The topic was timely and important, especially since Cochran provided a national perspective on the Simpson trial and also touched on Wisconsin’s convicted murderer, Jeffrey Dahmer.
"We felt we should not close the door on speakers simply because we don’t agree with what they have to say or their methods of practice," Watson says.
The program drew 650 attendees, a record for an annual meeting. The standing-room-only event held in the largest hall of the convention center was also well attended by the general media. Before the event, reporters focused on Cochran’s speaking fee. Afterward, the coverage keyed on the program’s content and was largely positive.
"In retrospect, we thought it was a huge success, boosted convention attendance greatly, and even with the few naysayers, was well worth it. We would do it again if given the opportunity," adds Watson.
In January 1998, New York State Bar Association leaders also heard from dissenting members about Cochran’s appearance at their annual meeting. The bar’s Criminal Justice Section invited Cochran, who was not compensated because an Executive Committee member knew someone who knew Cochran.
The Bar News ran an advance story about Cochran and other meeting speakers and, later, stories during the daily convention coverage along with follow-ups. The New York Daily News, New York Times, New York Post and Associated Press wire service provided substantial coverage of Cochran’s appearance, according to Brad Carr of Albany, the state bar’s director of communications. While the executive director and some staff heard from a handful of people who were upset about Cochran’s appearance, no members defected.
Bar leaders learned they should provide a general disclaimer that a speaker is invited by a particular entity of the association, and does not necessarily reflect the standing of the association as a whole, Carr says.
"The program was open to members and the public. If the program was deemed inappropriate or offensive, people could choose not to attend,
Carr says.Controversy not always negative
Having a controversial figure doesn’t always lead to negative sparks. For example, Arkansas Bar Association members welcomed Justice Thomas without any protest at their annual meeting in June, which attracted a record 800 attendees. C-SPAN and other media covered Thomas’ keynote speech as a routine assignment.
Thomas spoke for about a half-hour, declined media interviews and questions from the audience, and stayed briefly to congratulate the incoming bar president and greet other bar officials, says Executive Director Don Hollingsworth of Little Rock.
The same can be said for another controversial figure, Geoffrey Fieger, a candidate for Michigan governor and lawyer to assisted-suicide doctor, Jack Kervorkian. Fieger was invited by the State Bar of Michigan’s Law Practice Management Section to speak at the bar’s annual meeting in September.
The controversial "Doctor Death" has consistently drawn national attention, which has reflected on Fieger and his legal role. Yet Fieger himself did not attract protests at the bar’s meeting. About 100 bar members and reporters for the Detroit Legal News and Michigan Lawyers’ Weekly
"It went very smoothly," says Walter Sorg Jr. of Lansing, the state bar’s associate executive director of communications. attended Fieger’s speech. Other general media reporters later reached Fieger outside to ask about issues unrelated to his bar presentation.
Take a stand, then stand back
Besides speakers, some issues can be just as potent. A resolution calling for a moratorium on executions was at the heart of the 1997 ABA midyear meeting in San Antonio. The ABA House of Delegates approved the resolution by a 280 to 119 vote, then stood back to await the flurry of comments from members and the media.
"I spent 10 years in policy making in the ABA and never saw this much attention as this resolution received, and it lasted for months and generated a great deal of press," says Leslie Harris of Washington, D.C., who chaired the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities when the resolution was drafted.
The resolution called for a moratorium on executions until the courts can ensure that this punishment can be administered fairly, impartially and with due process. It was based on a report with recommendations sponsored by the sections of individual rights and litigation.
While the sections had considered such a policy some years before, Harris notes, they had the opportunity to cultivate bar leaders who were considered the power centers. "You cannot do it alone. You have to do your homework," Harris adds.
After much debate, the report and recommendations were approved. Afterward, the section leaders did extensive follow-up, state by state. "This brought more attention to the issue than anything else," Harris says.
In fact, other state and local bar associations, including the Pennsylvania Bar Association, Philadelphia Bar Association, Chicago Council of Lawyers and Connecticut Bar Association have followed the ABA lead, according to the report, "Refocusing the Death Penalty Discussion in the United States: Impact of the American Bar Association Call for a Moratorium on Executions," released in September. Similar controversy hit these bars, too, where, in most cases, some bar members felt the resolution was a veiled attempt to denounce the death penalty, Harris explains.
"The reaction has become more favorable as time went on (sic). But many thought this was subterfuge to oppose the death penalty. Many had to be walked through it, and some were never persuaded," Harris says.
Bars that favored the moratorium had similar experiences, including widespread press coverage and members threatening to quit.
"There are certain moral and ethical issues in which the bar association needs to be out in front," says Clifford Haines, the chancellor of the Philadelphia bar when the moratorium resolution passed in 1997.
Members look toward the bar leadership for direction. "It’s important as a leader that you’re not so far in front that you’re not leading anyone. It’s also important to step out in front and still make people comfortable," he adds.
After giving everyone an opportunity to speak, the bar should take action. "That’s what being a leader is all about. You have to make decisions for things that should be done," Haines adds. When the Chicago Council of Lawyers passed its resolution in 1997, bar leaders continued to inform the membership throughout the process by sending special mailings and running newsletter articles, according to Malcolm Rich, the organization’s executive director. The council’s outreach also included the governor, top legislators, and various other legal, religious and professional organizations. A press conference publicly announced the bar’s intentions and informed the media, members and the public.
"I would advise anyone in this position to keep the lines of communication open. The membership should not be surprised," Rich says, adding that member reaction was positive.
Aware of other bars’ experiences, the Connecticut Bar Association was prepared when its resolution passed during its annual meeting last June. While at least one well-known lawyer threatened to resign, media reports were favorable.
"No matter how hard you try, there will always be a misunderstanding. You just need to put out the fires when they develop," says immediate past president Peter Costas of Hartford, who was president at the time of the bar’s voice vote on the moratorium resolution.
Multiple issues, multiple headaches
While a single issue can cause extra concern for bar leaders, a history of controversial stands can add up to trouble as well. For several years, The State Bar of California has been a hotbed of controversial positions regarding social and legal issues. These stands have contributed to the bar’s loss of finances, employees and influence with state officials.
"The bar didn’t adequately predict what was going to happen," says Steven Nissen of San Francisco, the bar’s executive director since November 1997.
During the 1990s, the U.S. Supreme Court ‘s decision in the Keller case prompted litigation regarding the use of unified bar dues in California. Then in 1995, a membership plebiscite opened up further discussion of bar operations. The bar has been accused of having high mandatory dues, a political agenda, too much bureaucracy and financial irresponsibility. (Also see "Bar in Crisis: No money, no staff. State Bar in California in a bad state" Bar Leader, Fall 1998, p. 4)
"It’s been a very rocky decade, and the bar has really failed to see the signals and respond to them. It should have lowered the dues, streamlined the bureaucracy, and defined and separated the activities that bar members felt were too political," Nissen admits.
The bar’s Conference of Delegates’ approval of such resolutions as same sex marriages and insurance for unmarried couples rankled many state legislators. While the bar’s policy-making Board of Governors did not adopt those resolutions, the governor ignored the distinction and highlighted those issues to explain his reason for vetoing the bar’s budget in October 1997.
"Our first task was to reach out to the governor and to both political parties to forge some type of compromise," Nissen says. The bar’s Board of Governors later supported compromise legislation that addressed many of the governor’s concerns.
"It was a very tough sell. (That is) because the bar membership is so fractured regarding what direction the bar should go," Nissen adds. In the process, sections and divisions splintered and hundreds of bar employees were terminated because the bar had little money.
The bar suffered another blow when a new bill wasn’t considered before the legislature adjourned on Aug. 31, which led to the virtual shut down of the association.
"It’s not just the contact, you really have to listen and to anticipate problems instead of just letting things fester," he adds.
Anna Marie Kukec
