People's Lawyer in Combining Law and Conscience - Essay Example

Arthur Kinoy, People's Lawyer - Did he succeed in Combining Law & Conscience Arthur Kinoy who can unabashedly be called a "People Lawyer" had been at the vortex f some the most interesting cases f his time. Few lawyers have been directly involved in as many famous cases over the last forty years as Kinoy. He successfully represented Adam Clayton Powell when the Government tried to exclude him from Congress. The day before Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were executed for espionage, Kinoy was drafted by the defense team to help plan a last-ditch effort to save their lives. Kinoy helped with the appeal that eventually exonerated the Chicago Seven conspiracy defendants. And he was quite active in behalf f the Southern civil-rights movement f the 1960s. Together with partners William and Michael Kunstler, he helped form what they called the "people's KKK." In fact, his book Rights on Trial, a memoir f his exciting and turbulent career, is subtitled The Odyssey f a People's Lawyer. Kinoy argued before the Supreme Court six times, winning five f those appeals. The case he considered most significant was United States v. United States District Court, in which the Nixon Administration tried to defend Justice Department wiretapping f antiwar protesters without a warrant, on the grounds that the President had the "inherent power" to ignore individual constitutional rights if he thought national security was at stake. Kinoy saw the defense as an attempt to create a legal cover for a full-scale program f such abuses, and persuaded the Court f this deeper danger. Kinoy helped establish the now-extinct Citizen's Party, and ran on its ticket for a New Jersey State Senate seat in 1981. He didn't come close to winning, but says the campaign was a successful organizing tool. Kinoy believed people's movements had made a lethal tactical error by not talking about "the conspiracy f the power elite" to eviscerate the Constitution. Whether in the courtroom or in a debate, Kinoy was a feisty and brilliant thinker who was as relentless as he was ingenious. Most f his autobiography makes it appear that he went through his life as lawyer never pretending to e objective, never less than totally convinced about the justness f the causes he represented and the innocence f his clients. That posture, however, gives rise to some other questions. Most f Kinoy's important cases - Dennis v. United States, the White Panthers case, the Julian and Anna Rosenberg case, the Adam Clayton Powell case, the Chicago Seven case - involved some f the most significant political events f this country's 20th century history. The causes represented some f the most serious rifts in the democracy f the United States. Given Kinoy's frank admission that he was not detached from the causes in which he was involved, one might wonder how good the lawyering is when the lawyer and the client are equally passionate about the political cause that gives rise to the case. How clearly can a passionately involved lawyer describe the workings f the judicial system when the judges and opposing layers are by definition part f a conspiracy against justice and truth Kinoy indeed dealt with some troublesome players - Roy Cohn f the McCarthy era, Judge Julius Hoffman in the Chicago Seven case and Judge Harold Medina in the Dennis case - but he also presented many cases to the Supreme Court and to other tribunals, and even he finds it hard to write off all his judges and opponents as enemies in the class struggle. So the book wavers between condemnation f a legal system that is a stocked deck and an enthusiasm for the judicial process that ultimately led to the vindication f Kinoy's clients (and position) in the Chicago Seven case f in the Adam Clayton Powell case. There is apparently no such wavering about the lawyering that stems from deep commitment to the "cause". It is passing strange that with all those high intensity cases, not once does Kinoy reflect on the legal tactics his side used. Perhaps that is asking too much, even for a critic f the system like Kinoy. It would have been fascinating for a major architect f legal strategy to analyze and weigh the impact f that strategy in the Rosenberg case or the Dennis case. The closest Kinoy comes to such an analysis occurs in his description f Dennis. As the youngest member f the defense team, he had urged the other lawyers to consider letting the defendants represent themselves. Because the defendants believed that ideas and writings were the real matters on trial, why shouldn't they present their own case in their own terms His proposal was only partly adopted; two f the defendants did appear pro se. Kinoy speculates, albeit gently, that maybe the lawyers for the other defendants did more to get in the way than to help. But other than that very guarded criticism, Kinoy pronounces the lawyering in all the cases in which he was involved to have been as true and just as the causes that were lawyered. Even without this self-analysis, the book is the right stuff to use in any dissection f legal tactics in politically high-profile cases. The late Harry Klaven told his students that they could always recognize an important civil liberties case because the defendant went to jail. There is often a conflict between the lawyering necessary to win a case and the lawyering necessary o further a cause. The closest Kinoy comes to recognizing that dilemma is his pronouncement early in the book that "at certain moments, bringing a lawsuit can be a form f political expression for people in struggle. The court system, like all other branches f government, is an arena in which the rights f people can be asserted." That statement is as troublesome as it is true. It would have been comforting to some f the rest f the bar to acknowledge that there are at least some problems - ethical, champertous and barratrous - about lawyering that puts the cause ahead f the client and the commitment to the cause ahead f the commitment to the law. Although perhaps not as well known by the general public as his one-time law partner William Kunstler, Kinoy has nevertheless been involved in some f the most famous political trials f the past three decades. In recounting his experiences representing unions, HUAC witnesses, and civil rights workers, he outlines his life as lawyer, as well as expressing a philosophy for a "people's" lawyer and how that person is a part f social/political movements. The occasional melodramatic narrative style notwithstanding, this is an important source book in the history f modern American politics and essential reading for law students who wish to explore alternatives in the practice f law. To some extent it can be said that Kinoy remained successful in developing a relationship between law and conscience. Many arguments in favor f a general moral obligation to obey the law are provided in Rights on Trial. When any piece f work is written a deciding factor is the context f the author. Also the context f the reader decides how they will perceive it. A Man For All Seasons written by Robert Bolt seems differ on many occasions from Kinoy's Rights on Trial but it can be said that Bolt and Kinoy shared feeling for the importance f laws in a society. A Man For All Seasons is a play f the martyrdom f Sir Thomas More, later Saint. When reading a play one must consider the three contexts involved. The time f the writer, 1960's Europe. The time f the play, 1600's Europe. Also that f the reader and how living in a different era will affect your reading. An understanding f these contexts helps the reader to better appreciate the ideas explored in a text. Knowledge f the 1950's to 60's and the time f the rule f King Henry VIII are pertinent to understanding the ideas explored in the play. One cannot truly understand the ideals represented in the character f More without first understanding how other characters act as a foil to these ideologies. Knowing the context f the author is important when understanding the ideas explored in a text. Knowing the facts surrounding the writing f A Man For All Seasons helps us to understand the ideals f Sir Thomas More and Richard Rich. Rich is a foil to More's beliefs, he shows how he cannot be tested and will stand up to any authority for what he believes in. Unlike Kinoy way f writing, Bolt's preface calls More "a hero f selfhood," and the play seems to suggest that More defies definition along religious or ethical lines. This is very much the same as the "hippies" f the 1960's. The youth f England were revolting against authority. This is alike to Bolt's representation f More and the way More chooses his beliefs and sticks to them. More's strong belief that "When a man takes an oath, he's holding his own self in his own hands" is much alike to the individualism displayed by the hippies. In the 1950's and 60's there were people that stood up for what believed in, yet there was not many religious people and so there wasn't anybody in Bolt's time that would fit More's character very well. The 1950's and 60's were a time f rugged individualism, people like Elvis Presley were making a stand against authority and the youth were putting away materialistic desires to the baser things f like, such as nature. Richard Rich symbolizes the human tendency to succumb to the temptation f wealth and status. Rich was using More to gain position, he feigns loyalty and friendship towards More for personal gain. "A friend f Sir Thomas and still no office" (Page 3). Rich will not admit to being More's friend, even when More needs him most, like at his trial. "He isn't really my friend..."(Page 21). He does not acknowledge or want to think that More helped him out at all, he turns his back on him and lets him die. The 50's were a time f much war, many people killed and tortured others for personal gain, the character Richard Rich is a portrayal f these real life problems. By understanding the context f the author, the influences and movements f their time, we can further our understanding f the ideas explored in the play. Knowledge f the 1600's is also important to understanding the play. Knowing about honor, trust and class in the 1600's helps us the see the ideas explored in the play. Honour was ranked very highly in the 1600's, Richard Rich is everything that More is not. He is mercenary and defines himself by position and possessions rather than his own morals and values. Rich cares little for friendship and loyalty, and cares only for personal gain and profit. By Rich prosecuting against More and lying on the stand, he was appointed the Attorney-General for Wales, More was astonished that anyone could lie and only be appointed the Attorney-General f Wales, "For Wales Why, Richard, its profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world...But for Wales-!" (Page 95). When Rich lies he betrays More's trust but increases his class showing he is a mercenary as he does nothing unless he will personally gain from it in money or class. Rich is like the assassin who does not care for anybody but himself, an assassin could be hired for a price in the 1600's and Rich only serves at a price, as More didn't get Rich what he wanted, a job in a high place, he no longer needed him. More disagreed with the King's decision to go against the Catholic Church, but kept his opinions silent, except towards his ruler out f respect and loyalty. His loyalty to King Henry is also evident when he chooses not to open the letter from Chapuys, for fear that his devotion to the King would be brought into question, More would not want to have to choose so felt he was safer to simply not open the letter, "This is a letter from King Charles; I want you to see it's not been opened. I have declined it. You see the seal has not been broken" (Page 64). More's character shows loyalty and respect to the King by not opening the letter as he knew it would make him choose between his God and his King. In the 1600's there was a little unrest with the church's power failing slightly as the rules were changed for the King, when he moved to change the rules for himself again, it could not be done. So More had to choose, this is what he attempted to avoid by removing himself from the matter with as much dignity as possible, for the sake f his family and out f loyalty to his King. Like the understanding f the views f people on honor, trust and class in Kinoy's Rights on Trial, Bolt's book further explain these ideas. In today's society we no longer believe the same concepts as More and Bolt. The belief that religion comes before anything else is lost, we now live in a capitalist society where many live for the sole purpose f personal gain. People still fight for class and wealth while forgetting morals such as trust and honor. However there are still people who believe in the ideals f Saint Thomas More, there are still some people today that live the same life as he. Bolt has written More as the perfect man using other characters as a foil to show More's morals. To understand any reading one must first and foremost understand the context f the author, then understand the time a text is set in. Once you understand these two things we must consider how our reading would differ from somebody's at a different time. One can then better appreciate the ideas explored in any given text such as A Man For All Seasons By Robert Bolt. When we compare Kinoy's Rights on Trial with Steven Spielberg's movie, Amistad, it seems that there are some similarities in the characterization f lawyers. Amistad is a big, persuasive rendering f history. To be sure, it is a Hollywood movie, and so it does not lack tacky foreshortenings and other distortions f the historical record. Interestingly, the tampering is far more evident in connection with the American characters than with the captive African rebels, whose seizure f La Amistad set the affair in motion. The filmmakers seem to have taken special care to make sure that the Africans acted authentically--in the shipboard uprising, and in the Africans' recapture by American officials in Long Island Sound, and in the courtroom trials that eventually secured the rebels' freedom. These actors speak in African tongues (there are subtitles), and members f different clans are shown sometimes fighting among themselves, and exploring (with wit as well as pathos) how to make sense f their weird situation in a cold and exotic land. By contrast, President Martin Van Buren, as played by Nigel Hawthorne, comes off more like an amiable buffoon than like the shrewd backroom politician that Van Buren was; and Van Buren's presidency seems to last a year longer than it did. (The film does accurately convey Van Buren's hopelessly equivocal stance on slavery.) Matthew McConaughey's portrayal f Roger Sherman Baldwin, the abolitionist attorney, as an obscure, scruffy young lawyer--whom some f the Africans dub, in Mende, "Dung Scraper"--is historically absurd. (The actual Baldwin, who was 46 and a distinguished public official at the time f the Amistad uprising, was the scion f a prominent Connecticut family, and would be elected the state's governor three years after the Amistad case was settled.) Some f the film's political trappings are anachronistic. (Van Buren was a Jacksonian in good standing, but he did not kiss babies on the campaign trail.) JQA's moving final arguments before the Supreme Court on behalf f the Africans fill several minutes in the movie, whereas JQA's actual speech lasted nine riveting hours, and stretched out over two days. The film shows Adams face-to-face with Joseph Cinque (Sengbe, in Mende), the rebels' leader, but there is no historical evidence that the two men ever met. Conclusion Kinoy never really believed that lawyers bring about social change. The lesson he took from years in Southern courtrooms fighting segregation and defending civil rights activists was that "legal battles to enforce freedom and equality had potential only when they were intertwined with the daily struggles f black people and their supporters to transform these constitutional promises into reality." Kinoy's early career was shaped by the Communist Party f the Depression years, and a 1950s legal partnership with Frank Donner and Marshall Perlin, which handled key cases f the McCarthy era, including the Rosenbergs' final, failed appeal. But it was in the defense f civil rights groups and local desegregation campaigns-SCLC, Freedom Summer, the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party-that Kinoy helped shape a revolution. In 1966 he helped found the Center for Constitutional Rights, which carries on his fight. In 1972, in a case he argued involving wiretapping f Michigan radicals, a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the Nixon Justice Department's claim that the President holds "inherent power" to disregard the Constitution in defense f national security. The ruling came down a day after the 1972 Watergate break-in; without Kinoy's victory the Watergate prosecutions might never have happened. Today, the Nixon apparatchik who crafted the President's case is Chief Justice, and claims f "inherent power" are again on the rise. Arthur Kinoy's life reminds us that "the abandonment f constitutional government" must never be "fought solely within the confines f the courtroom." Works Cited Aron, Nan, Liberty and Justice for All: Public Interest Law in the 1980s and Beyond (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989). James, Marlise, The People's Lawyers (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973). McCarthy, Andrew C. International Law v. United States. Commentary, Feb2006, Vol. 121 Issue 2, p41-48 Vadum, Matthew. The Terrorists' Legal Team. Human Events, 10/2/2006, Vol. 62 Issue 33, p17-18 Read More