Lynne Stewart at Hofstra

There was a nasty comment on a WSJ blog about the fact that we have invited Lynne Stewart to be a speaker at our upcoming Ethics conference Oct. 14-16.   (Please let me know if you want a brochure.)  That has produced several letters to the Dean, ranging from angry to strident.  Here is my reaction.  Comments appreciated.

Ms. Stewart is not being invited to teach trial advocacy or legal ethics.  Implicit in lawyering at the edge is the risk of going over the edge, both ethically and legally.  Like every speaker at our highly successful conferences, Stewart will speak for twenty minutes and then be subjected to sharp questioning for an equal twenty minutes.  Students are more likely, therefore, to come away viewing her not as a role model, but as a cautionary lesson.  That’s effective education in lawyers’ ethics, which is too often considered a dry, uninteresting, and unimportant subject.

Comments

[S.cotus]

Your reaction is on point. However, I don't know if you can be so sure of what the reaction of students will be, but it is as good a guess as any.

[Bartleby]

Professor Freedman - if she's being brought in as a cautionary example, why is there no indication of this, her criminal conviction, or her disbarment in the promotional materials for the conference?

[D Palmer]

I have to agree with Bartelby here. Describing Ms. Stewart simply as a lawyer "who has defended many unpopular clients over the years." makes her sound as if she is just an attorney who isn't afraid to represent an unpopular defendant. I suppose this is true to some extent, but if you think that she will ultimately serve as a cautionary example for your students then the description should also have included "...and was convicted of illegally passing information to one of her clients, imprisoned cleric, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman." so that they might understand why she is included in this forum.

[S.cotus]

I am not sure if she was disbarred. But I wasn't paying attention. People like her probably wear their convictions as badges of honor.

But, while we are on the subject, what about the lawyers at OLC that "lawyered on the edge" by writing all sorts of PROSEPCTIVE justifications for torture?

Maybe we could have volks like Viet Dinh explain how they can argue for indefinite detention of Americans (at one point he argued "with no right to counsel"), work as a prosecutor, and still claim to comply with the DRs.

[Ray]

Without proper information more students will come away thinking of Stewart as a role model and not as a discgraced and disbarred accomplice to terror and mass murder. Shame on Hofstra for extending such an invitation without making it clear that she is being brought there as an outstanding example for ethical failure. But then, maybe some of the faculty don't agree that she is a bad person and do want to hold her up as a positive example.

[Walter Olson]

As I argue in a post at Point of Law, I'd find it a lot easier to accept this as an "invite her to refute her"/cautionary example sort of move were the banquet speaker at the conference not Gerald Lefcourt, one of Stewart's most vocal defenders in the media, and were the keynote speaker not Michael Tigar, Stewart's defense lawyer at her trial. I doubt that either Lefcourt or Tigar intend to send students away with the message that Stewart's actions "[went] over the edge, both ethically and legally".

[Monroe Freedman]

S.cotus:
We tried very hard to get former OLC people, and people who have supported them, to speak. They weren't willing to appear, perhaps because of Q & A that every speaker will face.

[S.cotus]

Ray, I think that everyone knows who Lynne Stewart is, and if they don’t, they can quickly find out. Moreover, I think Hofstra has informed them of just that.

Even though Hofstra is a low-ranked school, its graduates will be the lawyers and policy-makers of the future. (At least the ones that don’t end up temping.) They may rationally choose the encourage the kind of advocacy that Stewart engaged in.

In fact, political statements seem to be exactly what is encouraged by judges who say that a party is not entitled to relief from a court, but rather “From the legislature.” To forbid even a small class of political communications on behalf of a client could be argued to infringe on someone’s “petition clause” rights.

There are still some unresolved constitutional issues (i.e. whether it is proper to ask a defense attorney to – or for the attorney to agree – not to talk to the press in a political manner). Let me be clear: I do not support Stewart. She is a bad lawyer (I can’t think of a single acquittal or favorable appellate decisions). She was convicted of a crime. Her conviction is on appeal, and but I have not resolved the merits of her contentions and I can easily argue that the government’s theory of the case probably infringed upon at least someone’s constitutional rights.

Anyway, hopefully in the future Hofstra will host some people that wrote torture memos and the like as other examples of "Lawyering on the edge."

Finally, I would urge people to read her brief on appeal to at least get a taste of the issues.

[S.cotus]

Prof. Freedman, Just saw your post. I commend you on your effort.

[Monroe Freedman]

Ray,
As every good trial lawyer and law professor knows, it can be most effective to let the jury, or the students, draw their own ultimate understanding from the facts that are presented (in this case, not in a brochure, but at the conference itself, with a Q & A period), rather than to appear to be forcing a conclusion on them that is, in any event, self-evident.

[Anton Kunckle]

"A hasty reader might conclude from this that the decision to bring Ms. Stewart on board was a Bollinger-and-Ahmadinejad "invite her to refute her" sort of affair. But a look at the conference announcement tells a rather different story. The banquet speaker at the conference is leftist lawyer Gerald Lefcourt, one of Stewart's most vocal defenders in the media. And the keynote speaker? None other than Michael Tigar, Stewart's lawyer at her trial. Are we really supposed to believe that the point of inviting her is to send students away with the lesson that her actions "[went] over the edge, both ethically and legally"?"

From: http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/004326.php

[S.cotus]

Seriously, even Hofstra students can think for themselves. Do you really think that just b/c a schools wines and dines someone that the students will say "Ooooh... I want to be just like him."

[Susan]

I have read your post and find it a bit disheartening. First, your materials list Ms. Stewart as "Lynne Stewart, Esq." Last I checked, the "Esq." designation was only for lawyers in good standing. Since she has ben disbarred, Ms. Stewart does not meet these criteria. Second, If you are going to have Ms. Stewart, her lawyer and one of her vocal supporters speak, you should have invited at least one person to talk about the real impact of Ms. Stewart's crime - people dead as a result of terrorist acts sanctioned by her client. If you are still open to adding someone, let me know and I will have a verty distinguished law professor contact you about providing such context.

[Tom the Barbarian]

Comment by S. cotus, "Seriously, even Hofstra students can think for themselves. "

I'm sure that Hofstra students are capable of thinking for themselves. What I'm beginning to question is whether the faculty can. Actions like this don't help the case for the affirmative.

[E. Stephens]

How much is this criminal being paid for this? I would question whether any law schools funds should be given to those who aid terrorists.

[miguel Lecuona]

From Professor Freeman:
"As every good trial lawyer and law professor knows, it can be most effective to let the jury, or the students, draw their own ultimate understanding from the facts that are presented (in this case, not in a brochure, but at the conference itself, with a Q & A period), rather than to appear to be forcing a conclusion on them that is, in any event, self-evident."

It is ironic that an instructor, a leading member of a law community that actively enforces compliance standards as truth-in-advertising, accurate labeling, and Reg FD legislation can't even produce a truthful and helpful brochure about his own "product". And worse, does not disclose that this Convict is to be enveloped by important speakers who are her staunchest advocates.

Perhaps the goal of the brochure is not to attract an impartial jury of students for helpful Legal Ethical discussion. Perhaps it is to provide a platform and a forum for her ongoing legal defense.

And certainly no Professor of Law at Hofstra would defend this lame action by believing that his students are so dumb that they could only interpret an accurate brochure as a tool intended to "force a conclusion" on them. Why would he have such a dim view of his audience?

Hofstra should be embarrassed, even if this Professor is not.

[megapotamus]

Let's not forget the object of Stewart's efforts that brought about these convictions and the disbarrment (why she is walking around and not behind bars is a disgrace, but not Hoftra's). She broke the rules of client confidentiality to transport communications from the "Blind Shiek"; the head of the gang that committed the first, partially successful WTC bombing by truck. This person should be tried for treason in this matter. She has aided this killer in his war on the kuffir. In case you morons hadn't noticed, that is you.

[tu3031]

"Students are more likely, therefore, to come away viewing her not as a role model, but as a cautionary lesson."

Is "Counselor" Stewart aware that her main reason for being there will be to be held up as an example on how "not to be a lawyer"?
I'm sure she'd be very interested to know that.
Which is why I think your explanation is crap.

[tu3031]

"That’s effective education in lawyers’ ethics, which is too often considered a dry, uninteresting, and unimportant subject."

Interesting observation...for a "law" school.

[Tim]

Who do you think you are kidding? You are inviting her because you admire her and what she did to lose her license.
Now that you have been exposed outside of your insular university, you are backtracking. You are not fooling many.

[S.cotus]

I wonder if your comments would be any different if Stewart had actually been a good lawyer and obtained an acquittal?

Otherwise, you people sound like you are on a powertrip. Not everyone has read the appellate briefs, and even fewer people really have a firm grip on the arguments at stake in her case.

Even though some of you have no idea of the legal issues involved, everyone knows who Ms. Stewart is, and what she was convicted of. (Well, come to think of it, I don't think people even know that.) Students and faculty are capable of making their own decisions about her, the "torture memo" crowd, and every other controversial legal personality. They are also capable (and in my experience, more than willing) to ask pointed questions which is probably why the torture memo crowd wouldn't accept an invite.

[S.cotus]

Tim, Controversial figures speak at all kinds of law schools all the time. Get used to it. Stop acting like people admire her. It isn't as if she can get a Hoftra student a job or a clerkship.

[Aquinas]

Mr. Freedman: Your comments are patently dishonest, based upon your program's website and informational brochure. You have brought widespread national (and even some international) shame and disgrace upon Hofstra Law School. It will takes years to undo the damage you have done.

[reactionary]

Having controversial speakers isn't shameful. It isn't even shameful to have Stewart and two of her supporters speak at the same conference. Why? Because it's a multi-day conference with many speakers. I just hope that, because of the current controversy, some individuals leave Manhattan (or their computers) and voice their opinions somewhere other than the internet. They might even hear some speakers whose ethics are to be admired.

[S.cotus]

Oh Aquinas, You really think that "international shame" was brought on Hofstra because of this speaker? Seriously, are people not going to apply to Hofstra anymore? Will the pool of would-be faculty members dry up? Will students not apply to Hofstra?

Finally, you did not provide specifics as to why anyone was being dishonest. Therefore, I can't even evaluate that statement.

In the future, you might want to provide specifics about 1) dishonesty; and 2) shame before stating that they exist.

Reactionary, I agree with you. But there seems to be a fear that anyone that listens to Stewart for even a minute will be converted to her point of view because they are helpless to think for themselves.