THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:
QUERY: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU “ZEALOUSLY” REPRESENTED YOUR CLIENT?
We have all heard the term used a thousand times before. We were taught it back in law school and in our first jobs after getting sworn into the Bar. Heck, it was written directly into the Rules of Professional Responsibility. We use it in our arguments to the Court. We stand behind it when we communicate our position to our opponent in a case. We have always been taught to be zealous advocates and nothing less. Give it 110%. Zealously represent your client; zealously advocate your client's position.
Well, no more. Add the “Z words” - “zeal, zealous, and zealously” to George Carlin’s Seven Dirty Words You Can Never Say.*
That’s because your Florida Bar’s Board Of Governors (BOG) has voted to eliminate the “Z words” from anywhere in our lexicon.
Here is the Report from your BOG (and you thought your Bar dues were going to waste):
“The board voted, after a lengthy discussion, to approve a Real Property, Probate, and Trust Law Section proposal to scrub so-called “Z words” — zeal, zealous, and zealously — from the Bar rule book. The proposed amendments would remove references to “Z” words from the Preamble to Chapter 4 and the comment to Rule 4-1.3 — and add a comment that would offer an explanation and historical perspective.
Under the proposal, a sentence in the Preamble, “As an advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system,” would instead state, “As an advocate, a lawyer asserts the client’s position with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client under the rules of the adversary system.”
Another sentence in the Preamble, “Zealous advocacy is not inconsistent with justice,” would instead state, “Commitment and dedication in advocacy are not inconsistent with justice.”
A sentence in the comment to Rule 4-1.3 (Diligence), “A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal and advocacy on the client’s behalf,” would simply state, “A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client.”
The proposed new comment would appear in the Preamble under the subheading “Conduct.”
“All prior references to this chapter to a lawyer’s duty to act zealously, as a zealous advocate, or with zeal upon the client’s behalf have been removed. Zealous advocacy has been invoked in the legal profession as an excuse for unprofessional behavior,” the comment would state.
The comment would refer to a 2000 Supreme Court decision, The Florida Bar v. Buckle, in which the justices wrote, “we must never permit a cloak of purported zealous advocacy to conceal unethical behavior.”
During a July meeting in Sarasota, Tampa lawyer Larry Miccolis told the Rules Committee that the RPPTL’s Ethics and Professionalism Committee formed a subcommittee last year to study the issue.
“We looked at the term’s etymology, the history of the terms, caselaw, other states’ jurisdictional rules,” he said. “Z terms have a long history. But today, we found that there is more often a negative treatment associated with negative behaviors and labels.”
Miccolis was quick to credit the committee chair, Andy Sasso, with proposing the change.
But shortly before the vote, board member Karl Klein, a Miami lawyer, said he was concerned some lawyers would be tempted to temper their dedication to their client’s cause.
“What I worry about is the good attorneys, who do read the rules, and who would say, ‘Oh, I can’t represent my clients with zealous advocacy anymore,” Klein said.
Board member Michael Gelfand defended the proposal, saying too many lawyers use the reference to excuse their unprofessional behavior.
“When we go back to our districts, what’s the No. 1 issue our constituents complain about,” Gelfand said. “It is professionalism.”
The change is needed now more than ever, Gelfand said, when beginning lawyers are launching solo practices without the moderating influence of a mentor.
“We have seen lawyers in the courtroom who have justified their conduct because they have to be a zealot,” he said. “This is our way to start bringing back professionalism, which is why our constituents largely sent us here.”
The board approved the proposed revisions, 24-9. The Supreme Court will have the final say.”
So, the next time you appear in court, and you look the judge right in the eye, doing your best job in arguing your Motion to Suppress on an issue that will determine whether your client spends the rest of their life in prison, and things get really heated, just remember to say, “but your honor, I was just trying to show my commitment and dedication for my client’s position".
Alex Michaels Is Now Officially Turning Over In His Grave!!!
Captain4Justice@gmail.com
Moderation in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue
ReplyDeleteExtremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice
Good. I always found this troubling and could never understand how you could do something zealously and also in the best interest of your client. If your client is fucked, you have to tell him he's fucked and figure out how to settle no matter how badly he thinks you should keep beating the drum of his lost cause.
ReplyDeleteMerriam-Webster defines a "Zealot" as "a fanatical partisan." In turn, "fanatical" is defined as "a person exhibiting excessive enthusiasm and intense uncritical devotion toward some controversial matter (as in religion or politics)."
The key words here are "uncritical devotion".
Dis is Bullsheet!
ReplyDeleteBtw I got held in contempt last veek by Scalia. He ruled against me. I say “vhat do you know? You never try a case and you never sit as trial judge”. He fined me and I laughed at him and tell him dat I’m dead and vhat more can you do to me?
@ Sir Wilfred, so, by extension, do you support Hamas? And do you have no problem with Israel bombing a civilian population into the stone age causing the deaths of tens of thousands in just two months - about half of whom were children?
ReplyDeleteBecause, make no mistake, if you ask either side in that awful conflict, both would say something very much like the non-sense you posted above.
I know, this is a far stretch from whether "zealous" is used to describe lawyer advocacy. But it is often in the extremes that we see the flaws in our arguments.
Dear 9:08. I assume you don’t recognize that I quoted Barry Goldwater when he was the Republican candidate for US president in 1964.
ReplyDeleteIt has always been a handful of us criminal defense lawyers that were ever capable of defending zealously... and are (shall I say "were") proud to zealously represent. But so many of us have been threatened by judges, suspended or disbarred. Zealous has become a dirty word even amongst us so-called defense attorneys, and when attorneys have fought and been called out, like Alex or Bruce or Jonathan or Michael G, this blog has allowed both defense attorneys and prosecutors to anonymously continue to trash and pile on and has well contributed to the demise of effective and, yes, I am proud to say, Zealous Advocacy. So, Rumpole, as effective as you may be at times, you operate well within the system and are in little danger of ever being called out as zealous. RIP zealous advocacy.
ReplyDeleteA number of trial lawyers in the property insurance field have recently been suspended for their “unethical “ behavior . Their defense initially was that they were “zealously” advocating their client’s position
ReplyDelete@ Sir Wilfred., this is 9:08. I recognized that. Quoting a fool is no defense to acting a fool Now, if you were being ironic or sarcastic, by all means, accept my apology. Anonymous blog commenting lacks nuance. Otherwise, you may want to give further thought to your position.
ReplyDeleteZealous defense is out? But zealous prosecution is okay? Got it. The entire system of law back to the Magna Carta has been a fraud.
ReplyDelete