A Modest Proposal:
Separation of Lawyers and Politics

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part II

It is the 99% of lawyers who give the other 1% a bad name.

When someone passes the Bar exam and is admitted to the Bar to practice law in a State, they become an Officer of the Court. This makes them part of the Judicial branch of government. If they then run for public office and are elected to the legislature or to an executive office, it means that they simultaneously serve in two branches of government. This violates the principle of the Separation of Powers.

The effect of this, at least with respect to lawyer legislators, is also an obvious Conflict of Interest. Certain people write laws as legislators and then find that in private life their services are needed to negotiate the same laws for the public.

James Madison wrote in Federalist #62

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

There is no doubt that today the laws are so voluminous that they cannot be read and so incoherent (or obscure) that they cannot be understood. But it is precisely in the interest of lawyer legislators that this be the case. It becomes their livelihood to read, explain, and manipulate the laws for the sake of their paying clients. Indeed, since lawyers will be hired by both sides of a legal dispute, it is in their interest that the laws be positively self-contradictory, for they will then be able to make just as good a case, and stand just as good a chance of winning, whichever side hires them.

The remedy for this clear Conflict of Interest and breach of the Separation of Powers is obvious:

Members of the Bar should be ineligible for elective office, with the only exception being offices specifically for attorneys (e.g. District Attorney or a State Attorney General).

Lawyers could still become politicians, just by resigning from the Bar, with the proviso that they cannot be readmitted. If they are then subject to Term Limits, they will either have to count on being elected to various public offices or they will have to prepare for getting into a different line of work once their political career is over. Or they can move to a different State, where they could be admitted to the Bar again. There they would not be dealing with laws they may have been instrumental in passing back in their home State.

The rule for federal offices will necessarily be somewhat different. Members of Congress need not resign from the Bar back in their home States, but they would be disqualified from appearing for any cause in Federal Court.

It may be objected that this rule violates the principal of Voluntary Association: Why shouldn't the people have the right to elect practicing lawyers if they want to? I agree. But this principle has already been violated by lawyers, for they have seen to it that only persons admitted to the Bar can be hired to practice law. I would say that either lawyers surrender their legal monopoly of the practice of law, or they pay the cost of that monopoly with a legal disability to run for elective office. I would be willing to endure the hazard of violating the Separation of Powers or of a Conflict of Interest if indeed the principal of voluntary association be generalized against the monopoly of the lawyers.

Another possibility, as a compromise, is simply that a supermajority vote could be required for lawyers. If the People really want a candidate who is a lawyer, this would mean that a large majority would want him; and so a large majority could reasonably be required for his election, 60% or more. This would preserve Voluntary Association, but add an appropriate, but limited, legal disability.

Apart from the issue about lawyers, the same device might be used for term limits:  Every six years, for instance, a Congressional Representative might be required to earn an extra 5% of the vote. A truly popular and celebrated Congessman, consequently, would be able to continue serving. After 24 years, a long enough time in Congress for anyone, the majority would be up to 70%, which a truly popular and celebrated Congressman could even still win. Lawyers would be on the same track, but starting at a higher level. Resigning from the Bar after election, or after several elections, could still remove all, or part, of the disability for lawyers, though it would still be a wise provision that lawyers could not participate in cases involving laws that they themselves were instrumental in passing.

The supermajority requirement may be less effective than we might think. Some of the worst politicians ever are often reelected again and again with unbeatable majorities. A disturbing example of this is Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California. She has been in Congress since 1991, doesn't even live in her district, but appears to be all but unbeatable election after election. Before Congess, she was in the California State Assembly from 1976. Her only educational credential was a bachelor's degree in sociology in 1971 from California State College, Los Angeles.

A telling example of her style is her accusation that the "epidemic" of "crack" cocaine (roughly 1984-1990) was created and conducted by the CIA,
Supporters burn American flag outside the office of California Representative Maxine Waters, July 19, 2018
which introduced and supplied the cocaine to minority neighborhoods. Since this was during Republican Administrations, the accusation was essentially that the epidemic was planned by Republicans as an attack on minority communities.

Waters was not alone in making this accusation. We also see much the same thing with Jeremiah Wright. In his infamous "God damn America" sermon, Wright said, "The government gives them the drugs." Since Barack Obama attended Wright's services, and was married by him, and it is likely he sat through sermons to this effect, we might imagine that Obama would get to the bottom of the matter once he was elected President. Waters certainly would have urged him to do so. She would want the CIA and Republican racist plots exposed -- if she had actually believed her charges. However, once Obama was President, nothing was ever heard of the matter again. No CIA. No crack conspiracy. No drugs supplied by the government. Republican racists plots, yes, but not about cocaine.

We are left to suspect that the charges made by Waters were entirely dishonest and fraudulent. We might also suspect that this is typical of nearly everything she says -- like her call to impeach Donald Trump before he even assumed office. We might also wonder how she got to be a millionaire after 44 years of "public service" and no other visible means of support.

Waters may be off topic for this page about lawyers, since she was never a lawyer. But her case provides a sobering perspective for any provisions we might make to allow the election of lawyers to public office with supermajorities. Supermajorities might help, but absolute term limits might actually be better. The problems we deal with here, both about lawyers and about corrupt, dishonest, and mendacious politicians, should remind us of the problems of democracy in general and the reasons why a "Republican form of government" is a system of checks and balances, of which a democratic element is only a part. The conflict of interest that we get with legislator lawyers, and the embarrassment of politicians like Maxine Waters, should wake up anyone complacent about "popular" government.

Political Site of the Day, August 27, 1998

Kelley Ross for California State Assembly, 40th District

Constitutional Guardians

Political Economy

Home Page

Copyright (c) 1997, 2020 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved