see Pat: Philosopher in Battle Dress

MUDSLINGING IN COURT: Does Name Calling Contribute to A System of Justice?

Before the Rockaway Park Philosophical Society came the issue of using the public forum to continue acrimony between a judge and a lawyer post trial. The Society explores issues deemed significant to it in a point-counterpoint method. Sometimes that takes the form of bringing all argument to their logical and hopefully their ridiculous extreme. The Society hopes that by exalting the ridiculous and ridiculing the sublime, the search for truth may be de-mystified.

Herein the Mentor poses a question to the Dean concerning the appropriateness of indulging the public in private personality clashes between lawyers and judges.

Greetings Dean and Greetings to Our Lord, the Prince Regent and Lord President of the Society:

I had occasion to ponder the Dean's words concerning a lawyer's obligation to refrain from adverse comment on a court or judge. Notwithstanding protections of free speech guaranteed in various written constitutions in force in North America, a lawyer, the Dean would inform us, may not personally criticize in public a court or judge. Does the obverse that a judge should not publicly criticize a lawyer, also hold true?

I ask this not out of idle or philosophical interest but because in a rather significant case involving a renowned entrepreneur sometimes called by the Society 'The American Socrates,' a judge in an exclusive interview granted the press called one of the lawyers stupid. Would this not be a breach of comity or at least etiquette?

I can see how in appropriate circumstances a judge might be required to caution a lawyer in the strongest, direct language privately in chambers or even publicly in open session when need requires. Is public name calling within the bounds of fair play?

Cheerio, JW Rowe
MENTOR
Mentor_rpps@yahoo.com

Greetings Lord Mentor (Mentor_rpps@theglobe.com) and Greetings Beloved Editor of Inditer Dot Com and Lord President and Prince Regent of the Society

A 19th century jurist wrote that the relationship between bar and bench should be one of "mutual respect and admiration." The legal profession has undergone many changes since those lofty sentiments were first uttered and in the 25 years since I first took the oath. On one hand the bar has succumbed to commonality. I read in Grant De Man's column in Inditer dot com that US Customs Inspectors now issue licenses to practise law to any Canadian willing to renounce Elizabeth II and to abide permanently by true republican principles.

The cost of democratization has been too great. It took the Clennan family four generations from the time the original [American] John Clennan left Canada in 1861 to produce their first lawyer.

How horrid!

All kidding aside, with due respect to our favorite Canadian author, the legal profession inside the US is not as selective as once was. Anyone with the cash can find "a Joe's law school" to gain admission.

When the jurist wrote that the relationship ought to be one of mutual respect and admiration, the battle was in the courtroom. The surveillance experienced today much of which can't be told has added a new dimension to the challenge of law in the 21st century that wasn't there when the jurist scripted those words or even when I became a lawyer. How can there be respect among lawyers or between lawyers and the court when the battle of wits is an intelligence game rather than a match of intellects?

Parenthetically your remarks do bring to mind a colorful vignette revolving around one of your audiogrammes overheard by a person both sides for different reasons ironically code named "Jane." It might be a funny outcropping of a tale that can't be told.

Wholly apart from the new dimension of surveillance, the etiquette, customs and manners of the legal profession have changed significantly. Once most Judge would not grant interviews to the press. Those who did limited interviews to general personal information and philosophy. Generally Judges did not discuss pending cases or issues which could arise in the future. This limitation preserved the integrity and independence of the Judiciary.

While as a rule judges of the past did not publicly discuss handling of a case even to rebuff critics, such is not true today. Perhaps we might say the old restriction has faded into an old fashioned courtesy no longer regarded as binding. The independence of the judiciary may protect a judge from disciple or removal for untoward public remarks.

Should a judge stoop to mudslinging?

Unfortunately when propriety is lost and legal contest devolve into ad hominem, respect for the tribunal will vanish and with that public acceptance of judicial determinations upon which any system of justice must ultimately rest.

Pro Socio Socorum,
JF Clennan
Dean of The Rockaway Park Philosophical Society

1. Don Grant Deman: The Canadian O'Henry

   Grant DeMan's review of IF ALL MEN WERE ANGELS appeared in print in The Iconoclast. A regular contributor to Canada's nationally recognis[z]ed Inditer dot com Press, Grant Deman continues to grace the art of O'Henry with a Canadian accent. Read Grant's Cracker Barrel at Inditer dot com.

2. Loeppky v US

   Inditer dot com invites submissions on the Clintons' bloody legacy in Canada: the continuing public health crisis caused by the sale of corrupted blood to the Canadian Red Cross.

   visit The Inditer.com