Copyright 2000 The Times-Picayune Publishing Co.
The Times-Picayune
January 6, 2000 Thursday, ORLEANS
SECTION: METRO; Pg. 7B
LENGTH: 1157 words
HEADLINE:
LAW CLINIC RULING MISREPRESENTED
BYLINE: MITCH LANDRIEU
BODY:
I write to respond to James Gill's repeated
misrepresentations about the recent Supreme Court election and in defense of a
great chief justice, Pascal Calogero.
The drama seems easy to
understand, at least as misrepresented by the media coverage of the controversy
concerning the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic: the poor residents of a rural
parish pitted against big business and the governor; polluters vs. people who
don't want a dangerous plant in their back yards; the establishment running
roughshod over the powerless and the dispossessed; and the student lawyers of
the law clinic who ride in on a white horse and chase the villains away.
That's the way the law clinic story has played out in the
media. And that's
why the controversy over the Supreme Court's revision to
its law student
practice rule has attracted so much attention - and
misunderstanding.
When you place this explosive story
alongside a highly charged election in
which the 25-year incumbent, Pascal
Calogero, chief justice for the past 10
years, was opposed from the left and
the right, you have an authentic media
furor. Lost in all of this is the
simple truth about what actually happened -
legally, politically and
substantively.
Since I managed the chief justice's
re-election campaign - one of the
ugliest races ever waged against a member
of the judiciary - I know a good
deal about what happened and what did not
happen. Therefore, I would like to
address some of the misrepresentations
made by Mr. Gill and the PBS program,
"Frontline."
Law
students are not lawyers and, for obvious reasons, are not allowed to
practice law and never were meant to do so by our Supreme Court, which
regulates Louisiana's lawyers. Almost 30 years ago, a bare majority of four
justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court decided to allow closely supervised
students to work in court under the tutelage of their professors, providing
legal assistance to the indigent.
The court enacted
Rule XX, which never allowed student lawyers to represent
non-indigent
community organizations. Recently, some felt the law clinics had
become
excessively zealous and more importantly, politicized, and that the
students
were stepping well beyond the roles originally granted to them by the
Supreme Court.
Several business groups called for an
end to what they perceived as
rampaging activism and asked for a tighter
rein on the students' activities.
The most vociferous and extreme critics
wanted the clinics shut down
altogether. The business community asked the
court to review its student
practice rule and requested 10 substantive
changes.
After a year-long process, which began well
before the fall 1998 election
and well before any opposition to the chief
justice arose, the court chose to
make a handful of changes to Rule XX,
which have been hugely misrepresented.
The purposeful and continual
misrepresentations of what the changes did rises
to the level of political
terrorism and promotes an agenda that has little to
do with the best
interest of poor people, who have been used as pawns in this
story.
The clarifying changes to Rule XX initially were made by a
unanimous
decision of the Supreme Court. But to understand the rest of the
story, it is
important to note what the changes did not do. The amended rule
does not stop
students from working for poor people, and students are still
allowed to
represent indigent individuals and organizations under guidelines
much more
liberal than those of the federal Legal Services
Corp.
Under the clarified rule, student
practitioners can represent individuals
who earn up to 200 percent of the
federal poverty levels and community
organizations where at least 51 percent
of their membership earns no more than
200 percent of federal poverty
levels. And the rule amendment absolutely does
not prohibit universities,
law clinics and law professors from representing
whomever they wish, no
matter what the income level, using students as law
clerks and paralegals.
The truth is, the revisions to Rule XX have
disenfranchised no one, as the
extremists well know.
Most troubling to me is that Mr.
Gill makes the allegation that Justice
Calogero somehow "sold out" the
clinics to placate the wrath of a conservative
governor and to garner
business support as he headed into an election. Gill
further alleges that
money and support flowed from the business community
after revision of the
rule.
Anyone who recalls this election knows both of these
allegations are
laughable. Shortly after the rule change, much of the
business community,
along with its political action arm, the Louisiana
Association of Business &
Industry, rolled out a staunch conservative
challenger in Judge Charles V.
"Chuck" Cusimano, whom they backed to the
hilt.
LABI President Dan Juneau recently acknowledged this
fact in his Dec. 13
letter to the editor. Gov. Foster, who expressed
displeasure that the Supreme
Court did not go far enough with the clinics,
endorsed Judge Cusimano and even
went on television against the chief
justice's re-election. Professor Bill
Quigley of the Loyola Law Clinic, who
ran from the left, entered the race for
the main purpose of pressuring the
court to change its decision about the
student law clinics.
Chief Justice Calogero ultimately prevailed in the
election. The chief
justice appealed to the public to choose a judge above
politics, looking
neither left nor right, nor towards those with a personal
or political agenda
- but looking only to the law and a sense that our
Supreme Court should be
chosen by the people, not by special interests.
And he won the election. Since then, several opponents to
the revised Rule
XX continued to wage a media campaign, misrepresenting the
substance of what
the Supreme Court did, its motives and intentions. A
lawsuit was even filed,
attacking the rule changes as unconstitutional.
Interestingly, a judge widely
noted for his scholarship and fairness
recently threw the lawsuit out of
federal district court.
Mr. Gill intimates that Chief Justice Calogero is hiding
by refraining from
comment. He knows that the chief justice is prohibited
from commenting on this
matter by the Code of Judicial Conduct because the
case is still pending on
appeal in the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Chief Justice Calogero is today what he has been since he
assumed the bench
in 1973 - and will continue to be as long as he is
fortunate enough to
serve: a judge of great integrity who looks not to a
political agenda, but
only to the law, the facts and the best interests of
the legal and judicial
systems. He continues to "call 'em as he sees 'em." I
am proud to call him
friend and I am honored that he is our chief justice.
Mitch Landrieu is state representative from
District 89.
GRAPHIC: Pascal Calogero: Louisiana's
chief justice was wrongly portrayed in his re-election bid, his campaign manager
says PHOTO
COLUMN: Point of View
LOAD-DATE: January 6, 2000 
