Acts of deceit, including those committed outside of the
practice of law, prove a bar-candidate’s moral unfitness. (The Stephen
R. Glass matter illustrates the point.) How does the state-bar
establishment approach officially
legitimate occupations that require that their practitioners routinely engage
in acts of deceit? A nice theoretical question, you may say, but surely, no
civilized society classifies occupations as “legitimate” when they require acts of moral turpitude. It's practically
a self-contradiction.
But one occupation is freely permitted entry to the state bars despite having deceit at the core of its real job
description: the police. American
cops enjoy a license to lie both to the public and to suspects, interrogations
included. Not only do they have this license, but their style of work
depends on deceit. No cop can refuse on principle to resort to treachery, even
against random members of the public, if at stake is a potential conviction.
Cops will retort that their deceit is socially useful. But
so will many others who commit acts of moral turpitude!
Cops (and former cops) don’t belong in the bar, and their admission is the
ultimate state-bar hypocrisy.
