Replies

I disagree with your interpretation of this case. It doesn't say that attorneys aren't "officers of the court," it says that attorneys are not "officers" in the ordinary meaning of that term.

Here, the Court said
"It has been stated many times that lawyers are `officers of the court.' One of the most frequently repeated statements to this effect appears in Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 378. The Court pointed out there, however, that an attorney was not an `officer' within the ordinary meaning of that term. Certainly nothing that was said in Ex parte Garland or in any other case decided by this Court places attorneys in the same category as marshals, bailiffs, court clerks or judges. Unlike these officials a lawyer is engaged in a private profession, important though [413 U.S. 717, 729] it be to our system of justice. In general he makes his own decisions, follows his own best judgment, collects his own fees and runs his own business. The word `officer' as it has always been applied to lawyers conveys quite a different meaning from the word `officer' as applied to people serving as officers within the conventional meaning of that term." Id., at 405 (footnote omitted).

One needs to read the case in its entirety to understand why the term "officers" is important to this particular case. You can't just go thru and pick out sentences out of context and then say that they mean what you want them to mean.

I did read the case in its entirety. I also know that the U.S. Constitution bars special privileges being granted to individuals that are not available to all. My main point is that a reference to a lawyer being an 'officer of the court' does not mean that they are an actual part of the court. I think the case clearly makes the point that just because it is widely stated that attorneys are 'officers of the court' does not make it so. This phrase has been repeated so often without challenge that most people simply accept it as true when, in reality, it is not. When I challenged it, the judge did not even attempt to disagree.

One needs to read the case in its entirety to understand why the term "officers" is important to this particular case. You can't just go thru and pick out sentences out of context and then say that they mean what you want them to mean.

I do understand why the term "officers" was important to that case. If attorneys actually were 'officers of the court', the decision would have yielded an opposite result.

You can't just go thru and pick out sentences out of context and then say that they mean what you want them to mean.

Why not? That is how the whole approach to the Westerfield case was done ! (/sarcasm) :)