FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

He Practiced Law Without a License, Now He’s a Federal Appeals Court Judge

by CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

One of the first things Thomas B. Griffith will want to do is convince his colleagues of the importance of changing their Rule 49. It shouldn’t be that hard since he’s now a member of that court and can tell his colleagues from personal experience what a useless rule it is. And it only makes sense that he work to get it changed since it was a rule he flaunted during the time he practiced in that jurisdiction and he must be thanking his lucky stars that he didn’t get caught.

Mr. Griffith serves to remind us that if you are sufficiently conservative, a lack of integrity or respect for the law is no hindrance to advancement in the Bush administration. That is the lesson taught by Thomas B. Griffith’s confirmation to serve on the federal court of appeals for the District of Columbia. The fact that he was Mr. Bush’s second choice does not make the lesson less painful.

The first choice was Miguel Estrada. Mr. Estrada’s confirmation was filibustered and in 2003 he dropped out of contention. He wasn’t filibustered because he lacked the ethical qualities that the legal profession expects of its members even when they are as important as Thomas B. Griffith. His confirmation was filibustered because his views were unknown but believed to be out of the legal mainstream. Instead of proving his critics wrong he stonewalled them. He refused to discuss his views or provide samples of his legal writing that might have demonstrated his legal philosophy and proved his critics wrong. As a result his nomination stalled and, ultimately, he withdrew his name.

Whether or not the country and the federal bench were well served by his withdrawal is impossible to know. What is known is that the man who has been elevated in his place is a man who, had the facts about his career been known by appropriate authorities before he was nominated, might have faced severe discipline for his flagrant disregard of the professional rules that govern the conduct of lawyers in the District of Columbia and Utah.

Rule 49, of which Mr. Griffith was contemptuous, is a rule of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. It says:

“No person shall engage in the practice of law in the District of Columbia or in any manner hold out as authorized or competent to practice law in the District of Columbia unless enrolled as an active member of the District of Columbia Bar, except as otherwise permitted by these rules.”

None of the exceptions applies to Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith found the rule quaint and chose to ignore it. He practiced law for three years in that jurisdiction without the required license. Had the licensing authorities known of his transgression he would have faced discipline. Happily for him, he left the jurisdiction before anyone noticed that he didn’t find the court’s rules to his liking.

Furthermore he blamed his staff–saying in effect that he was much too important to attend to such trivia and his staff should have insured his compliance with applicable rules.

Having successfully flaunted the rules of the court on which he now serves he moved to Utah to became chief legal counsel for the University of Utah. He served in that capacity for four years. Acting as legal counsel for the university of Utah is considered practicing law in Utah.

Utah, like the District of Columbia has a rule against practicing law without a license. Rule 1.0 of Chapter 13a of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State of Utah provides:

“Except as set forth in subsection (c) of the Rule, only persons who are active, licensed members of the Utah State Bar in good standing may engage in the practice of law in Utah.”

It did not include the phrase “unless you are really important or are called Thomas B. Griffith.” That would probably have surprised Mr. Griffith.

It didn’t matter. No one noticed that he was again ignoring the rules imposed by the court and no disciplinary proceedings were commenced.

The one thing we have learned from Mr. Griffith’s conduct is that rules don’t apply to him. As a federal judge he will be beholden to no one. He will like that.

Notwithstanding Mr. Griffith’s example, if any of my readers were contemplating practicing law in the District of Columbia the reader would be well advised to follow the rules even though one of the sitting judges thought himself above them. Lady Luck might not smile on all who thus transgress.

Promotion to a federal court is even less likely to follow unless, of course, George W. Bush is making the appointment. In the Bush White House conservative philosophy trumps morality and ethics every time.

Mr. Griffith is just the most recent example of that.

CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI is a lawyer and writer living in Boulder, Colorado. He can be reached at: 56@post.harvard.edu

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

August 30, 2016
Russell Mokhiber
Matt Funiciello and the Giant Sucking Sound Coming Off Lake Champlain
Mike Whitney
Three Cheers for Kaepernick: Is Sitting During the National Anthem an Acceptable Form of Protest?
Alice Bach
Sorrow and Grace in Palestine
Sam Husseini
Why We Should All Remain Seated: the Anti-Muslim Origins of “The Star-Spangled Banner”
Richard Moser
Transformative Movement Culture and the Inside/Outside Strategy: Do We Want to Win the Argument or Build the Movement?
Nozomi Hayase
Pathology, Incorporated: the Facade of American Democracy
David Swanson
Fredric Jameson’s War Machine
Jan Oberg
How Did the West Survive a Much Stronger Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact?
Linda Gunter
The Racism of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima Bombings
Dmitry Kovalevich
In Ukraine: Independence From the People
Omar Kassem
Turkey Breaks Out in Jarablus as Fear and Loathing Grip Europe
George Wuerthner
A Birthday Gift to the National Parks: the Maine Woods National Monument
Logan Glitterbomb
Indigenous Property Rights and the Dakota Access Pipeline
National Lawyers Guild
Solidarity with Standing Rock Sioux Tribe against Dakota Access Pipeline
Paul Messersmith-Glavin
100 in Anarchist Years
August 29, 2016
Eric Draitser
Hillary and the Clinton Foundation: Exemplars of America’s Political Rot
Patrick Timmons
Dildos on Campus, Gun in the Library: the New York Times and the Texas Gun War
Jack Rasmus
Bernie Sanders ‘OR’ Revolution: a Statement or a Question?
Richard Moser
Strategic Choreography and Inside/Outside Organizers
Nigel Clarke
President Obama’s “Now Watch This Drive” Moment
Robert Fisk
Iraq’s Willing Executioners
Wahid Azal
The Banality of Evil and the Ivory Tower Masterminds of the 1953 Coup d’Etat in Iran
Farzana Versey
Romancing the Activist
Frances Madeson
Meet the Geronimos: Apache Leader’s Descendants Talk About Living With the Legacy
Nauman Sadiq
The War on Terror and the Carter Doctrine
Lawrence Wittner
Does the Democratic Party Have a Progressive Platform–and Does It Matter?
Marjorie Cohn
Death to the Death Penalty in California
Winslow Myers
Asking the Right Questions
Rivera Sun
The Sane Candidate: Which Representatives Will End the Endless Wars?
Linn Washington Jr.
Philadelphia District Attorney Hammered for Hypocrisy
Binoy Kampmark
Banning Burkinis: the Politics of Beachwear
Weekend Edition
August 26, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Louisa Willcox
The Unbearable Killing of Yellowstone’s Grizzlies: 2015 Shatters Records for Bear Deaths
Paul Buhle
In the Shadow of the CIA: Liberalism’s Big Embarrassing Moment
Rob Urie
Crisis and Opportunity
Charles Pierson
Wedding Crashers Who Kill
Richard Moser
What is the Inside/Outside Strategy?
Dirk Bezemer – Michael Hudson
Finance is Not the Economy
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Bernie’s Used Cars
Margaret Kimberley
Hillary and Colin: the War Criminal Charade
Patrick Cockburn
Turkey’s Foray into Syria: a Gamble in a Very Dangerous Game
Ishmael Reed
Birther Tries to Flim Flam Blacks  
Brian Terrell
What Makes a Hate Group?
Andrew Levine
How Donald Trump Can Still be a Hero: Force the Guardians of the Duopoly to Open Up the Debates
Howard Lisnoff
Trouble in Political Paradise
Terry Tempest Williams
Will Our National Parks Survive the Next 100 Years?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail