Lowering the Bar

The American Bar Association's new president has ties to some of the world's most repressive leaders.

BY C. BATKIN | NOVEMBER 13, 2009

"Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice" is the motto of the American Bar Association, and among the association's four stated goals, one is to "advance the rule of law." Toward this goal, the ABA is committed to "hold governments accountable under law," "assure meaningful access to justice for all persons," and "preserve the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary."

Given these pledges, it may seem odd that the association's newly appointed president has worked as both a lawyer and lobbyist for some of the world's most repressive regimes, as well as institutions and corporations connected to them. Nonetheless, it is true: Carolyn Lamm, a D.C.-based corporate attorney who was named ABA president in August, has registered as a lobbyist in the past for such authoritarian states as Libya and Zaire. A longtime partner at the prestigious international firm White & Case, Lamm has also had close ties in recent years to entities associated with the tyrannical government of Uzbekistan and its ruling family, working, for example, as the legal counsel of Zeromax, a massive Swiss-registered company widely reported to be controlled by Gulnara Karimova, the eldest daughter of Uzbekistan's authoritarian President Islam Karimov.

Lamm declined to comment for this story, and an ABA spokeswoman stated in an email refusing to comment that "she is comfortable that her work with a wide range of clients around the world speaks for itself."

A repressive state often said to be the most "Soviet" of the post-Soviet republics, Uzbekistan is considered one of the world's worst human rights offenders. According to international observers, its legal proceedings are often show trials, and it regularly tortures prisoners and jails those considered political dissidents -- even boiling them alive, according to the U.S. State Department. Islam Karimov, 71, the last head of the republic's Communist Party, has ruled the government since the Soviet collapse led to independence in 1991. The autocratic government rules with the aid of a massive internal-security apparatus. In U.S. NGO Freedom House's current "Freedom in the World" survey, Uzbekistan is given the worst possible score.

Of course, there is nothing inherently improper with a lawyer representing any client, but David Scheffer, professor of law at Northwestern University and director of its Center for International Human Rights, who is also a member of the ABA's human rights advisory council, says attorneys have an obligation not to "distort the truth or manage your representation of the client in such as way that you are overlooking the legitimate interests and complaints of rights-abuse victims."

This is even more true when the attorney in question is tasked with representing the American legal profession as a whole. While not commenting on Lamm specifically, Scheffer noted, "the president of the ABA represents a high level of ethical and professional conduct."

Lamm's ties to Uzbekistan go beyond representing one company. Her firm White & Case was registered to lobby on behalf of the Uzbek government from 1997 through 2005. She also serves as general counsel and vice president of the board of the American-Uzbekistan Chamber of Commerce (AUCC), according to its Web site. The AUCC promotes trade and investment ties between the United States and Uzbekistan and lobbies against U.S. sanctions on Karimov's government. Following the 2005 Andijan massacre -- in which hundreds of unarmed protesters were mowed down by Uzbek security forces -- the organization's president, James Cornell, wrote to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging her to take into account the "special context" of Andijan and "not rush to conclusion or ignore the thorough investigation carried out by the government of Uzbekistan."

 SUBJECTS:
 

C. Batkin is a freelance journalist.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

EXOTTOYUHR

4:11 PM ET

November 20, 2009

Well, is this a surprise?

If liberals gave a darn about human rights, wouldn't there be outrage at Obama's fondness for people like the Saudi dynasty and Omar al-Bashir? If conservatives gave a darn about them, wouldn't there be conservative outrage over Guantanamo Bay? If any Americans actually believed that torture and slavery and horrible executions were wrong, wouldn't we hate Stalin and Mao more than Hitler? Human rights have very few friends in this country; Andrew Jackson-ness goes all the way to the bone.

 

WARRENCURRIER

6:32 PM ET

November 22, 2009

@ "Well, is this a surprise?" ...good comment, and don't forget

that Hilter and his Nazis were customers of the Rockefeller and Bush families.
(anyone reading this can do their own research on IG Farben, Rockefeller, Standard Oil, Prescott Bush, Brown Brother Harriman.

 

GRANT

8:14 PM ET

November 22, 2009

I see no reason to waste

I see no reason to waste space with two replies so:

In re. to Exottoyuhr, liberals care and have concerns over Saudi Arabia. The problem is, when the U.S does push nations to improve rights it is often ignored and that nation moves closer to the nations that don't care. When the U.S doesn't push them, it's criticized for backing dictators. In the realm of international politics it's much easier to simply say "Forget this, we urge freedom and less corruption and we get terrorists after us. China does business with men backing a genocide and the world loves them for it. We're going back to dictators".

On Lamm, while I have few problems with her as long as she keeps former associates and current duties separate I think that perhaps the ABA should have found someone a bit less heavily engaged in authoritarian states for the position.

 

WARRENCURRIER

10:08 PM ET

November 22, 2009

so, instead, Grant was able to waste space with one reply!!

Re: Lamm: Do you know what her current comitments are to these entities? Call White Case and ask. "Perhaps" you should/will do you homework. Historically, I am sad to say that the facts show that the US tends to support both sides in conflicts: Nazis v. Allies, Vietnam, Iran (Contra) v. Iraq, Israel v. Saudi Arabia.. ( oh yea, and our old boy OBL) If you have find the courage do spend some time and ink on us all -- waste a lot of space. Sir, it'll not be wasted if you live in a free land with free people who have courage. Otherwise, you, sir, may someday have a new job with the "Ministry of Truth".

 

GRANT

9:59 AM ET

November 25, 2009

Wow: The historical

Wow: The historical inaccuracies are just astounding.
Nazis/Allies: To start, were you aware that from between 1941-1945 the United States was an ALLIED nation? OR that before that the United States was openly expanding its military, lending destroyers and goods to Britain, fighting U-boats freely in the Atlantic, and demanding Japan leave China?
Vietnam: The United States worked with Ho Chi Minh until the end of WWII out of necessity. After this relations grew tense as the U.S wanted France's help and they suspected him of taking orders from Moscow (incorrectly but that's another matter) until the point where the U.S decided to interfere.
Osama bin Laden: To date, there has been NO evidence of him ever meeting any U.S officials or agents under any circumstances. Despite the efforts of Steve Coll and an army of reporters, no evidence has come from anywhere* to suggest he was even in the U.S after his terrorist/jihadist career started.
Iran/Iraq: Hard to call that backing both sides. The U.S sold Saddam weapons in the hopes he could overthrow the Iranian Islamic regime. The U.S later sold the Iranians (in the same war) weapons as part of an effort to get a group of hostages freed and to fund the Contras**.
Saudi Arabia/Israel: Hard to call it backing both sides when the two times Saudi Arabia was directly involved in a war with Israel (1967 and 1973) the United States was either uninvolved or negotiating for its end (Kissinger, at the height of the Watergate scandal ironically).
I'd say that you read too much Chomsky, except for the fact that even though I have my differences with him I have to admit that he checks his facts. You sir (I assume you are), do not.

*Not from D.C, known as 'leak capitol'. Not from Pakistan or Afghanistan which are both filled with people involved in the 1980s operations who are willing to talk. Not from Saudi Arabia, which doesn't even like talking about him. Not from Mr. bin Laden himself in any interviews.
**I hope you know that who the Contras were, but given the 'Iran (Contra)' phrasing I felt I should make sure that you were aware that the Contras were actually in Central America and had no direct ties to the Iranians.

 

JOSIE

11:17 AM ET

November 23, 2009

ABA's Lamm

So the article begs the question, why didn't the author contact the ABA to find out how Lamm got the job and why -- or their version of it? I find ominous her ideas that ABA has to be updated to "reflect our changning world." Really! So what does that mean?
Lawyers--the world's 2d oldest profession.

 

APARICIO

3:30 PM ET

November 23, 2009

good question Josie!

It is such a shame to have this lady as the Presidente of the ABA,

 

ADRIAN77

7:46 AM ET

November 25, 2009

Regarding Carolyn Lamm's reply

Ok, where does one start.

First of all, I don't think anyone is trying to deny that everyone deserves legal representation, even mass murderers and corrupt dictators. I think the point is not that Carolyn Lamm did something that was beyond the pale in terms of legal ethics by representing the government of Uzbekistan and Zeromax.

The question is whether the ABA should choose as its president someone who chose to represent such clients -- particularly in light of the fact that her client, the state of Uzbekistan, shut down the ABA's Rule of Law program in Uzbekistan a few years ago.

Would the ABA be likely to choose as its president someone whose last job was defending Milosevic, or Charles Taylor? How about a lawyer who has been representing the South African regime during apartheid? I think not.

The other point is that Lamm was apparently not simply providing legal representation but also lobbying for the Uzbek regime in Washington. Is it a legal principle supported by John Adams that every country has the right to get the best-connected insiders to shill for them in the halls of power in Washington?

The final insult is that Lamm uses this reponse to once again lobby for the Uzbek regime, by attacking the author for "maligning" the Uzbek regime, apparently by citing the country's Freedom House rating and the facts about the Andijan massacre and systematic torture without giving equal time to "arguments to the contrary" which come only from the regime and its paid agents like Lamm herself.

And finally, the comparison to President Obama doing business with China is just dumb. Did she really right that? Maybe an intern stuck that in by accident.

 

BAKINETS

9:04 AM ET

November 25, 2009

question for Carolyn Lamm

Lamm states that "throughout my past 35 years of leadership and involvement with the organization, I have always supported and had a deep respect for the ABA's work to enhance the rule of law and access to justice worldwide."
Among 400,000 members of the ABA -- whose motto is "Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice" -- Carolyn Lamm was certainly the one with the closest connection to and the best relationship with the Uzbek government.
Given her statement above, did Lamm use this connection to do anything to try to step ABA-CEELI from being shut down by the Uzbek regime in April 2006? Any strongly worded memos to Islam Karimov?
Somehow I doubt it.