There are some stories involving the topic of ethics that simply stop me in my tracks and cause me to shake my head in disbelief. One such story comes by way of Texas, as reported on Fox News on May 31, 2016 about legal ethics.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen of Texas, issued an order that Department of Justice attorneys attend mandatory ethics training. The judge felt that the DOJ attorneys intentionally misled him on presidential executive orders on illegal immigration.
According to the news report:
“Attorneys had told Hanen that a key component – an expansion of a 2012 program to protect illegal immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. as children – hadn’t been implemented. But officials later revealed they had given more than 108,000 people three-year reprieves from deportation under the expanded rules, as well as work permits.”
The attorneys purposely lied to the judge which everyone would say is a violation of established legal ethics.
In turn, Judge Hanen ordered that the lawyers who lied to him attend a year-long ethics course. He also mandated that he is to receive a list of the 108,000 people who received the reprieve.
The Justice Department filed a counter claim saying:
“…it ‘emphatically’ disagrees with the judge’s ruling, claiming that none of its lawyers intended to deceive. The filing requests Hanen’s order be put on hold so federal lawyers can review.”
The lawyers also claimed that the judge exceeded his authority in demanding the lawyers attend ethics training and that the training could cost close to $8 million. Wow…exceed authority in the legal ethics arena when the lawyers lied to begin with.
At its most basic
At its most basic, this is an ethical case that pits a judge who is demanding ethical accountability against a group of lawyers who are emphatic that they did not deceive, and have no intention of undergoing ethics training.
The question is if the judge is exceeding his authority by making the lawyers submit to the “humiliation” of being exposed to what constitutes good ethical behavior.
I think not.
If a few of the immigrants in question had fallen through the cracks of justice and received a reprieve, no one would have been bothered very much. However, the lawyers allowed more than 100,000 to receive illegal permits and reprieves. This (obviously) significant number implies that the lawyers decided to interpret the law on their own, placing justice in their own hands, rather than following interpretations and procedures that had already been put in place.
The action of the lawyers has nothing to do with the topic of illegal immigration per se, but with the arrogance of the Department of Justice in lying to the judge that there had been a proper application of the laws.
The lawyers were following a rather dangerous ethical precedent. They were bypassing the system of checks and balances in favor of applying the laws in the manner in which they interpreted.
Imagine, if you will, that you are the president of a company that produces chemicals. As a by-product of the manufacturing a toxic substance is produced. There are strict compliance issues at hand.
One disposal firm you could use charges $50,000 per quarter to dispose of the materials; another firm, who claims they follow the correct procedures, charges only $5,000 per quarter. Now, as president of the company, you know deep down, the cheap firm circumvents the proper disposal procedures, but it appears legal. When the state inspection agency comes around, they ask if you have been compliant.
“Of course,” you answer. “We use a firm that does it for us.”
In a sense, that is what happened in Texas with the judge. The Department of Justice lawyers knew full well they were loosely interpreting the law, not adhering to the directives of the U.S. District Judge. They made the argument that the law was followed but in fact, they were disregarding it.
For my part, I believe that a consistent program of ethical training should be a mandatory requirement of every lawyer. Indeed, what could it possibly hurt? Ego has no business in the interpretation of justice. It is a worthwhile question to ask how much ego, and not ethics, is costing every American taxpayer.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!