A disciplinary committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court recommends that President Clinton be disbarred, and Arkansas courts must now decide the issue.

Monday, June 05, 2000

A disciplinary committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court recommends that President Clinton be disbarred, and Arkansas courts must now decide the issue. The White House attacks the committee, Clinton partisans cry foul, and many people question the severity of the action. If attorney Bill Clinton is in fact disbarred in Arkansas, it will not be political retaliation but the fact that he will be found so to have disgraced the legal profession and weakened public confidence that he never must be allowed to practice law in that state or even be considered a lawyer.

In 1998, Clinton was deposed in the Paula Jones suit in which the former state employee accused the then-governor of sexual harassment within the context of employment. The deposition sought to discover a pattern of sexual misbehavior by Mr. Clinton that might be added to the Jennifer Flowers case and other allegations. He was asked whether he had ever had sex with Monica Lewinski, and he swore under oath that he had not. This, the court found, was untrue and therefore perjury. Having been found guilty of perjury, the court referred the matter to the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct. This committee voted to recommend the most severe sanction allowed, i.e., loss of his state license to practice law.

Legal history has it that perjury is usually overlooked when not germane to the immediate case, and the court eventually ruled that it was not germane. Yet, in fact he did intentionally deceive the court, it also ruled. It further found the president in contempt of court. I know of no objective legal authority who feels this lawyer should not be at least reprimanded or suspended. A great number, however, feel disbarment is excessive, at least in comparison with the more serious offenses that previously earned the action in the state.

Clinton had argued his 20 years of public service should earn him lenience. There is nothing in the rules of professional responsibility, however, that could allow such indulgence. If it were to have been factored into the rules, it might well enhance the sanctions on the basis that an experienced lawyer cannot plead naivete. Mr. Clinton, I fear, argues against himself.

I do not know if Bill Clinton should be disbarred in Arkansas. That is for the courts to decide on technical rules with which I am not immediately familiar. However, I am familiar with the rules in our state and have been involved in their application as a public member of a similar group.

A major reason for the self-discipline of any profession (whether law, medicine, ministry) is to protect public respect for the profession and maintain client confidence in being well cared for by honest practitioners. One lie told by an inexperienced, young lawyer might be treated lightly to discipline into consistent honesty for the rest of the lawyer’s career. But when the graduate of a top law school who is experienced in practice – and has served not only as governor but state attorney general and even president – routinely and regularly lies to his family, staff, Congress and the public and then lies yet again under oath, the bar is confronted with a substantially and significantly different situation.

It is true precedence is lacking for the ultimate sanction for mere perjury, and the courts must justify so departing from precedence. However, this is an unprecedented offense and begs to be judged in and of itself. When a lawyer is treated lightly, it is usually because the harm done is slight. Violations are judged contextually, and lawyer Clinton must so be judged.

Throughout his legal battles, Clinton has displayed near contempt for his professional colleagues, the legal process and legal authorities. Just as he was reactionary against rather than responsive to the special counsel, his White House spokesmen are now attacking this committee rather than cooperating with it.

I know neither if Bill Clinton will be disbarred nor if he should be. If he is, however, we can expect it to be the consequence of harm he has done to the entire legal profession and the system of jurisprudence.

Wallace Alcorn’s column appears Mondays