Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Page 7
PERSPECTIVES (Column)
State Bar Convention to Feature Goodall, Villaraigosa …Why?
By ROGER M. GRACE
The 2007 State Bar convention gets under way next week in Anaheim—a city long associated with a squeaky-voiced cartoon rodent named Mickey Mouse. In looking over the agenda, it occurs to me that “Mickey Mouse” is a fitting descriptor of the upcoming conclave.
In referring to the State Bar “convention,” I do realize that the word “convention,” once commonly used to describe the lawyers’ annual get-together, decades ago fell into disfavor. Shriners, bedecked with funny hats, merchants displaying wares, political parties, and others, held conventions. It would be more dignified, and fitting, the powers-that-were decided, to designate the State Bar’s event an “annual meeting.” After all, the attendees are professionals, members of an exalted profession, tending to serious business.
That having been said, let’s look at this year’s convention.
The State Bar’s website advises:
“Featured speakers include Dr. Jane Goodall, writer Eleanor Clift, author James Bradley and LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.”
None of those “featured speakers” is an attorney or a judge, and none will be addressing a topic related to law or lawyers or the courts…or anything else of especial relevance to the legal profession.
Clift, a contributing editor of Newsweek, will be the speaker on the night of Thursday, Sept. 27, before the California Women Lawyers. Her topic has not been announced. Anyway, she doesn’t count as a State Bar speaker. CWL is an independent organization, though its dinner is traditionally held in tandem with the State Bar convention.
Bradley, author of a book called “Flyboys” concerning the slaying by the Japanese of eight American prisoners of war during World War II, will talk at a lunch meeting on Thursday, before the convention is in full swing. (His book will be available for purchase, and he’ll autograph copies.)
There are no State Bar-sponsored dinner speeches.
The prime speaking slot is allotted to Goodall, at lunchtime on Saturday—when the “Morrison Address” used to be presented—and the next-best spot goes to Villaraigosa on Friday at what is termed the “State Bar Luncheon and Morrison Address.”
(The Morrison Address has been delivered annually, except during World War II, since 1930, funded by the Alexander F. Morrison Lectureship Foundation. Morrison was a founder of the still-existing law firm of Morrison & Foerster. The State Bar Board of Governors decided in 2003 to oust the address from its Saturday slot in light of the lack of any financial benefit to the State Bar.)
So, the State Bar’s primary speaker is Goodall, a biologist/anthropologist. She’s the one whose likeness appears on the cover of the printable convention agenda, appearing on the State Bar website….
The agenda says, with respect to the Sept. 29 lunch:
“Dr. Goodall will discuss current chimpanzee research at the Gombe Stream as well as programs that conserve the precious forest habitat and improve the lives of those living adjacent to the National Park. She also will discuss the Jane Goodall Institute and her youth program ‘Roots & Shoots.’ As a U.N. Messenger of Peace, Goodall will talk about her reasons for hope in these complex times, and ways in which every individual can make a difference.”
That’s all very nice…but just how does that relate to advancement of the interests of the legal profession? Remember, this is a bar convention we’re talking about, not Town Hall.
Last year’s Saturday lunch speaker was U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski. I suspect he did not talk about chimpanzees or do what Goodall is bound to so: make a pitch for funds.
Here are previous Saturday lunch speeches as described in issues of the California Bar Journal:
2005: “New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Linda Greenhouse, who received a Pulitzer Prize in 1998 for her coverage of the court.”
2004: “The Brown sisters will deliver their address at Saturday’s Bench and Bar Luncheon. Daughters of the late Rev. Oliver L. Brown, a plaintiff in the historic Brown v. Board of Education case five decades ago, the two women are dedicated to preserving the legacy of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case.”
2003: “Judge Patricia M. Wald, retired Circuit Judge of the D.C. Circuit, will deliver the annual Morrison Address Saturday, examining the topic, ‘Terrorists, War Criminals and the New International Criminal Court: Finding the Right Fit.’
2002: “ABA President Robert E. Hirshon will discuss ‘Beyond Billable Hours’ at the annual Morrison luncheon Saturday.”
Why the monkey business on Sept. 27?
The outgoing State Bar president is Sheldon Sloan. Sloan and his wife, Shelby Sloan, are devotees of Goodall. They’ve contributed chunks of lucre in past years to the Jane Goodall Institute, held a fundraiser for that cause at their Rustic Canyon home, and on the night before her speech at the State Bar convention, will be co-chairs of a Goodall Foundation dinner at the California Science Center. Individual tickets to that event range from $500 to $10,000. (For $250,000, you get two tables of 10, two seats at the head table, a free speech by Goodall at your company headquarters, a signed copy of Goodall’s new biography for each guest, and other goodies.)
The work Goodall is doing might well be worthwhile, but having her deliver the Saturday lunch address at the State Bar convention is no more apropos than a demonstration before the California Peace Officers Association of 65 ways to prepare tofu.
But, Shelly Sloan wants Goodall as the prime speaker, and the prime speaker she will be.
The next-to-prime speaker, appearing at the State Bar lunch on Friday, the 28th, will be Villaraigosa, whose topic also has not been announced. This is the second year in a row that the Friday lunch will feature a speaker whose presence has been, well, curious. Last year, it was a Chilean novelist, Isabel Allende.
Traditionally, however, Friday lunch talks have related to topics of particular relevance to lawyers.
The State Bar, in its promotional materials, explains Villaraigosa’s participation as follows:
“Antonio R. Villaraigosa is the 41st mayor of Los Angeles. He was elected on May 17, 2005 and sworn into office on July 1, 2005. Villaraigosa is known for his exceptional skill at building broad bi-partisan coalitions, and is considered one of the leading progressive voices in the United States. Mayor Villaraigosa has earned a reputation as a national leader for his bold programs to address education, public safety, transportation and other issues facing Los Angeles.”
But what is it that Villaraigosa will discuss that would justify lawyers attending the speech on company time, as many of them will be doing?
Villaraigosa is not a lawyer. He did graduate from the Peoples College of Law but, according to a 1998 article in the Los Angeles Times, flunked the bar exam four times. It is difficult to conceive how Villaraigosa could provide instruction or information or insights of benefit to those who were admitted to the bar.
Nonetheless, he’ll be delivering the sole Friday address.
Diana DiMaggio of Banning is one lawyer who sees something wrong in that. In a “letter to the editor” published in the current issue of the California Bar Journal, she writes:
“Like many busy practitioners, I had not yet made my reservation for the bar’s annual convention, and upon reading the lineup, I was shocked to find that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has been invited to be keynote speaker at the convention’s luncheon. Wow! Where is the outcry from California Women Lawyers? The man who used his wife and marriage to falsely represent his Hispanic and family values during the election, it turns out was lying and cheating on his wife and children. What a guy!!!
“Yet, we lawyers are honoring him. I wonder if the same would be the case if it were a Republican mayor or governor? Not likely, huh?”
In an ideal world, Villaraigosa would not be invited as a keynote speaker for the very reason DiMaggio points to…though that is not a reason I would have pointed to, on my own.
Adultery has long—quite long—been regarded as a major transgression. It is proscribed by the Ten Commandments, it was even a capital offense under the colonial “Blue Laws.” It is still generally condemned today by those comprising what was denominated some years past as the “silent majority.” Yet, adultery is all too widely regarded lightly, if not whimsically. Given the wide-ranging potential effects of the offense…including utterly wrecking the lives of children…and the inherent immorality of it, adultery should not, rationally, be dismissed as a “personal choice.” OK, it shouldn’t qualify as a capital offense, but it surely ought to prove politically lethal to anyone in politics who commits it. With respect to Villaraigosa, or any other alley cat in public office, voters should stop and think: “If his own wife can’t trust him, why the hell should I?”
Yet, I can’t join DiMaggio in jumping to the conclusion that the Democratic adulterer Villaraigosa is being approvingly put in the spotlight by the State Bar while GOP adulterers would be shunned. Can it seriously be supposed that the State Bar would have denied a platform, had it been sought, to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani—who “cavorted publicly with his mistress,” as the Times recently phrased it—or other GOP presidential hopefuls Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., or former House Speaker Newt Gringrich? Surely it would not have told attorney and former Mayor Richard Riordan...who described Nancy Daly as his “significant other” while he was still married to his first wife...that there was no room on the program for him. (Or would Riordan have been disqualified as a speaker this year because he’s a member of the bar?)
Rather, the clear explanation is that the Democrat Villaraigosa is being accorded a forum before the state’s lawyers—a prestigious group, one that makes political contributions and spreads the word to clients as to whom they should support—because the current president of the State Bar is Sloan.
Sloan, a Republican (when it suits his purposes), is a registered city lobbyist and a longtime Villaraigosa supporter.
It’s true that there will be MCLE courses, galore, at the State Bar convention…but the main speakers just don’t belong on the program—and quality speakers are sadly missing.
The convention, to be held right by Disneyland and the other Disney parks, will indeed be Mickey Mouse…and perhaps the name of another Disney character might be applied:
Goofy.
POSTHUMOUS FILINGS SCORED—There’s bewilderment among some at the Ronald Reagan Building over how Div. Eight of this district’s Court of Appeal can be filing opinions authored by Justice Paul Boland after his death on the night of Sept. 5.
One published opinion penned by Boland was filed Sept. 11; two opinions of his that were not certified for publication were also filed that day, and one “non-pub” the day after.
The prevailing thought, I’m told, is that Boland did not hold office when the opinions were filed—hence, they shouldn’t have been filed.
Yet, he did hold office when he signed the opinions. In no instance did a colleague add something later in a concurring or dissenting opinion, to which there would have been no opportunity to respond.
Should someone else’s name go on opinions that Boland either personally wrote or supervised the drafting of simply because of a delay in the the clerk stamping a date on them?
NOTICE TO SCHNEGG: Somehow, someone, somewhere has put out a mailing list that includes Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Patricia Schnegg at 210 S. Spring Street. That’s the address of the MetNews, and we’ve been getting her mail.
The latest letter is from the law firm of Akin Gump.
To Judge Schnegg: should we forward the letter or do you want to come by to pick it up?
Copyright 2007, Metropolitan News Company