 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
December 2005 Ethics Dunces
Judge Andrew NapolitanoNapolitano is a legal analyst for Fox News, and calling him a judge is somewhat misleading. He left the bench a decade ago after a long career in New Jersey. But Napolitano qualifies not only as an Ethics Dunce; he is a rare Super Dunce, thanks to his recent inexcusable comments on John Gibson's Fox show, "The Big Story." The real Big Story is that this former judge, current practicing lawyer and supposed legal analyst has an understanding of legal ethics on par with that of your average 4th grader.
He was appearing on Gibson's show to discuss the oddity of former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark being a member of Saddam Hussein's defense team in Baghdad. It is odd, but then so is Clark, the son of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice and a once respected legal mind so radicalized by the Viet Nam war that he has spent over 30 years defining the outer reaches of anti-American advocacy. Any enemy of the U.S. is a friend of Ramsey's, it seems, so his willingness to defend Saddam fits into the over-all arc of his strange career. But there is certainly nothing wrong or ignoble about giving a legal defense to a mass murderer; it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. That's why it's called a "fair trial." The fact that Clark probably wants to do it, likes doing it, and actively sought out the chance to do it says something about his state of mind, but nothing unseemly about his legal ethics.
But John Gibson is not a lawyer, nor is he well-versed in ethics, as anyone who followed his commentary on the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib knows (Gibson's reaction being fairly summarized as, "Good!"), so he asked Napolitano a really, really dumb question about Clark's latest assignment: "Might Clark be disbarred for this?" Napolitano's answer should have been a nicer way of saying this: "John, you Bozo, how do you host a public affairs show with such a pathetic grasp of our legal system? Lawyers don't get disbarred for defending bad people, they get disbarred (well, reprimanded and sanctioned) for refusing to defend bad people as vigorously as the law will allow. It's called the 6th Amendment of that U.S. Constitution you're always blathering about, John…have you ever read it? The Bill of Rights? Hello? In the U.S, the accused has the right to counsel. How could a lawyer be disbarred for providing an Iraqi defendant in an Iraqi trial the same right that he would be guaranteed in America?"
But Napolitano didn't say that. Incredibly, this judge, lawyer and supposed expert said, "Well, the American Bar Association has always been loose about disciplining lawyers who represent evil clients." "Loose?" That implies that there is some basis for discipline that the ABA isn't enforcing, which is 100% baloney-plated hooey. (Actually, the American Bar Association doesn't discipline lawyers at all; it just produces model standards to give state bar associations guidance. That part of the judge's statement is wrong, but it is so overshadowed by the rest of his sentence that it's not worth dwelling on.) The ABA rules encourage lawyers to do what Clark is doing, because that is a lawyer's duty: to make the 6th Amendment right to counsel work. Clarence Darrow represented two rich teenaged crypto-fascists who killed a little boy to show how smart they were, and he saved them from hanging. That makes him a legal hero, not a candidate for disbarment. Attorney Anthony Amsterdam worked his whole legal career to save the dregs of the earth from receiving execution for horrendous crimes; he too was a model attorney. Our democracy is supposed to work for everyone, good or bad, angelic or evil. Upholding that principle, as Ramsey Clark is, cannot be a basis for condemnation. It is a badge of honor.
Lawyers and judges, of all people, are supposed to understand this to the core of their being. The fact that Andrew Napolitano does not is shocking, and an Ethics Dunce is the least of what he deserves for further confusing the American public about what constitutes the ethical practice of law. It is he, not Ramsey Clark, who is a disgrace to the legal profession. But another amendment, the first, persuades bar associations to be "loose" about punishing lawyers for saying outrageous things. And for Fox News commentators, it is standard practice.
"Dear Paul,
It pains the Scoreboard to say anything uncomplimentary about you, as you certainly are one world citizen who will have left Mother Earth a whole lot better than you found it. But tempting as is to Let It Be, your recent explanation of why you are boycotting China shows that you need Help, ethically speaking, and I am willing to take up the challenge of Fixing a Hole in your ethical priorities.
Yesterday, (or maybe the day before Yesterday), you announced that you had discovered, to your horror, that the Chinese skin dogs and cats to make fur garments. To make the point that You Can't Do That, you told China through a publicist that You Won't See Me in China at the upcoming Olympics or at any other event as long as such a barbaric practice continued.
I've Got a Feeling, Sir Paul, that you didn't think this one through. Tell Me Why, Paul, the fact that the Chinese government tortures and imprisons dissidents and is an epic abuser of human rights never prompted you to say Hello Goodbye, but coming across a National Geographic factoid that reflects Chinese cultural norms thousands of years old made you conclude that It's All Too Much? As anyone who has seen the documentaries about your recent concerts in Russia, your prestige and popularity extend Here, There and Everywhere, practically Across the Universe, and governments know it too. There's a Place for you to exercise influence, and you can make a significant impact on humanitarian, ecological and other issues as long your positions are well thought out and responsible so you avoid coming off like The Fool on the Hill. The Scoreboard isn't saying that you shouldn't Act Naturally, but having the power and influence to do good also includes the responsibility not to squander that power by aiming it at Every Little Thing.
The Scoreboard isn't saying you're a Bad Boy because you pick and choose which issues make your conscience Twist and Shout. But in expressing such outrage about a nation's treatment of canines and felines when you never seemed similarly troubled by its treatment of human beings, you risk raising real questions about the validity of your ethical priorities. If you raise enough questions about them, you'll become a real Nowhere Man as far as influencing public opinion is concerned.
It's still a Long and Winding Road ahead for you, Paul. You just have to Slow Down, do some serious thinking, and you'll quickly Get Back your ethical equilibrium, which has been exemplary in the past. I think this was just a Day in the Life of a world celebrity when emotions got the upper hand over ethics. The problem is that people like you have to be especially careful about What Goes On in their minds, because it will have a real effect on whether they can continue to use their influence to accomplish good objectives. Those Ethics Dunce moments that all of us have do far more damage when the Paul McCartneys of the world have them, and I Don't Want to Spoil the Party, but you just have to Carry That Weight.
You're welcome to contact the Scoreboard Any Time at All if you need to knock around some ethical issues; If You've Got Trouble, and there's any way I can help you, I Will.
From Me to You, with admiration,
The Ethics Scoreboard"