So an attorney disbarred for alleged dishonesty is trustworthy to represent the U.S. Government ("unofficially") in deals with a nuclear power, lives directly at stake. The public avoids deep confusion only by perceiving disbarment as an act of punishment, not mainly a judgment on character. (See reference to poll at http://tinyurl.com/ld5vl8.) The spectacle brings to fore a question kanBARoo court raised last year: Is Bill Clinton really unsuited to practice law because of (as we say in California) acts of moral turpitude? Or, as kanBARoo court argued, was the Clinton disbarment (technically a five-year suspension) the most dramatic example of state-bar-establishment overreaching, crossing the Supremacy Clause?
kanBARoo court discusses the Bill Clinton disbarment at:
- 29th Installment. Why was the Arkansas Disbarment of Bill Clinton Unethical and Unlawful?
- 29A Installment. Why didn't Bill Clinton argue federal preemption?
- 32nd Installment. Disbarment of a President
(To defend Clinton against state-bar calumny is not to endorse his policies, such as his moralistic workfare measures.)
2 comments:
I didn't know Clinton was disbarred, I thought he received a five year suspension.
Different jurisdictions don't use these terms consistently. In Arkansas (as in California) "disbarment" is effectively five-year suspension. Clinton avoided, in California terms, "permanent disbarment."
Post a Comment