This series foreshadows the main topic of our December 8 banquet.

How does one become an attorney?

Law school, yes.

The bar exam, usually.

But in between those two come this:  a finding that one has “the right stuff.”

What is that right stuff?  Good moral character and mental fitness sufficient to be an attorney.

Long ago county courts determined who could practice before them.  It was a ready recipe for an old boys network at the law.

States then took it over, running it out of the supreme court of each state.

It proved a ready recipe for stability — which meant that avant-garde lawyers did not fare so well.

Like Marxists.  Many cases in the 1950’s – 1970’s dealt with the United States Supreme Court rebuking state courts for not granting law licenses to those who once were active in the Communist Party.

Can’t keep Marxists out of the state bar due to what they advocate.

Indiana came up with this guideline to ensure that politics did not rule bar admission:

“Our primary responsibility in admission and discipline matters is to protect the public against incompetent and unscrupulous professionals.” In re Lee, 262 Ind. 439, 441, 317 N.E.2d 444, 445 (1974)

Note that this is supposed to leave no room for ideological foul play.  Back when it was the communists who were the ones often deemed politically incorrect the system bent over backwards to ensure that they got in, regardless of how communist they were — just as long as they were willing to take an oath to the serve and protect the state and federal constitutions.

The SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) published lofty legal sentiments such as these back when those floodgates were being opened:

Bar admission cannot evince ‘an intent to penalize political beliefs.’ Konigsberg v. State Bar, 1957

However wayward or unorthodox a man’s political beliefs may be, he may not be kept out or drummed out of the Bar or any other profession on that account.  (Justices Marshall and Brennan arguing in a dissent from 1971 that the states should not erect any barriers to the legal profession based upon ideology  — even if advocating the violent overthrow of the US Govt one day in the future)

And so the Indiana Supreme Court, as previously noted, allegedly rendered their process apolitical back in the early 70’s by issuing this edict: “Our primary responsibility in admission and discipline matters is to protect the public against incompetent and unscrupulous professionals.” In re Lee, 262 Ind. 439, 441, 317 N.E.2d 444, 445 (1974)

Ah yes, the myth of neutrality.

It disarmed the profession, and the neo-Marxists entered.  Some as criminal defense attorneys, some as constitutional law attorneys, some as community organizers.

And some as leaders in the profession manning — and womanning — the gates where others sought to enter after them.

Some who were anti-Marxists.

Would the myth of neutrality hold the door open for even them?

More to come in this series. Much more, in fact.

If you like this post you would love our December 8 banquet.

This entry was posted on Sunday, December 6th, 2009 at 11:24 am and is filed under Raising the bar. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.