Hearsay

Above all else in this sole self-regulated profession that is shared by bench and bar is the unequivocal understanding that both are subject to disciplinary functions governed by rule of the Illinois Supreme Court.

It is therefore a unique educational opportunity when a justice of the Supreme Court lays down a lesson on what might be expected of lawyers and judges in the tenuous relationship of an independent judicial system with a largely uninformed, unforgiving public.

As Justice Rita Garman's remarks at the Conference on Judicial Independence on April 10 suggest – eruditely in their simplicity – there are aspirational traits for judges as basic to their educational continuums as are the three R's to any scholar beyond fifth-grade proficiency.

As reproduced on these pages, Justice Garman's insights illustrate these basics in more explicit detail, but far fewer words, than the voluminous texts of prevailing rules of judicial conduct.

Lawyers, as accessories to crimes alleged in public indignation, likewise will discern from Justice Garman's tutorial that they may unwittingly share culpability for threats to judicial independence.

Judges must not shrink from crafting unpopular decisions, and cannot respond to criticism of jurisprudence that is based on the law and the facts. Lawyers can respond, and should, when the justice system is pilloried without just cause.

The principles of self-discipline that Justice Garman uses to describe judicial restraint are merely five in number: wisdom, humility, conscientiousness, competence and ethicality. Her descriptions are succinct and heartfelt.

No better words could illuminate the pathway of the enlightened lawyer, particularly one who might some day become a judge.

Politics, of a sort, is endemic in a system where high-level officials of the judicial branch of government are sponsored by the executive branch and approved by the legislative branch.

Federal judges are appointed for life, but attorneys general and their 93 district attorneys serve at the pleasure, or displeasure, of the president. That is well understood. When a new president takes office, or sometimes when a second-term president considers his re-ups, changes are expected.

Moreover, a shift in the politics of the inhabitant of the Oval Office is a clear signal that 94 of the nation's top law enforcement officials may soon be seeking other employment.

The possibility that a Democrat could be elected president in 2008 tends to dilute the flood of enmity that now engulfs the premature ouster of eight district attorneys who were appointed by the Republican administration.

But as the time and tide swirl at the tops of their offices, the rank and file of career assistant district attorneys are generally not dissuaded from the work at hand. Most ongoing investigations and prosecutions continue, undeterred by political aberration.

Former assistant D.A. Patrick Collins wrote, in an April 17 column in the Chicago Tribune, that the Chicago office was free from political shenanigans during his 12 years. “In fact, I could not tell you the political preferences of most of my fellow prosecutors or agents.”

And former U.S. attorney Jim Burns told members of the American Constitution Society on April 24 that the hired “rank and file has to be totally devoid of politics,” yet many have been vetted recently by the administration for their political views.

As Collins concluded his Tribune perspective: “If we replace non-partisan public service with blind political loyalty, we will have sacrificed one of the core values of our judicial system.”

A consensus exists that the relative inexperience of Kyle Sampson, who helped White House counsel prepare the hit list, indicates that the decisions were made primarily on political bases, not professional. Some ask, where did he get off making evaluations of U.S. attorneys?

The Senate Judiciary Committee wants to know, too, and so does the Office of Special Counsel. That federal investigative body monitors the activities of lower level government employees and has announced an inquiry into improper political influence in the Justice Department.

Calling Attorney General Alberto Gonzales “The man who was not there” when firing decisions were concocted, the Tribune editorial page likened him to a consultant who is no longer of any use, and asked “Was he clueless? Or incompetent?”

Noting a recent proliferation of White House contact with justice officials, Jim Burns queried rhetorically, “Where does politics belong in law enforcement? Where is the line?”

So far, only questions are on the table. The answers are yet to come.