Posted on 12/06/2003 11:05:21 AM PST by webber
(Washington DC) - The Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, along with several grassroots organizations filed a grievance today with the State Bar of Virginia against Elaine Jones, President of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
The complaint details the attempt by Jones to influence the outcome of the affirmative action case in the Sixth Circuit through her request to delay the nomination hearing of Julia Gibbons.
According to a memorandum written by the Senate staffer who spoke with Ms. Jones, the purpose and intent of Ms. Jones* request was "to ask that the Judiciary Committee consider scheduling Julia [Smith] Gibbons, the uncontroversial nominee to the 6th Circuit[,] at a later date, rather than at a hearing next Thursday, April 25th."
Moreover, according to the memorandum, Ms. Jones asked for "the Committee to hold off on any 6th Circuit nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education is decided by the en banc 6th Circuit."
"This goes far beyond judge shopping and the bar needs to take action here even if the Senate doesn*t," said Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary. "The Democrats are hoping they can deflect attention away from the content of these memos because of the damning information contained within. But it is in the public interest for taxpaying citizens to see just how much influence is exerted by these groups on Senators. That*s why we released the memos in the first place."
THE LETTER:
TO: Virginia State Bar
RE: Unethical Conduct of Ms. Elaine Jones
Dear Office of Bar Counsel:
We write to report the unethical conduct of Ms. Elaine R. Jones, a member of the Virginia State Bar and President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., in New York, New York. Specifically, Ms. Jones violated both the spirit and the letter of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct when she intentionally acted to influence and disrupt an impartial tribunal that was then in the deliberative process of considering a landmark constitutional case in which she was counsel to one of the parties. Ms. Jones transgressed the boundary of an ethical advocate and engaged in misconduct by violating clear rules regarding her duties to maintain the "Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal," see Rule 3.5, and not to "state or imply an ability to influence improperly … any tribunal, legislative body, or public official," see Rule 8.4.
On April 17, 2002, Ms. Jones contacted the Office of U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy asking him to delay any Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on nominees to U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. At that time, the en banc 6th Circuit was actively considering a constitutional and legal challenge brought against the race-conscious affirmative action admissions program used by the undergraduate school at the University of Michigan - a case in which Ms. Jones was acting as counsel to a party, the intervenor-defendant-appellees.
According to a memorandum written by the Senate staffer who spoke with Ms. Jones, the purpose and intent of Ms. Jones* request was "to ask that the Judiciary Committee consider scheduling Julia [Smith] Gibbons, the uncontroversial nominee to the 6th Circuit[,] at a later date, rather than at a hearing next Thursday, April 25th." (A copy of the memorandum is attached hereto enclosed with this letter.) Moreover, according to the memorandum, Ms. Jones asked for "the Committee to hold off on any 6th Circuit nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education is decided by the en banc 6th Circuit."
Ms. Jones wanted to delay all nominations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit because, according to the memorandum, "[t]he thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program, but if a new judge … is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able …to review the case and vote on it."
This concerned Ms. Jones because she was representing the intervenor-defendant-appellees, who were defending the affirmative action program in front of the en banc 6th Circuit. In other words, Ms. Jones believed she could win her case before the en banc 6th Circuit as it was currently composed on April 17, 2002, and, therefore, she did not want a new judge confirmed because a new judge might adversely affect the outcome of her case.
The fact that Ms. Jones was intentionally attempting to improperly influence the outcome of a pending case and engaging in partisan political manipulation was not lost on the Senate staffer who spoke with Ms. Jones. The staffer noted in the memorandum that he/she was "concerned about the propriety of scheduling hearings based on the resolution of a particular case." This concern about both the appearance and actuality of impropriety is codified in the Rules of Professional Conduct to which attorneys are subject. Specifically, Rule 8.4(d) of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct states that "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to … state or imply an ability to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official." Likewise, Rule 3.5(f) states that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal."
Yet despite these ethical commands, Ms. Jones intentionally attempted to disrupt and exert improper influence on the judicial body hearing her client*s pending case by requesting that a U.S. Senator and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee stack the judicial deck in her favor.
Not only was Ms. Jones* conduct not consistent with the letter of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, it also was in direct conflict with their spirit. As stated in the Preamble, "[a] lawyer is … an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice." Thus, it is little surprise that "[a] lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials."
Our system of justice is dependent upon the trust and belief of the public that the judiciary is able to resolve cases in an impartial manner free of improper and ex parte influence. Ms. Jones* intentional actions taken to influence the outcome of a pending case in which she was counsel clearly violate this spirit.
Not unlike an attorney who seeks to improperly influence a specific judge or juror, Ms. Jones* goal was to influence the outcome of a pending case through means beyond ethical advocacy. Her actions irreparably hurt the common trust the public puts in an impartial judiciary and its decisions.
For these reasons, and to safeguard the integrity of both the impartial judiciary and its process, we urge you to fully investigate and take appropriate action against Ms. Elaine R. Jones. As a member of the Virginia State Bar, Ms. Jones is subject to your ethical oversight.
She can be reached by mail at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor, New York, New York 10013, or by telephone at (212) 965-2200.
Of course, we would be willing to offer any assistance that we can with regard to this matter and kindly request that you keep us apprised of all non-confidential proceedings and actions taken in your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Mazzella
Executive Director
Center for Individual Freedom
901 N. Washington Street, Suite 402
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 535-5836
Kay Daly
President, Coalition for a Fair Judiciary
1155 21st Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
(703) 822-9831 Niger Innis
National Spokesperson
Congress of Racial Equality
817 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
(212) 598-4000
Mychal Massie
National Advisory Board, Project 21
777 North Capitol Street NE
Suite 803
Washington, DC 20002
office: (202) 371-1400
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.