The Illinois Bar Association seems to think that the answer is no. Matthew Hale, the leader of the white supremacist “World Church of the Creator” has been refused a license to practice law, although he has graduate from law school and passed the bar. “The record evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that Hale is not fit to practice law. The evidence also demonstrates that Hale lacks the moral character necessary to satisfy even minimal bar admission standards,” the fitness committee said in court papers. In November of last year the Illinois Supreme Court refused to consider his appeal (link to story on Freedom Forum Online which also has background information.). The United States Supreme Court, in June of this year, also refused to review(link to story on CNN) the case.
What exactly are bar associations? The impression I’ve gotten is that they aren’t exactly government entities, but they are closely affiliated with the government. Seeing as how the 1st Amendment applies to the government, the exact nature of bar associations is something that should be clarified. I find the idea of “charactr” being a criterion for participation in a political entity such as the judicial system to be very troubling, however. It is almost as bad as saying that White Supremists shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
It’s not the Bar Association, its the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Illinois Supreme Court.
I can totally understand the confusion, though. Though in every state the supreme court regulates the legal profession, some supreme courts have delegated part or all of the responsibility to the state bar association. In those states, you have to be a member of the state bar association to practice law.
Illinois doesn’t follow that pattern, though. The Supreme Court instead created the aforementioned ARDC to examine, license, and regulate attorneys. I don’t have to be a member of the Illinois State Bar Association to practice law in Illinois.
The basic problem is that Matthew Hale is a right wing hatemonger. If he’d been a left-winger hatemonger, he’d have hung out his shingle by now, and it would never have come to the attention of the press in the first place.
It’s not a “free speech” issue. It’s an issue of whether he has the “character” to be a practicing attorney (I’ll temporarily refrain from my normal round of lawyer jokes).
There is a rule that requires that you pass not only law school and the bar exam, but the “character” issue as well. Why? To make sure that any attorney in Illinois represents people properly.
Can Hale properly represent a black person, or a Jew? No. Since the rules governing attorneys mandate that they represent everybody equally, he obviously fails in this regard.
DavidB, I’d be willing to bet that we could find a number of practicing lawyers in Illinois who could not be trusted to defend different people of different backgrounds. Is there really any effort to keep them out of practice?
This looks disturbingly like a suppression based on “thought crimes.”
Can an attorney refuse to represent clients of a particular race, religion, sex, etc., without running afoul of anti-discrimination laws? It’s not like an attorney is his clients’ employer or anything.
What EXACTLY is he being excluded for? If it his political and social views, this is disturbing. People with unpopular social views should never be disenfranchised from the legal or political process FOR THOSE VIEWS. If the guy has been convicted of crimes in connection with his beliefs that is a different story, but he hasn’t. Forbidding someone from practicing law because their philosophy is offensive to you - or others for that matter - is clearly a violation of the spirit of the first amendment, even if it is technically legal in a case like this.
David, you of all people? Should YOU be prohibited from practicing law because of your (to many people) immoral and unrepresentative atheist beliefs? Did you see the following paragraph in this article?
Unfortunately, that’s not from the AP, it was written special for the Free Speech Forum Online, or whatever the heck it’s called, but it’s the quotes that I find disturbing anyway. If they are accurate, that’s pretty bad. I’ve always felt that the fundamental truths of nondiscrimination and equality were perfectly compatible with the first amendment, and it is a bit too cynical, to me at least, to think that this is such a tenuous position that no one should be allowed to even argue any other view.
That’s the Anti-Defamation League, mind. Even Alan Dershowitz is apparently unhappy with this decision.
I find white supremacist views pretty offensive and usually downright stupid, and this guy seems to be no exception. So I take his side with the greatest reluctance, but still - if asked, I have to say the action seems improper.
No one is trying to limit this person’s speech (First ammendment right).
The fact is that being an attorney is somewhat of a public service, and, it requires certain character traits. The person must prove he is honest and trustworthy (they usually get a current Judge to swear to this) among other things. It’s likely that this person has demonstrated undesirable traits during his legal training.
As an analogy, imagine if the racist doctor announced publically that he believed black people did not deserve to live. Is the state medical board going to give him a license, even if he got the highest grade on the licensing exam? Probably not, because doctors are there to protect all human life. As such, attorneys are expected to keep the rights of everyone in mind, and if the state agency in charge of such things has reason to believe (and I’m sure they have a LOT of reason) that the candidate would not do that, then he should not be a lawyer.
I am not interested in connecting this situation to the First Amendment. I’m simply concerned about fairness.
It smacks of a thought police mentality: Only the “correct” people may practice law in Illinois.
OK. If he was handed a case in which he was expected to defend a black or Jew in a criminal defense, he would probably sandbag it. How is this truly different than the idea that Big Jim Thompson would probably sandbag any poor working-class guy accused of wrong-doing by a business? We don’t even know that Hale has any intention of practicing criminal law, so the whole issue of his “fairness” to prospective clients could easily be moot.
The point is that the decision has been based on his personal declarations of belief, with absolutely no supporting evidence regarding any actual actions that he had taken. For example, had he publicly urged people to support Benjamin Smith’s flight from arrest, it could be shown that Hale was not supportive of the Law. Had he claimed that Smith’s actions were justified, a similar complaint could be made. However, the furthest that Hale went during the Smith situation was to claim that Smith probably broke under the pressure of the evils foisted upon the unfortunate white men of this country. Those sorts of remarks indicate that Hale is a scumbag and a jerk, but they do not demonstrate any legal definition of moral unfitness.
Who’s to say that a racist can’t be honest or trustworthy? There are plenty of lawyers who take cases based on political ideology. I fail to see why there aren’t plenty of lawyers who refuse cases because of ideology.
**
Why not just stick with lawyers? What if the doctor simply said he thought black people were inferior? No license for you doctor.
They shouldn’t bar him from practice in the state. Just because someone has unpopular views it should not keep them out of the judical/political process. You can be a racist and still act within the ethical code of lawyers. As long as he doesn’t wish to be a prosecutor or part of the state legal defense team, then who cares?
Marc
From what little I have read of this case, it seems he has made it clear that he intends to use his position as a means to forward his cause. As such, it seems obvious that he is not willing to drop his views in order to practice law.
Again, I’m not very familiar with this case, that was from a four sentence blurb I read in the newspaper.
Being a public defender or state prosecutor is a public office. Being a private attorney is not (or am I misinformed?). Is someone in private practice NOT free to take or leave cases as they see fit? I was always under that impression.
As far as his plans to pursue his social agenda, he’s hardly the first person to do that. And moreover, he should be allowed to try. I don’t think he’ll get very far because I don’t think there are good arguments to make for his positions. But to say he will not be allowed to even make his case is a very bad precedent, at odds with the openness that should be a part of judicial practice.
You could also look at it this way. White supremacists are being denied, by policy, a sympathetic defense attorney. Are they not ethically entitled to the best defense they can get? It seems backward to say they are, but then consciously undercut the possibility that the best defense available might include an attorney who believes they are right and can make their own arguments on their behalf.
Again, I’m not losing any sleep over this particular guy. I’m even a little uncomfortable saying what I’ve said because this is such a reprehensible object for what is nevertheless a sound principle. But that principle, that everyone should be free to speak openly and let others make up their minds about whether they are right or not, including in court, is being inhibited here - even if there is some ruling that says it isn’t technically a first amendment case. Freedom of speech is meaningless if it only applies to popular views. It’s because we find this guy offensive that we should support his licensing.
I do have some reservations, though. I saw a guy in the news the other day who is using civil litigation to try and shut down white supremacist groups. He gets juries to give huge punitive damage awards, which takes the material support from such groups. I’m glad they’re being shut down, but I can’t help feeling that using civil suits in this way to advance a political agenda is a kind of abuse of the law: we know the awards are really jury judgements against the views of the groups, which is okay with me, but it is hidden behind a pretext of some civil wrong or other that may or may not have anything to do with white supremacist views. That dissemblance seems highly improper to me, and I don’t think suits should be used this way. I can’t help but wonder if Hale is planning something similar, from the other side. But that possibility of his abusing the law is my main concern, and it’s not something he’s done, it’s something I’m afraid he MIGHT DO. I’d rather see him, and any lawyer who manipulates the law dishonestly disbarred, rather than shut out before the fact.
You mean there aren’t a lot of crusaders who go into law school? There are plenty of lawyers who use their position as a means to forward their causes. There are lobbyist who are members of the bar in their various states. The guy might be interested in taking cases that only apply to his particular crusade. So why is that so bad?
If he is found to deal with his clients issues in an unethical way then he should be disbarred. But to prevent him from practicing law is a bad idea. If I were a racist being charged with a crime or sued I might want a lawyer that agrees with my point of view.
“Can Hale properly represent a black person, or a Jew? No. Since the rules governing attorneys mandate that they represent everybody equally, he obviously fails in this regard.”
Presumably, Hale would decline to represent blacks or Jews.
Maybe this sounds unfair, but consider that many attorneys would decline to represent the tobacco industry; certain criminal defendants, etc.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if neo-nazis or whatever have problems finding lawyers now and then. Hale would give them one more lawyer to choose from
From what the lawyers I work with have told me, yes. They said that, generally, several people each year fail to meet these standards. Admittedly, it is usually due to something more concrete, like a crime.
Somebody mentioned the Benjamin Smith case – remember that Hale lied about his relationship to Smith. To me, this doesn’t bode well for his “character.” First he said he barely knew him. Then, as time went on and more facts came out, he changed his story, piece by piece.
Of course, that’s not the only time he has lied publicly. In fact, if you’ve ever read any of his pamphlets, it’s full of blatant lies.
As far as the issue of him refusing to represent somebody, there are several problems with that. One, as already noted, lawyers are supposed to take any client that comes to them. Two, in many cases a judge will assign a private attorney to a case, such as when public defenders are all too busy or there is some other reason to exclude them. Thus, again, an attorney must represent his client to the fullest extent. There is no way in hell that Hale would do that.
While I am personally glad that they denied this guy a license, I sort of see the point of the Anti-Defamation League that it could be a slippery slope type of stand. I wonder what the ACLU’s take would be on this.
I would prefer to see guys like this go ahead and get their licenses, and then have the media publicize their careers and show them for the idiots that they are.
For an example of what a lawyer should be able to do despite his personal beliefs, look no further than Hale’s own lawyer, the famous Alan Dershowitz, a Jew. Dershowitz has spoken publicly about his disagreement with his client’s views, yet he believes firmly that Hale has the right to say what he believes and that he has been treated unjustly. If Hale cannot do what Dershowitz is doing, he’s unfit to practice law in my book.
I wasn’t aware that this was fact. You mean lawyers have to take cases which they think are frivolis or wrong? They have to take cases even if they believe they have some sort of conflict of interest?
**
I wasn’t aware that a lawyer could be drafted like that. I hope they get paid their normal rate.
And there’s probably no way that one of PETA’s lawyers can effectively defend someone accused of animal torture.
