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

Carolyn B. Lamm responds: 

C. Batkin's Nov. 13, 2009, article in Foreign Policy titled "Lowering the Bar" relies on inaccuracies, distortions, and speculation, and also conveys a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of lawyers in promoting the rule of law and access to justice.

Central to a lawyer's representation of a client are the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including Model Rule 1.2(b), which reminds lawyers and the public that "a lawyer's representation of a client does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social, or moral views or activities… ." This distinction is essential because it would be impossible to secure legal counsel for defendants accused of violent crimes, for example, if a client's actions or beliefs were imputed to the representing lawyer. If anything, the act of condemning attorneys for representing those accused of even the most heinous crimes is what jeopardizes individual liberties and harms the advancement of the rule of law.

Batkin's allegations concerning the conduct of sovereign states or corporations are factually incorrect -- but in any event sovereign states and corporations are entitled to zealous representation. From the earliest days of our republic, the legal profession has been obligated to ensure that the defense of the unpopular is as vigorous as the defense of the mainstream. In March of 1777, John Adams and Josiah Quincy represented the British Army Captain Thomas Preston following the "Boston Massacre," winning his acquittal. Condemned by many for the representation, these patriots devoted their talent to ensure access to justice and due process to one accused of a heinous crime. Our adversarial system of law depends on the willingness of lawyers to undertake the representation of those some might view as unpopular. Indeed the zealous advocacy of legal counsel protects the entire system of justice as well as each person's access to justice.

Another bedrock principle of the U.S. legal system is that no one individual or entity is presumed guilty and therefore denied counsel. Choosing to represent clients accused -- often wrongfully -- of heinous crimes is one of the most difficult duties of a lawyer, but also one of the most essential. That work must be celebrated, as it protects the rule of law. Such lawyers are in fact "defending liberty and pursuing justice." This is more than can be said for Batkin's effort to malign foreign states, corporations, and individuals through the media on the basis of a one-sided presentation of "press accounts" and "credible independent investigations" with no acknowledgement of evidence and arguments to the contrary.

Moreover, the defense of sovereigns or entities in cases brought against them before international tribunals, U.S. courts, and/or administrative agencies concerning the alleged dumping of their natural resources or financial transactions is irrelevant to the alleged human rights issues that Batkin alludes to in her article. A lawyer does not have an obligation to assess whether all of a client's acts, particularly those that are wholly unrelated to the subject of the representation, are "politically correct" or even legal before undertaking a limited representation or working to improve a bilateral relationship.

Indeed, the citation accompanying President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize praises him for his policies of worldwide constructive engagement and his willingness to use diplomacy to resolve issues. President Obama stated during his town hall Meeting in China:

"We know more is to be gained when great powers cooperate rather than collide. That is a lesson that human beings have learned time and again, and that is the example of history between our two nations and I strongly believe cooperation must go beyond our government. It must be rooted in our people—in the studies we share, the business we do, and the knowledge we gain . . ."

 
President Obama did not for a minute refuse to do business or otherwise engage in dialogue due to alleged human rights abuses in China.

As president of the American Bar Association, indeed 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. It is unfortunate that Batkin's article draws inferences based on inaccurate representations regarding my international legal work to attempt to cast aspersions on the ABA's longstanding commitments to the rule of law and access to justice worldwide. The only bar that has been lowered is for ethics in journalism.

--Carolyn B. Lamm
President
The American Bar Association
Washington D.C.

 SUBJECTS:
 

C. Batkin is a freelance journalist.

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.