Jury Duty - Sebelius Leads by Example

Very few of us really look forward to a jury summons. Whatever season they arrive, it's a busy time at work. A jury summons thrusts irregularity into our schedule and our routine.

A lot of people look for excuses. "Can I get out of a jury summons?" is the most common cocktail party question faced by attorneys. Generally, the answer is "no", though, at least in Jackson County, you can fairly easily get one postponement for a good reason. But, after that, you need to serve. Only genuine hardship cases get out of it, and by hardship, I mean stuff like dying relatives and scheduled surgeries. Even then, a postponement is a more likely result.

Here's a filthy little secret - SOME politicians get out of jury duty. A phone call to a sympathetic judge who owes you a favor can, on occasion, convince the judge to give you a hardship waiver. I want to stress that 99% of the time, such a call will merely get you an embarrassed, awkward silence, followed by a suggestion that you call the jury supervisor and see what he or she has to say. Judges quite correctly take jury duty very seriously, so don't try it.

All that said, though, a Governor who formerly served as executive director of the state trial lawyers association and whose husband is a federal magistrate could easily dodge jury duty. A simple phone call to the right judge is all that it would take.

But, instead, Kathleen Sebelius showed up at the courthouse when she got her jury summons. A shining example of class and civic duty, she went through the same process as everyone else.

“I’d love to serve on a jury. I’ve never had that opportunity,” Sebelius before entering the courthouse. “I think it’s important that everybody take that civic responsibility.”

Kudos to the Governor - she took the opportunity to provide an example of how citizens ought to respond to their civic duty. As it turns out, she was excused from the panel because she knew the plaintiff's attorney, but they also serve who show up without complaining.

What Makes an Opinion Important?

In the comments to my brief piece about the Heller decision ("Probably the Correct Ruling on Guns"), Missouri's finest Libertarian candidate (which I mean as a sincere compliment, though I acknowledge it may be viewed as damned faint praise) agrees with the astonishing statement that "It is not hyperbole to describe today’s decision in Heller as the most significant opinion of this century, and likely, of the last two generations."

Really?! An opinion that stands for the wishy-washy common-sense virtually status-quo proposition that the feds can regulate but not ban individual ownership of guns is the most significant opinion of the last two generations?

Perhaps so. Perhaps there really was a national consensus gathering in favor of banning all handguns, and confiscating deer rifles. Alternatively, perhaps in light of the Heller opinion's recognition that I have a right to own a gun, all restrictions on arms will be legislatively repealed, and soon our neighbor's Fourth of July celebration will feature SAMs and tank rides.

While it would be fun to engage in paragraphs of mockery of the hyperbole which knows not what it is, the question then arises, what IS the most significant opinion of the last two generations? Roe v. Wade? Bush v. Gore (certainly, in terms of tragic and unforeseen though not unforeseeable results)? Lawrence v Texas?

Here's a list of important Supreme Court cases since 1989, if you care to limit yourself to one generation . . .

Jeff Harris Unites Kansas City Lawyers

Lawyers tend to be a fractious bunch. Plaintiff's lawyers tend to dislike defense attorneys, and the defense attorneys tend to return the favor. Big firm lawyers tend to think that small firm lawyers don't have what it takes to make the "big time", and small firm lawyers tend to think that big firm lawyers are book-smart eggheads who can't make it in the real world. Nobody likes the divorce lawyers, except their clients.

With all those disunifying tendencies, it is great to see this invitation.doc, for an event back on 4/4. The list of sponsors includes a who's who of plaintiff's lawyers, defense lawyers, big firm lawyers, solos, and even academics. It's a great list, and speaks well of Jeff Harris' ability to unify the Democratic Party behind him after he wins the primary for Attorney General.

Want to See a Lawyer About to Get Beaten?

I know there's a lot of anti-lawyer sentiment and belief in "frivolous lawsuits" out there, and 95% of it stems from massive disinformation campaigns conducted by insurance companies trying to tilt the playing field against ordinary victims. Once in a while, though, a lawyer will come along and get behind a cause so ridiculous that people can shake their heads and renew their false belief that our court system is clogged with frivolous lawsuits.

James Madison (that muffled clattering sound you hear is a forefather rolling over in his grave) is one such lawyer.

If you want to take a look at a lawyer on the wrong end of jurisprudence, here is a video of James Madison discussing his theory of why Anthony Trezvant's family ought to recover for the loss of their security-guard's-throat-stabbing son. In a nutshell, he argues that if the security guard had just let the thief get away, then the thief would not have stabbed him in the throat, and so the security guard would not have been in a position to need to shoot the thief to save his own life.

Folks, this is not the practice of law. This is an attempt to shake down the Price Chopper corporation for a quick settlement. Extortion is too strong a word to describe what Mr. Madison is attempting in organizing a protest against the Brookside Price Chopper, but that's where I would open up my Roget's Thesaurus in my search for the correct word.

Why is Mr. Madison organizing protests even before he files his lawsuit? I suspect he knows the lawsuit isn't really worth the filing fee, and he's hoping that Price Chopper will respond for PR reasons rather than legal reasons.

Mr. Madison deserves credit, though, for amending a timeworn bit of trial lawyer wisdom. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, organize a protest.

Movement Toward a New Missouri Plan?

Revolution may be afoot in the Missouri Bar regarding the matter I raised on this page back a couple months ago. The Board of Governors is back from their plush vacation at Atlantis, a luxurious resort in the Bahamas. They have been surprised that many of their colleagues are upset about the fact that the Board of Governors paid for their expensive travels out of the dues that they impose on other lawyers.

The Small Firm Internet Group (SFIG) listserve is a feisty collection of "regular guy and gal" type lawyers who share their opinions freely, and it became a hotbed of criticism of the Board's imperial behavior. The lavish sojourn has them particularly upset as it comes on the heels of a healthy dues increase passed by the same Board of Governors.

The outcry has caused Keith Birkes, the executive director of the Missouri Bar, to pen a post to the SFIG (an unprecedented step, to my knowledge) defending the dues increase. Regarding the travel expenses, Mr. Birkes explains:

There are five meetings of the Board of Governors each year - four of them inside Missouri and one traditionally outside Missouri at the site of The Missouri Bar�s Midyear Seminar. Reasonable and necessary travel expenses are reimbursed to Board members for the in-state meetings, and an adequate per diem is set for the one out-of-state meeting of the Board of Governors to cover travel, meals and two nights� lodging. At the most recent Midyear Seminar, $1,100 was authorized each Board member who attended the meeting. Members of the Board of Governors annually give up a minimum of ten working days in order to attend to their responsibilities as an elected member of the Board of Governors and many of them devote 20 or more working days to attend to those responsibilities.

The use of the passive voice in describing the reimbursement amount is kind of amusing. The $1,100 trip "was authorized each Board member" by none other than the Board of Governors itself. For several years, the Board has had a Conflict of Interest policy providing that "It is the obligation of members of The Missouri Bar, its Board of Governors, Committees and Staff to fully disclose any conflicts of interest that they may have while acting on behalf of, or participating in, the decision-making process of The Missouri Bar", but no such disclosures appear in any minutes of the Board concerning reimbursement policies or budget discussions.

Now, to be crystal clear, the Board of Governors is an outstanding collection of individuals, and Keith Birkes, is the single most competent, ethical and wise executive director I have ever worked with in more than two decades of nonprofit experience. My discussion is not meant to be a personal attack on anyone. But the Board of Governors is making a terrible mistake in blowing Missouri money and their own political capital on lavish trips to exotic locales. That money could be far better spent on meetings supporting Missouri workers, and the money blown on airfare to the Bahamas could be better spent on educating our public on how the Missouri Plan for selection and retention of judges is a crucial element of "the administration of justice and the law on behalf of the public." That would be money well-spent.

Matt Blunt Makes a Great Choice

I'm surprised and pleased by Matt Blunt today. He appointed Alok Ahuja to the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District to fill the spot created when he put Judge Patricia Breckenridge on the Missouri Supreme Court. I have known Alok for years, and he is widely recognized as one of the smartest and most thoughtful attorneys in town. He embodies what an appellate judge ought to be - incredibly smart, rigorously analytical, and intellectually creative.

While I am sure that Governor Blunt was influenced by the Republican connections of the Lathrop & Gage law firm, including "Mr. Kansas City" Jack Craft and a young woman by the name of Amy Blunt, I take my hat off to Governor Blunt for stepping outside the bitter partisanship that has lately surrounded judicial appointments, and appointing the best person for the job, even though that person happens to be a (very moderate) Democrat.

Wow.

I am sincerely impressed with Governor Blunt tonight.

And pleased for Alok, and the state of our Judiciary.

The Bar Needs a New Missouri Plan

As regular readers know, I am a vocal supporter of the Missouri Plan, and I oppose the Republicans' attempts to use our system of judicial selection and retention as a wedge issue. So, let's be clear - I like our Missouri Plan.

On an unrelated issue, though, I think the Missouri Bar needs to recommit itself to Missouri and Missourians. Did you know that in late January, the Missouri Bar will be hosting an official meeting, complete with a meeting of its governing body, the Board of Governors, outside of Missouri? And not just outside Missouri, outside of the United States!

Allow me to quote from the Missouri Bar's website:

As January's freezing temperatures grip Missouri, The Bahamas expect sunny skies and warm days, perfect for golf, shopping, relaxing on the beach, and sightseeing. Located near the capital city of Nassau and just a short hop from Florida, Atlantis is an exhilarating adventure of thrills and discoveries amidst the tropical splendor of the Caribbean. Take advantage of CLE in the morning, with afternoons and evenings free to enjoy all this paradise has to offer.

And in case you're wondering if they're serious about "CLE (continuing legal education) in the morning, yes, the latest they even offer seminars is 11:30.

Why is a Missouri quasi-governmental body channeling its dollars to The Bahamas? Why, at a time when it is working so hard to represent the best interests of the average Missourian through its defense of the Bar Plan, is the Missouri Bar leaving Missouri behind for an exclusive resort in The Bahamas?

The resort they are visiting is named Atlantis - after the mythical island that sunk into the sea. Perhaps the Missouri Bar will take the hint and sink this tradition of using its Mid-Winter meeting as an expensive tax deduction for its wealthiest members.

Missouri Plan II ought to be a commitment to hold Missouri Bar meetings in Missouri.

Over-Estimating Influence

The Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association has spoken. Will Musharaff listen?

According to esteemed KC Star legal scribe and King of Deadpan Delivery Dan Margolies,

Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association President Charley German has endorsed the American Bar Association’s protest of the suspension of the Constitution and the imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan.

In a letter to ABA President William H. Neukom, German wrote that the KCMBA condemned the attack on the rule of law in that country by President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

“It is an intolerable series of events — suspension of the Constitution, disbanding the courts, detaining the judges, and arresting lawyers who are protesting these illegal actions,” German wrote. “We join in your call on President Musharraf to restore judicial independence in Pakistan, to heed the rulings of the courts, and to free lawyers and judges who have been illegally detained.”

Thank you, KCMBA, for issuing this brave letter and taking on the work that simply must be accomplished by a small group of local, Kansas City lawyers. Now that Musharaff knows the opinion of the Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association, we can expect to see some real changes over there.

One Less Dumb Rightwing Lawyer

One of the problems facing this nation is the plethora of dumb rightwing lawyers. Without this supply of dumb rightwing lawyers, our court systems would not need to deal with silly, malicious, and poorly thought-out suits brought by fringe-element organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund, the Institute for Justice, and the United States Attorney's Office.

The problem is not so much the fact that some attorneys are rightwingers. Indeed, I've worked for, with and against a lot of rightwing attorneys, and most of them are credits to their profession.

The problem lies with the dumb rightwing lawyers. They are everywhere. 150+ bottom-tier graduates of bottom-tier Regent University School of Law (founded by Pat Robertson) have found their way into the ranks of the US Attorney's Office, so confounding the works that people like Monica Goodling find themselves "crossing the line" without ever showing evidence that she knew where the line was in the first place.

Thank goodness that Massachusetts has chosen to light a candle rather than curse the darkness. Despite getting sued for $9.75 million (why not make it an even $10 million?), the Massachusetts Board of Law Examiners is refusing admission to Stephen Dunne, who came up short on the Bar Exam after refusing to respond to a question involving a gay couple. Answering the question, he argued, would imply that he endorses gay marriage and parenting.

I'm happy that the liberal lawyers among us didn't fall victim to this trap. Where would the rule of law be today if we had refused to answer questions about the death penalty, or about corporate powers? What if we had refused to answer questions about domestic law until gay couples could participate?

The Bar Exam is a test of knowledge demonstrating whether you are intellectually fit to practice law. If you fail it for a lack of knowledge, you are free to study up and give it another try. If you think you failed it because of your political beliefs, though, perhaps you'd do better as a rightwing something else, okay?

The US Attorney Scandal - From the Beltway to I-70

The KC Blue Blog is doing a great job of staying on the US Attorney scandal and how it played a role in Missouri. I haven't written about it before today, though the story has all the elements I seek in a story. Corrupt republicans playing slimy politics under the cover of National Security to oppress poor people. Classic stuff.

The problem I've had writing about it is that the bigger lesson I draw from it is difficult to articulate. The lesson is that the Republicans are fouling the nest of government - turning the very workings of government into corruption. And even though it's a matter of degree, it's a matter of degree to such an extent that it changes the very nature of things.

Brad Schlozman was not the first US Attorney for the Western District of Missouri to be appointed with an eye toward politics. Take, for example, Steve Hill. When he was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993, he had been out of law school for all of 7 years (a year behind me at Mizzou) and had no significant prosecutorial experience. He had worked as a staff member for Ike Skelton. But everyone, on both sides of the aisle, knew that Steve was a solid lawyer with great judgment and a sincere desire to be the best US Attorney possible. Hill was hired because he would play it straight, and I've never heard anyone complain that he didn't do that.

So, no, Brad Schlozman was not the first US Attorney for Missouri's Western District chosen because of political connections. As far back as you care to look, you'll see the the office has been filled by lawyers with political connections - during both Republican and Democratic administrations.

But here's where it gets tough to explain. Schlozman was different. Never before have we had a political goon hired into the position. Where we've had lawyers with political connections appointed in the past, they have always been good lawyers with able intellects and a mission of doing their job as fairly and competently as possible. While I was no fan of Todd Graves, the republican appointee prior to Schlozman, my disagreement comes in the area of politics, not in the area of how he sought to do his job. But Schlozman was chosen partially because he was willing to back the unconstitutional Texas redistricting scheme. Better to be far-right than right.

I knew John McKay, the US Attorney who got fired in Seattle. John is one of the most conservative lawyers I know - he sincerely believes the government ought to be trimmed as much as humanly possible to defense and a court system - but he was so competent and effective that he was elected chair of the ABA Young Lawyers Division, a group which tends to be dominated by left-leaning folk (with some notable exceptions). Again, while I could disagree with John's politics, I respected his fairness and competence. He's the sort of person who has traditionally been appointed to the US Attorney's office. Bush/Gonzalez fired him.

That's the pattern I've seen in so many instances during this administration. Political ties have always been important, but it's new and different now. During the tenure of Bush I, and Reagan, the republican administrations were filled with what they thought were the best and brightest of the conservative ranks. Now, they seek the most thuggish and extreme.

During prior Republican administrations, the College Republicans at places like Dartmouth and Princeton would flow into the ranks of the staff. Bush/Gonzalez has hired 150 people from Regent University School of Law, an academically weak but far-right stronghold founded by nutcase televangelist Pat Robertson. 150. That's incredible.

Not only is it incredible, but it is a shift in the rules of the game. I can't adequately express how sad that is. The US Attorney of the Western District of Missouri has always been a politically-connected lawyer chosen for his or her competence. Now, we have an administration which is filling the ranks of the US Attorneys office with people whose competence is shaky, but whose loyalties are not. And that, my friends, is a very bad thing - a diminished US Attorneys office will hurt us all, Republicans and Democrats.