Woe Unto You, Lawyers! and Judges

Our system of justice may be the least "corrupt" among all nations - that is, corruption defined as deliberately engaging in illegal activity; however, our system's level of intrinsic legalized corruption is high.

The complexity of the US federal system, including the legalese and the vast number of courts, prosecutors and regulators at state and federal levels; the exclusion of attorneys from the market; absolute judicial immunity (although necessary insofar as allowing judges to adjudicate matters without fear of retribution, many times it give judges absolute power as well and we know what absolute power does); the collusion present in the profession, especially visible in family law due to "no fault" divorce; and the infinite number of traps deliberately built into our system to ensnare the ordinary citizen or anyone without a law degree all contribute to the betrayal of public trust in our courtrooms.

It's almost impossible to find justice without an attorney, yet, increasingly, it's becoming harder and harder to trust that attorneys will work on our behalf. There is no corruption in the process of becoming an attorney, as even JFK Jr had great difficulty. He flunked the bar more than once...not that JFK Jr was the epitome of intelligence, however it does prove political connections alone are not enough to add the "Esquire" at the end of your name.

Here's where the "corruption" begins: After passing the bar, and on the road to making a name for themselves, lawyers realize they are inoculated against facing consequences of their dishonest or illegal actions, in other words, immune. Out of 121,000 complaints filed against lawyers and investigated by the Bar Association, according to the American Bar Association, only 1% of these complaints led to disbarment and only 3.5 percent led to formal discipline...the remaining 96.5% complaints were classified as unfounded or only received private sanctions or warnings. That's right...the attorney you hire and shell out over $300/hour too, in most cases, can pretty much do as he or she pleases without the fear of any adverse effects befalling them.

• A 2006 American Bar Association survey found that out of 123,927 complaints, only 3.5 percent led to formal discipline and less than one percent resulted in disbarment.

• Of these 123,927 complaints, 92 percent led to no discipline or only informal slaps on the wrist in the form of “private sanctions.”

• According to a 2002 HALT study, in 50 states (including the District of Columbia),
lawyers make up at least two-thirds of the committee adjudicating attorney discipline complaints.

Then, here comes the judge. He dresses differently, sits above everyone else, and is the only one who can address the court at will. “You’re Honor.” If it pleases the court.” Everyone must stand when he comes in. All these gestures of obeisance in addition to judicial infallibility due to his immune status, makes the judge the closest thing to God.

How can they help but internalize this sense of power? Who needs reflection, introspection or perspective when you're God? Unfortunately, many judges lose the ability to be honest about who they are, fail to reflect on their decisions and lose the perspective necessary to account for their own bias, experiences and preference, all crucial to making fair judgments. Their unchecked judicial authority ultimately transforms a good percentage of them from one who follows the rule of law, to one who becomes the law, the opposite of what our forefathers intended.

We don’t have the last word because we’re infallible but we are infallible because we have the last word. – The late Justice Jackson

It wasn't always this way. Originally, lawyers in America were educated in William Blackstone who based the legitimacy of law in the inherent equality of man and very definite immutable and fixed moral principles based on the inalienable rights of man, rights that by their very nature cannot be taken away or violated.

After 1900 lawyers began attending law schools that ignored Blackstone and taught legal theory based primarily on case precedent. Judicial decisions started to trump moral principles and the inalienable rights of man. Judges became godlike and our legal system has evolved based on the arbitrary opinions of a few rather elitist men instead of a morality based on the fact that human beings have inherent rights which no ruler can question or alter.

"The integrity of law, its religious roots, its transcendent quality are disappearing...The first 100 years of American lawyers were trained on Blackstone, who wrote that: 'The law of nature, dictated by God himself,is binding in all counties and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all force and all their authority from this original. 'The Framers created a government of limited power with this understanding of the rule of law - that it was dependent on transcendent religious obligation." -- Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, addressing the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School

Should we turn back the clock a few centuries and teach Blackstone, forgetting the contributions of all the other Jurists past, present and those to come? No. Rather we should never forget the great principles of law Blackstone set forth as the foundation of our system of justice. The bottom line is "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and it underlies, and is the reason corruption has infiltrated and spread so thoroughly through our justice system.

Links:

Help Abolish Legal Tyranny (HALT) Dedicated to providing simple, affordable, accountable justice for all, HALT's Reform Projects challenge the legal establishment to improve access and reduce costs in our civil justice system at both the state and federal levels.

American Legal Ethics Library offers many state rules, codes, ethics opinions, and narratives drafted for the American Legal Ethics Library.

American Judicature Society The Center for Judicial Ethics of the American Judicature Society acts as a clearinghouse for information about judicial ethics and discipline.

The Association of Professonal Responsibility Lawyers (APRL), an independent national organization of lawyers concentrating in the fields of professional responsibility and legal ethics.

The National Client Protection Organization, Inc.(NCPO) Include providing help and support to protection funds and programs to protect legal consumers from dishonest conduct in the practice of law.

National Council of Lawyer Disciplinary Boards, Inc. Serves as a national forum for the exchange of information and ideas about the administration, conduct and improvement of formal disciplinary and related proceedings for lawyers admitted to practice law in or more jurisdictions of the United States.

Judicial Family Institute national organization dedicated to providing information and education on topics of concern and importance to judicial family members.

National Organization of Bar Counsel is a non-profit organization of legal professionals whose members enforce ethics rules that regulate the professional conduct of lawyers who practice law in the United States, Canada and Australia.

Read more...

"Liberty and Equal Justice for For Wealthy, Powerful, Law School Grads"

"We build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures. But, we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens by our efforts; we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state." -- Chesterfield Smith

Could anyone guess the above quotation describes the law profession if they didn't already know? I doubt it.

The legal profession is supposed to "guarantees liberty and equal justice for all" however the tremendous imbalance of power between consumers and lawyers leave the majority of "we the people" at the mercy of lawyers and in need of a second lawyer to protect the consumer from his lawyer and a third...well, you get my point.

Liberated from the workings of the free market the courts are far from consumer friendly and they are designed so that the weakest consumer, with the least amount of financial power or status, are in the weakest position and many times end up victims of our "system of justice". The monopoly lawyers have over our courts, make it impossible for the average person to pursue justice without paying astronomical hourly fees.

The good attorneys, who really want to right wrongs, and place ethics above profit will find it hard to hang in, as greed, which trumped ethics long ago, continues to spread like a fungus throughout the profession we are forced to depend upon to "protect" our rights. Just as fungus, given the right conditions, feeds on organic matter in order to reproduce itself, the legal industry, regulated by their own tribunal and lacking independent oversight, provides the perfect climate for avarice and self-interest to feed on our system of justice, as it is composed of almost nothing but lawyers. This sad state of affairs makes those lawyers who stay true to their ethical duty and professional obligation invaluable or at least worth the hourly rate.

A few posts ago I brought up a friend who is going through a bitter divorce in relation to our welfare laws. Regarding that same case I'm also learning what a racket the legal industry is. This woman who struggled along with her husband to achieve the "American Dream" and raise their three children for almost two decades is a perfect example of someone who, through no choice of her own, was thrown into this lion's den of "justice". One day, her husband, thoroughly convinced of Ayn Rand's genius, after listening to a follower of Objectivism, spout on and on about Rand's selfish philosophy, and although he never read a single sentence she wrote, he decided it was time to live only for himself. He hired an attorney, withdrew his 401K and filed for divorce before she or the children even knew what hit them. Overnight, she plunged from a "soccer mom" standard of living to being trapped in a home with her children, unable to pay the bills, let alone an attorney who charges $300/hour.

Unless she has a rich friend who wants to open his bank account to her, there is not much she can do as she is not entitled to an attorney by law. If you are accused in a criminal case and run the risk of serving time, whether it be ten days or ten years, you have the right to an attorney. Losing your children, your home, your life savings, job etc. does not warrant representation...in other words, there is no right to counsel in a civil case, no matter how disastrous the outcome of the case could be to your life.

Legal does not always mean ethical or that something is right as we have learned over and over again throughout history. The law can be so complicated in and of itself, not to mention the legalese it's written in and spoken, making it impossible to comprehend that common folk don't stand a chance against someone who can afford an attorney. Attorneys and judges can interpret the law in so many different directions it could make a seasoned attorney's head spin let alone someone who barely graduated high school.

These immense gray areas in the way laws are written already allow lawyers and judges to evade ethics and morality for the sake of their client, however when lawyers take that a few steps further and circumvent the law, not for the sake of their client, but for greed, self-interest and cronyism, the law becomes meaningless. Lawyers focus so much on the technicalities of the law, that right and wrong, fair and unfair, many times do not factor in the decisions they make.

For example - in another case I learned about through the case I'm currently observing - a divorce lawyer, knowing that the lack of alimony in his client's case would make her destitute, nevertheless, told the woman the only way he would continue to represent her was if she would agree not to ask for any alimony. This woman, knowing she didn't have a leg to stand on as she had no more money and the attorney fees she already owed were coming out of her portion of the house when it sold, agreed.

Not only did every single penny earned from the sale of her assets go to her lawyer, her wealthy husband earned back any attorney fees he had to pay quickly, continued to receive pay increases, continued to build up his retirement, including 401K match and overall continued to prosper. The woman and her children received very little child support because her ex husband, holding an executive position in his company, was able to hide his true income from the court, knowing his wife did not have the attorney power to investigate, and therefore his child support was calculated on what he chose to submit to the court. This woman, only making minimum wage, ended up in public housing on food stamps, with all her earnings going to pay for her health insurance.

When a prospective client whose legal claim to $600 meant impoverishing a widow and her six children, Abraham Lincoln said, refusing to take the case,

"Some things that are right legally are not right morally, I advise a sprightly, energetic man like you to try your hand at making six hundred dollars in some other way."

“Equal Justice Under Law” sits above the doors of the Supreme Court, however it should read "Equal Justice For Those Who Can Afford to Pay Outrageous Attorney Fees, are Well-Versed in the Law and Powerful Enough to Make Their Lawyer Truly Represent Them" That may sound a bit awkward and wordy but it comes much closer to the truth than the few words that currently welcome people into the Supreme Court.

Read more...