Dean's Address

Ethics in Law and Politics after Jim Wright

By Richard J.Phelan

Today we are faced with the ethical obligations of a profession in metamorphosis; a profession that requires a fresh look almost monthly just to keep pace.

Our ethics bind us together as a profession. They separate us from being mere scriveners, paid actors, or counselors. It is to these ethics that upon entering our profession we pledge our ultimate fidelity.

Never has the relationship between ethics and professionalism been so severely strained as it is today; nor has it become more inextricably intertwined with our profession.

Ethical and professional standards remind us that the end does not justify the means, Professionalism means rejecting "Rambo style" litigation tactics ‑ abusive discovery practices, discourteousness, and other tactics designed solely to harass or intimidate an opponent. That such conduct may sometimes result in a temporary improvement in our client's position ‑ and I emphasize temporary ‑ is beside the point. Inevitably, such tactics cost us all. Not only because they naturally result in greater litigation costs, but because such tactics help enshrine the public's view of attorneys as part of the problem, not part of the solution. In restraining such practices, despite our clients' preference for a scorched‑earth policy, our ethical standards make us truly independent professionals with some goals beyond those of our client's immediate interest.

Political ethics serve much the same purpose by preserving the politician's independence from improper influence. Standards of political conduct, if followed, ensure that the politician remains an independent professional with goals beyond those of a particular constituent or campaign contributor. At the most basic level, political ethics prohibit the blatant purchase and sale of influence. And yet, in our complex world, the tactics of influence peddling need not be so obvious as the proverbial over‑stuffed envelope left on a desk.

These subtleties were presented in a most dramatic way by our investigation and prosecution of the former Speaker of the House, James C. Wright, Jr. May I share with you my own experience and some thoughts based on that experience.

The story begins with the House Ethics Committee, the only bipartisan committee in the House. Its six Democrats and six Republicans are charged with investigating alleged violations of the House rules and other laws and standards. These twelve men, led by Chairman Julian Dixon of California, sat in judgment of the man who appointed them to their posts: Speaker Jim Wright. The investigation began with a complaint filed by conservative Congressman Newt Gingrich and an unlikely bedfellow, Common Cause, the liberal political watchdog group.

First, a word about the office of Speaker of the House.

The Constitution establishes the office of Speaker. Unlike Senators, House members have always been chosen in popular elections. Until constitutional amendment, the President was elected only by the Electoral College, whose electors were appointed by the state legislatures. Not surprisingly, at the time of the founding of our republic, the Speaker was considered the country's highest popularly elected official. Recognizing this preeminence, federal law places the Speaker directly behind the Vice President in the line of succession to the presidency.

The Speaker wields enormous power over this country's political and legislative agendas. In addition to appointing the chairman of the various House committees, the Speaker's control of the all‑powerful Rules Committee gives him almost total control over the legislative calendar. He decides when and whether a particular bill will come up for a vote and he set the terms of debate for the legislation which does reach the House floor.

Jim Wright won the post of Majority Leader by one vote in 1976, and in 1987, the House chose him as its Speaker. At the time, Jim Wright had served 32 years in the House.

In the summer of 1988, the Ethics Committee voted unanimously to conduct a "Preliminary Inquiry" into Mr. Wright's conduct based on the complaints filed by Congressman Gingrich and Common Cause. Shortly thereafter, the Ethics Committee appointed me as its Special Outside Counsel.

Continue to Page2