true.

VANCE: That is not right.

[Crosstalk]

VANCE: I’m telling you, we celebrate black history. We celebrate all American history in this administration. You guys might be skeptical of this, but I promise you it’s true.

NAVARRO: Can I ask you about a specific piece of black history?

GOLDBERG: He’s gotta – I gotta –

NAVARRO: Do you think the attack on Michelle Obama –

GOLDBERG: I have to go to break! [Claps her hands] ANA, GOD PLEASE!

NAVARRO: – should have been condemned by the White House?

GOLDBERG: We have more with Vice President J.D. Vance when we come back.

Don’t do that!

(…)

VANCE: I do think — in a subtle sometimes, sometimes in a more profound way, I think our country has become more anti-family and more anti-child. It’s harder to travel. It’s harder to go to restaurants.

[Crosstalk]

BEHAR: All right, we only have 10 seconds, do you want –

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Mr. Vice President, we know you grandchild is – or your CHILD is arriving.

VANCE: No grand babies yet.

FARAH GRIFFIN: Not yet. We’re very excited for you and Usha, and we wanted to give you a View onesie!

VANCE: Thank you. I appreciate that. We will put this on. We’ll send you guys the photo.

GOLDBERG: His new book Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith is available now. Scan the QR code on your screen to purchase a copy. And we will be right back.

VANCE: Thank you, guys.

Pages: 1 2

Logic, Common Sense and Legal Ethics: The Pro Se Divorcing Lawyer Problem

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I know these technical legal ethics issues don’t interest a lot of readers, but it is my field, and this one is an all-time oldie-but-goodies.

A lawyer is in the midst of a divorce. He represents himself (a “pro se” representation); his wife has a lawyer. In all jurisdictions, Rule 4.2 or its equivalent declares that a lawyer may not meet with an adverse party in a matter without that party’s attorney present unless that counsel has been alerted and consents. The self-representing lawyer meets with his wife, whose attorney hasn’t learned about the meeting.

Is the lawyer-husband violating the rule?

The Supreme Court of Texas held last week that Rule 4.2 (Texas 4.02) does not prohibit a pro se lawyer from communicating directly with opposing party in a divorce . Ruth v Commission on Lawyer Discipline, 2026 WL 1699920. But in Missouri, the recent opinion regarding the exact same issue was the opposite. Here is that whole opinion, Informal Opinion Number: 2026-02, April 21, 2026:

Question:  Lawyer is divorcing Spouse.  Lawyer is pro se in the dissolution.   Spouse is represented by counsel.  Lawyer and Spouse had reached an informal agreement about the division of property before filing the dissolution action.  Lawyer and Spouse continue to reside together while the dissolution is ongoing.   Spouse discussed with Lawyer repairs needed at the marital home and payment for the repairs.  Spouse initiated the conversation.  After Lawyer spoke with Spouse regarding the repairs, Spouse’s lawyer advised Lawyer that all communications concerning the dissolution should be made through Spouse’s lawyer.  As a party, Lawyer believes Lawyer has a right to communicate directly with spouse.  Lawyer bases this belief upon a reading of Rule 4 dash–4.2 and Comment [4] to the Rule.  Rule 4 dash–4.2 prohibits a lawyer who “is representing a client” from directly communicating about the subject of the representation with any other represented party.  Comment [4] to the Rule provides that parties may communicate directly with each other.

  1. Is Lawyer correct in the interpretation of the rule and its comment?  
  2. Is the interpretation the same, regardless of whether Lawyer is pro se or Lawyer has engaged counsel to represent Lawyer?

Answer 1:  No, Lawyer’s interpretation is incorrect.  Interpretation of the Rule and Comment [4] require consideration of both the Rule’s plain language and the policy purposes behind the Rule.  The Rule protects a represented person against overreaching by other lawyers, interference with the client-lawyer relationship, and the uncounseled disclosure of information relating to the representation.  See Comment [1] to Rule 4 dash–4.2.  Direct communications between a represented party and a pro se lawyer create the same risks that Rule 4 dash–4.2 was designed to prevent.  So, the pro se Lawyer is considered “self-representing” or, i.e., “representing a client,” and direct communication with the spouse regarding the dissolution is prohibited.  See Informal Opinion 2011 dash–03.  This is true even if Spouse initiated or consented to the communication.  See Comment [3] to Rule 4 dash–4.2.

Answer 2: The same risks exist with direct communications for the represented party regardless of whether Lawyer is pro se or has counsel. Consequently, Rule 4 dash–4.2 prohibits direct communication between the parties unless counsel for the parties consent to direct communications or the communication is authorized by law or court order.

The consensus among legal ethicists is that the Texas approach makes sense and the Missouri version does not. A spouse in the midst of a divorce should not be prohibited from talking things out with his partner if she consents just because he happens to have a law degree. The non-lawyer party can always say refuse the meeting. I would add, however, that best practice is for the pro se lawyer to advise his spouse to check with her attorney before agreeing to the meeting.

Are you with Texas or Missouri, or me?

Alcoholic Lawyer Ethics: An Inconvenient Truth

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

[That’s Paul Newman above, playing the alcoholic trial lawyer in “The Verdict.”]

I recently caused consternation (again) on the listserv of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL), the organization that brings together most of the lawyers who concentrate on the contentious field of legal ethics as ethics partners, professors, state bar disciplinary counsel, CLE trainers, consultants, and just interested lawyers. I had been considering dropping this metaphorical bomb on the group for some time. My thesis: lawyers who are alcoholics, “recovering” or not, are ethically obligated to inform their clients of that ongoing and incurable malady. I see no way out of this ethical obligation, but the legal profession has been scrupulously avoiding confronting reality for centuries.

Alcoholism was once the secret meaning of “moral turpitude” in state bar associations’ requirements for admission: if you were guilty of moral turpitude, you couldn’t get a law license because of a presumed character deficit. When alcoholism was finally recognized as the illness it is, being an alcoholic was no longer a basis for bar exclusion or discipline. Bar associations all established “Lawyer Assistance Programs” as the alternative to punishment for lawyers with alcohol or substance abuse problems. That’s nice. However, none of the measures currently employed deal with the inconvenient facts of alcoholism.

Based on my knowledge and extensive experience with friends, family and associates, all alcoholics are untrustworthy by definition. They have a strong tendency to lie, for example (and they will admit that, if pressed) to conceal their addiction as well as the often disastrous results of it. No one, including the alcoholic himself or herself, can know when a relapse will occur or what will trigger it. A binge alcoholic can seem healthy and dependable for months or years, and suddenly go on a bender that incapacitates him. My late wife, a brilliant and capable woman who struggled courageously with the illness her whole life and ran our business and finances (or, should I say, said she was and made a good show of it) would have sudden unpredictable relapses that she covered up with consummate skill. She was what is called a maintenance-level alcoholic. She had a degree of intoxication she needed to maintain to function well and appear sober; below that level of alcohol consumption she suffered from withdrawal symptoms. One drink over that set-point, however, and she was physically and mentally incapacitated. Many maintenance level alcoholics successfully hide their addictions while actually being drunk every day in highly challenging jobs…until they can’t. Alcoholism is a progressive disease. Over time, alcoholics’ ability to control their addiction deteriorates along with their over-all health and mental state.

Pages: 1 2