• • •

I am flattered to have been offered the opportunity to respond on behalf of my distinguished peers to the Illinois State Bar Association's recognition of our many years of service to the legal profession.

I am especially pleased to recognize among us some 14 of my law school classmates, two fellow Chicago Bar Association thespians, and colleagues in the plaintiff's personal injury bar.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the officers and members of the ISBA for highlighting those of us who have served our clients and our communities for some 50 years.

Indeed, I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that these 50 years are a testament to the esteem we have for the great legal profession. If we didn't love it, I can assure you we would have made other choices. I for one thank God that I was able to choose a profession that made going to work a pleasure instead of a chore.

We have had the unique opportunity to change the conduct of government and corporations as we have asserted the rights of our individual clients. We have become more efficient and diverse, we have experienced a sea of change in the expeditious resolution of cases through voluntary mediation.

All in all, we have enjoyed a challenging and satisfying journey, and some of us, myself included, will hang in there a little longer.

When I began the practice, I was inspired by the late Thurgood Marshall to use the law as a vehicle for social change. I truly admired Marshall and others who fought in the courts to break down racial barriers. To me, they breathed life into the constitution.

Following their lead, I found myself volunteering pro bono to bring cases on behalf of black children in the public schools. After we settled the case with the adoption by the school board of what was called the Havighurst Plan, I was convinced we had done a noble deed in desegregating Chicago's public schools.

Now, some 45 years later, Chicago remains one of the most segregated public school systems in the country. Indeed, Brown v. The Board of Education mandated school desegregation. This mandate is now 52 years old, and we still have no real change in the racial composition of elementary and high schools.

History has taught me that the law is not a vehicle for social change. The law is the servant of the status quo and a barrier to rapid social change. Obviously, in a democratic society, we contemplate change based upon the consent of 50 percent plus one of our citizens.

The problem arises for those in the minority who depend upon the Bill of Rights to protect them from the whims of the majority. Thus we continue to litigate issues which seek to enforce the protection of our Bill of Rights. To litigate you must have money. Those whose rights are least respected and protected are those who are without resources.

The challenge for the future is to make freedom and democracy work for everyone. It is a challenge left to the lawyers who succeed us. It is an awesome challenge.

The legal landscape in 1956 was such that women were a rarity. There were no women judges. There were few women prosecutors and public defenders. There were two women in my law class.

Today, women occupy all levels of lawyering, from justice of the Supreme Court of Illinois to general counsel for major corporations. Law school classes are now predominantly women. So as we leave the profession, we will leave a kinder and gentler bar, hopefully.

Probably the most dramatic change I have noticed is the respect awarded to African American lawyers. In 1956 I observed an African American lawyer successfully argue for a preliminary injunction. He was obsequious, feigning ignorance and shuffling. The judge was paternal and condescending.

The scene was reminiscent of Aldoquin J. Calhoun, the stereotypical black lawyer of the Amos and Andy radio and television show. I didn't find the display funny at all. It was embarrassing. Obviously, that lawyer felt he had to behave in that fashion to be successful.

Hopefully, those days are gone forever. My late law partner Johnnie L. Cochran and others have done a yeoman's job of dispelling the notion that somehow African American lawyers are not competent.

Probably the most notable change in the law practice has been advances in hardware and software. I vividly remember the laborious process of producing a pleading or letter. You made carbon copies using carbon paper. Corrections had to be made after using an eraser or white out.

If you had to send out 100 identical letters, you had to use the old fashioned mimeograph machine. We dictated with the Grundig dictaphone, using tape which a secretary had to transcribe.

Then in the late 1970s came the computer, the desktop model. It was so slow with its impact printers that when I had a deadline I wanted to throw it out. But with the advent of laser printers, sophisticated software and copy machines that perform many tricks, I now have to call my secretary my assistant.

I recently tried a software that required no typing. However, it didn't fully understand me and output what was close and in its vocabulary.

As I entered the profession, judges and lawyers were grappling with the advent of the Civil Practice Act. As a young lawyer, unspoiled by past experiences, I directed numerous interrogatories to my adversary.

When he objected, the judge scolded me saying, “You can't do that! What are you trying to do, try your case in advance?” I was afraid to answer “yes” for fear I was confessing to some terrible crime. Today, discovery is such that there are no surprises for either side.

Discovery in criminal cases was virtually non-existent until about 1961. In criminal cases it was trial by surprise. Certain lawyers would take a briefcase, set it atop the prosecutor's file and pick up both the briefcase and the file.

He would then steal away to a place where he would review the file, copy what he needed and then quickly return the file. Today discovery is effectively used to expedite cases and encourage agreed dispositions.

One of the relics of progress is the elimination of the brass spittoon, which once was a fixture in the Criminal Court Building. Smoking is no longer allowed, and fewer of us are missing our court calls due to languishing in the corridor with a cigarette.