Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Federal Judges and Bar Dues
This story about Bush's nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Thomas Griffith, cracks me up, mostly because it is so absurd, but also because it shows how messed up the vetting process can be sometimes.
Basically the facts are as follows: while this guy was an attorney for a big law firm here in the District he allowed, whether by oversight or neglect I don't know, his law license to be suspended by the DC bar for failure to pay his annual dues. Not the crime of the century, but as we all know, a rule is a rule and while he had a suspended license he wasn't supposed to be dispensing legal advice. But wait there is more. Apparently, when Griffith accepted a job as general counsel for BYU in Provo, Utah, he applied for a Utah law license and stated that his license had never been suspended.
Huh? Is this the "it depends on what the meaning of the word suspended is?" defense? So not only was this guy arguably practicing law in DC for three years without a license, when he moved to Utah he continued to give legal advice without a license for an even longer period of time and then, well I don't know how else to put it, he lied about the status of his DC law license on his Utah application. I think that the quote from the Utah Bar is the best, however, as it states, "'It is unfortunate that you anticipated relying on the rule without having an understanding of the restrictions it imposed.'" Should this guy be confirmed by the Senate to a lifetime appointment to arguably the second most powerful court in the land? I think it is obvious what my opinion on that question is.
Basically the facts are as follows: while this guy was an attorney for a big law firm here in the District he allowed, whether by oversight or neglect I don't know, his law license to be suspended by the DC bar for failure to pay his annual dues. Not the crime of the century, but as we all know, a rule is a rule and while he had a suspended license he wasn't supposed to be dispensing legal advice. But wait there is more. Apparently, when Griffith accepted a job as general counsel for BYU in Provo, Utah, he applied for a Utah law license and stated that his license had never been suspended.
Huh? Is this the "it depends on what the meaning of the word suspended is?" defense? So not only was this guy arguably practicing law in DC for three years without a license, when he moved to Utah he continued to give legal advice without a license for an even longer period of time and then, well I don't know how else to put it, he lied about the status of his DC law license on his Utah application. I think that the quote from the Utah Bar is the best, however, as it states, "'It is unfortunate that you anticipated relying on the rule without having an understanding of the restrictions it imposed.'" Should this guy be confirmed by the Senate to a lifetime appointment to arguably the second most powerful court in the land? I think it is obvious what my opinion on that question is.
# posted by mouldfan : 9:02 AM
