5.23.00
Matt Glavin on Clinton's Disbarment

5.22.00
Mike Long On Rick Lazio

5.19.00
Bill Paxon On Rudy's Exit

5.12.00
Peggy Noonan on Rudy & Hillary

5.11.00
John Zogby on Rudy

5.11.00
Linda Tripp lawyer Joe Murtha

5.10.00
Alan Dershowitz

5.05.00
Karl Gallant

5.04.00
Ed Koch on Cardinal O'Connor

5.03.00
Rep. David McIntosh

5/23/00 6:30 p.m.
Matt Glavin Says...
"What the president is asking us to do is put the public’s interest on hold."

By Kathryn Jean Lopez, NR associate editor------------lopezk@nationalreview.com

att Glavin is president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, which filed papers back in April to have the President Clinton disbarred.

Lopez: How significant was yesterday’s ruling?

Matt Glavin: I think it was enormously significant for a number of reasons. First of all, it was a very sad day for America. It’s a shame that the President of the United States of America has to be brought up on ethics charges. Second, what the committee did was send a very, very loud message to every attorney in America that, regardless of who you are and what position you hold, you must follow the rule of law and the code of professional conduct for attorneys. If you don’t you will be held accountable. Third, a very loud message was sent to the American people, reassuring the American people that lawyers will indeed discipline themselves and will preserve the integrity of the judicial process, ensuring that the process does not included lawyers who lie under oath and obstruct justice. So, yes, it was a very important decision.

Lopez: Were you surprised by their recommendation?

Glavin: It was actually a ruling, not a recommendation. They are now proceeding forward with disbarment proceedings. So, it’s more than a recomendation. It was a ruling if you read the letter carefully.

Were we surprised? No, we argued for this. We weren’t surprised for two reasons: 1) The precedent — regardless of what David Kendall and the president say — in Arkansas is very clear. The Supreme Court said in a case less than two years ago that there is simply no place in the law for a man or a woman who cannot or will not tell the truth, even when his or her own interests are involved. And then the Court concluded by saying the attributes of honesty and candor are absolute prerequisites to the admission to our bar. Not sometimes. Not for some people. The attributes of honesty and candor are absolute prerequisites. And with that standard and with the guidelines that the American Bar Association provides. There are a number that are appropriate in this case, but just one says, “Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer with the intent to deceive the Court makes a false statement. So, when you look at the ABA guidelines, when you look at the standard set by the Arkansas Supreme Court, then no, we were not surprised by this decision at all. Indeed, it was the only decision that the committee could make.

Lopez: What did you think of what the President had to say on NBC Monday night?

Glavin: Well, I am disappointed that he isn’t going to be personally involved in this. I think his comments were a bit disingenuous because he said he wants to spend his time representing the American people. Yet, if you look at his schedule for the last several months, one out of three days in his schedule is not representing the American people but raising money for the Democrat party. I think we have to be careful when we listen to his comments. He wasn’t being completely honest with the American people once again. And we’re disappointed. We think that he ought to personally be involved in this process. He has refused up to this point to publicly release his response to the committee’s formal complaint. We think that that was wrong. We urged him to release it publicly and he has refused. But again, remember that the ABA makes clear that the purpose of lawyer discipline proceedings is to protect the public’s interest in the administration of justice. If indeed that’s the case and it is according to the American Bar Association, then the process ought to be open to the public. Now that the committee has voted to move this forward, the process will be open to the public and that’s good.

Lopez: The president and his defenders often make the claim that this should wait until January. Is there anything to that argument or is that a case that’s closed?

Glavin: First of all, we started this process two years ago. Again, the purpose is to protect that public. What the president is asking us to do is put the public’s interest on hold in favor of his personal interest. And I think that’s somewhat selfish of the president. He has to accept responsibility for his behavior. He asked the committee to put this off until after he left office and it was the committee that refused his request. They felt that this process should go forward, but we shouldn’t put the public’s interest on hold in favor of his personal interest. We should move forward with this now. Let’s get it over with.

Lopez: Exactly what happens next?

Glavin: It’s a process that’s fairly well-defined. It’s a process that moves over to the Arkansas Circuit Court. There will be a trial before a judge, not a jury. The case will probably be filed by the committee and it’s the committee itself that prosecutes this case. Southeastern Legal Foundation, frankly, has been out of this for some time. It’s the committee that has been driving this process. We were allowed the opportunity to respond to the president’s filing, but that was the end of our involvement in this case. The committee will prosecute the case before the court and the president will have the opportunity of full due process of the law. And, indeed, the president will have the opportunity to appeal or the committee will have the opportunity to appeal any decision made by the judge. But I would point out that it is rare that a judge overturns the recommendation of the committee.

Lopez: Have you heard the phrase "the conservative ACLU" used to describe you guys? Is that what you’re aiming for?

Glavin: We are a public interest law firm. We are an organization that believes in the founding principles of this nation, those principles which are found in the founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We believe in those principles and our role in the world is to defend those principles. If there are those who want to call us the conservative version of the ACLU, that’s fine. I don’t have a problem with that.

Columns / Current Issue / Goldberg File / Nota Bene
Washington Bulletin / Subscribe / Ad Info / Home