Convicted criminal defense lawyer Lynne Stewart was automatically disbarred by the New York State Bar, due to her felony convictions. On the facts of the case, as determined by the jury, I don't have much sympathy for Stewart, who appeared to cross way past the line of zealous advocacy into flagrant and willful violation of federal law. However, the automatic disbarment rule, while sensible, further exacerbates the possibility that criminal defense lawyers in terrorism cases might be concerned about whether they too will be the next Lynne Stewarts. Unfortunately, I don't see a particularly way of eliminating the tension between the need to police defense lawyer misconduct -- which is no doubt rare -- and the need to allow defense lawyers to advocate zealously.
On another note, welcome to Dave Glazier, who I finally met last week in Portland at the "Crime, War Crimes, and the War on Terrorism" Conference at Lewis & Clark Law School. I'm really looking forward to the addition of Prof. Glazier!
We've been debating the Lynne Stewart case at Opinio Juris and Legal Ethics Forum. But, more importantly, I want to publicize a nice article that puts her case in the broader picture you refer to here: Tamar R. Birckhead: 'The Conviction of Lynne Stewart and the Uncertain Future of the Right to Defend' (Berkeley Electronic Press, ExpressO Preprint Series, 678, 2006: http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/678). I accessed this as a 'working paper' because I don't have access to either LexisNexis or Westlaw. Those that do can get the published version: 'The Conviction of Lynne Stewart and the Uncertain Future of the Right to Defend,' 43 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1 (2006).
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | April 30, 2007 at 01:53 AM