Letters

ABA’s Civil Gideon Position Left Out

Your coverage in the July 13 ABA Journal eReport of the issues presented in King v. King, the Washington state case implicating a civil right to counsel (“Mom Wants State to Pay in Custody Battle”) was important and generally informative to ABA members and other readers.

It is surprising, however, that the reporter apparently was not aware of a historic ABA policy directly on point or, if aware of the policy, chose not to mention it:

“Resolved, That the American Bar Association urges federal, state and territorial governments to provide legal counsel as a matter of right at public expense to low-income persons in those categories of adversarial proceedings where basic human needs are at stake, such as those involving shelter, sustenance, safety, health or child custody, as determined in each jurisdiction.”

The report and resolution of the ABA Task Force on Access to Civil Justice, unanimously adopted by the House in August, are accessible on the ABA Web site (PDF).

This significant policy puts the ABA squarely on record in support of a critically important civil right (a Civil Gideon) that should be accorded to all Americans—a right that will give true meaning to the promise of “equal justice under law” that is inscribed above the doors to the U.S. Supreme Court and on courthouses throughout America.

Michael S. Greco
ABA Immediate-Past President
Boston


Bush v. Gore wasn’t a shock

Regarding Answers of the Week, July 13: It never ceases to astound me how some lawyers got admitted to the bar. Bush v. Gore was a case wherein a U.S. statute controlled how federal office elections are to be conducted. It prohibited changes in the law made after an election from affecting that election. The Florida Supreme Court tried to change the rules by adding another recount. The U.S. Supreme Court decision was clearly foreseeable.

That it is still questioned by lawyers is shocking.

John T. Hammond
St. Joseph, Mich.


Lawyers ‘serve’ willfully

Regarding “A Call for Common Sense,” July 13: While I do not disagree about the need for common sense or the fact that the legal profession should be about service, I strongly disagree with the author's assertion that attorneys are servants, and the public is the cause for the absence of common sense:

“If the public would accept the legal profession as a service industry, it would result in a dramatic shift in perspective regarding the profession as a whole. Attorneys are servants—educated and well-paid, but servants nonetheless. And in this service role, one’s attorney is not the arbiter of common sense. And with this shift of perspective, it would become clear that responsibility falls upon the shoulders of all Americans to accept the negative consequences of their own stupidity and live lives guided by common sense.”

I am an attorney, and I consider the legal profession to be one of service. Never, however, have I considered myself to be a servant, and I do not see this as a necessary corollary. An attorney is a counselor (with all the obligations that implies), not a servant. We can and do refuse cases, clients, and claims that are wrong, unethical, stupid, or simply unwarranted, and I believe we have an obligation to do so. Thus, contrary to the author’s conclusion that the absence of common sense falls upon all Americans, it is precisely when lawyers see themselves as servants—available to do whatever is asked of them—that it is the lawyers themselves, not the American public, who are to blame.

Sally Scherer
Raleigh, N.C.


©2007 ABA Journal


eReport Table of Contents

eReport Table of Contents