Invictus

                                                                  By: August Bequai

  “ Requiem for a Servant of the Law: Prof. Anthony C. Morella”

                           “Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none

                                     of its own, the collapse of the state is not….far off…”

-Plato  (“Laws”)

The law is one of humanity’s oldest and greatest achievements. Without it, chaos and the rule of the jungle would govern. While the Ancient Scythians and other nomadic groups had developed a body of customary laws to address their daily needs, the first known record of a body of written laws is the Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2,100-2,050 BCE). Written on clay tablets, it addressed the social and economic needs of the citizenry of Ancient Sumeria.

Even if paying lip service for political purposes, it stressed impartiality and fairness in the application of the law. All citizens were equal before it. Sumeria’s rulers had learned from history that unjust  laws lead to political instability. It would become a model for the legal codes of the  Assyrians, Babylonians, and other ancient civilizations that followed. It became a practice to enact written laws.

While these took on a variety of forms; nevertheless, there was an underlying acknowledgement that the law must be viewed by the populace as just in its application, and tolerant of diversity. When the law came to  viewed as unjust, political turmoil followed. The philosopher David Hume said it best: “…the corruption of the best of things produces the worst…”

Which brings us to our story of Prof. Anthony C. Morella; (“Tony,” to his many friends, students, and colleagues). Tony was born in Malden, Massachusetts in 1930. The son of poor immigrants from Southern Italy, Tony went on to become an air force officer, lawyer, General Counsel/Vice President of a national university, advisor to mayors, judges, members of Congress, and a devoted teacher-(or servant, as he would often describe himself)- of the law.

Upon completing his military service, Tony returned to Massachusetts and married his college classmate, who in turn went on to become a member of Congress, Ambassador, academic, and more. They both shared an undying commitment to freedom of speech and thought. Their friends and associates encompassed the political expanse.

Tony’s real passion, save for his family,  was the law. He taught it to aspiring  jurists for more than 50 years; many of these went on to become judges, legislators, and practitioners, and the son of one of these went on to become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. The U.S. Constitution for Tony was one of the great achievements of the 18^th century. Dogmas and legal fads came and went, but the law for Tony was eternal. The cement that bonded diverse groups into a  civilization. He knew extremely well from his family’s history in Europe, the dangers that lurked when the law became a tool of zealots and the corrupt.

When the nation faced the Watergate Crisis, Tony  and his friend and colleague Prof. George Horning, were called on by U.S. District Court John Sirica (of Watergate fame),  to advise and represent him in litigation involving then President Nixon. See Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Judge Sirica would later remark that the assistance Tony and Prof. Horning  had rendered had proven to be invaluable.

When their representation was concluded, unlike many others who gloried in the fanfare of Watergate, Tony and Prof. Horning quietly returned to teaching and practicing law. Before his death, Tony confided that the full story of Watergate would have to be told by future historians. For Tony, the Watergate Crisis affirmed his undying loyalty to the law.

Though approached by publishers with offers to tell the inside scoop of Watergate, Tony turned them down and remained loyal until his death to his client’s secrets. The attorney-client privilege and right to counsel for Tony were sacrosanct. Without them, the American legal system could not properly function. “How can a client trust you,” he would often remark “if you plan to divulge his secrets.” When it came to the law, for Tony, the end never justified the means.

Tony always saw himself as but a servant of the law, a mere speck of sand in the long history and evolution of the law. As General Counsel for a major university, Tony bemoaned the commercialization of the law. Law schools had become cash cows for universities, he would often remark. The main objective of many university administrators, he sadly noted, was no longer to train lawyers to serve society, but to enrich their university covers.

For Tony, the right to counsel had given way to politics; with lawyers refusing to represent clients solely for their political views. The law had increasingly become a tool for berating one’s political  opponents. For Tony, these were dangerous trends that could only lead to chaos and violence if left unchecked. Always a  servant of the law, Tony strove to impress on his students the right to counsel; it pre-empted their political views.

Tony never forgot his roots and made it a practice to advocate for the poor and forgotten. Tony had also learned from his military experience that diversity was the fiber that made America great. In the military, he would say, those you serve with are your family; their race, gender, ethnicity, and religion go by the wayside. In war, well bleed the same.

He also never forgot the lessons of history or his own extensive first-hand observations of American politics. For Tony, great national leaders never elevated themselves above the law. The best leaders for him, were those who placed the public interest ahead of their own. Modesty, for Tony, was a goal leaders should aspire to attain. It helped them better understand their role in history. The Ancient Greek dramatist Aeschylus best summarized Tony’s view of politics: “Honor modesty more than your life.” (“The Suppliant Maidens”).

Tony had witnessed the abuses of the McCarthy Era, the growing disparity between America’s rich and poor, and the growing polarization of American politics. For Tony, lawyers and law schools bore some of the blame. He attributed this to the pursuit of riches and the limelight by many lawyers, instead of public service. The young generation of lawyers, however, gave him hope.

Tony fell victim several years ago to an ailment that savaged his body, but not his spirits. When I visited with him, our discussions always turned to the law and its importance to a stable society. For him, the need for lawyers to assert their role as guardians of the law was paramount.

When Tony died peacefully in his home on October 29, 2020, the writings of Spain’s beloved poet Jorge Manrique (c. 1440-79) came to mind. In his most celebrated poem-(“Coplas por la Muerte de su padre”)-he explored the meaning of life. He concluded that life was but a brief journey and what mattered most was how one lived it. For Tony, the law was his life until his dying day. He lived it modestly as its devout servant. Manrique would have approved.

*The views expressed are solely those of the author.

                                                              By: August Bequai, Esq.*      

“I declare, that having received from the people the mandate to defend  its rights,  I regard an oppressor him who interrupts me.”                  

-Maximilien Robespierre

From its recorded inception, civilization has rested on three classes for its functioning: priests, warriors, and lawyers. Their roles and functions have varied from civilization to civilization; frequently interchanging. In Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, the priestly class often assumed at least two of these roles; this was not the case in Ancient Rome, Greece, India, or China.

Equally, throughout history, the forces of freedom and diversity have found themselves pitted off against the forces of autocracy; the latter favoring an absolutist mindset. With the pendulum swinging back and forth; often finding lawyers at the helm of the former. By the late 18th century, autocracy came to assume a secular absolutist mindset in the West; referred to as totalitarianism by such scholars as J.L. Talmon. Fast gaining adherents globally in the 20th century, i.e., Communism, Fascism, and extreme nationalism to the detriment of freedom and diversity.

Onset of the Totalitarian Mindset

Autocracy and dictatorships are no strangers to human history. They are found in every part of the world; there are ample examples of these throughout history. No society has been spared the pain. However, a new autocratic mindset emerged in the late 18^th century; referred to now as totalitarianism. In part, the outgrowth of the writings of Hobbes, Helvetius, Voltaire, Rousseau, and other Western thinkers; further propelled by the rise of the Industrial Revolution. Further cemented in the late 19^th century by the rise of Marxism, agrarian socialism, and various extreme nationalist movements.

These combined forces played no small part in unleashing the French Revolution (May 1789 to November 1799); which came to have a profound impact on world history beyond Europe. While espousing freedom and diversity, the French Revolution gave rise to a secular absolutist (totalitarian) mindset that came to view the common good as paramount to the rights of the individual. It propagated the view that rule by an enlightened elite was best for the common good; those who espoused freedom and diversity, were traitors to the common good. Such views had historically been confined to religious extreme movements.

No one personified this absolutist mindset during the French Revolution more than Maximilien Robespierre, a lawyer by training turned revolutionary. For him, the Parliamentary system of government was a fraud; a plot against the common good. Lawyers were a tool of a corrupt  elite to suppress the majority. Any legal system that espoused freedom and diversity, was to be crushed. Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler would take Robespierre at his word.

Robespierre was not alone in his thinking. Other French revolutionaries, like Louis Antoine de Saint-Just (a former law student), shared his views. For them freedom and diversity were “the art of human pride.” Political opponents were no more than vermin: enemies of the common good to be destroyed. For Robespierre and Saint-Just, the general will was one and indivisible; freedom and diversity would only serve to undermine it.

The True Believers

Unlike past dogmas that centered around religious movements, the French Revolution promised a secular heaven on earth. The rulers of this new compact would come from the ranks of a select enlightened elite. Lawyers were shunned as impediments to revolutionary change. The French Revolution would become a model for such groups as the Left SR, Bolsheviks, Fascists, and other secular dogmatists that followed.

The idea of a (secular) supreme leader also took hold under the French Revolution. Endowed with godly wisdom, he/she would enshrine the common good, free of legal restraints. A secular papacy, leading the masses. Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Mao Zedong would master that role. The law and lawyers would play no real role in this totalitarian society; they were to be used as needed.

The Lawyers 

Freedom and diversity have been part of humanity since the dawn of history. The Ancient Greeks incorporated these precepts in their legal system. They were included in the Magna Carta (1215), English Bill of Rights (1689), Virginia’s Declaration of Rights (1776), U.S. Constitution (1789), and United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). They are the pillars of modern democracy.

Likewise, lawyers are the guarantors of the law. Freedom and diversity would be merely talking points if lawyers failed in their duties. The absolutist mindset, if espoused by lawyers, can prove to be the nemesis of freedom and diversity. To quote Frank J. Cobb’s, “The Bill of Rights/…is the…guarantee of human freedom.” Absolutism its nemesis.

*Gus Bequai, Esq. is the editor in chief of Invictus. The views expressed are solely those of the Editor. They do not reflect the views of the Virginia State Bar or the Diversity Conference.

By: August Bequai, Esq.*

“Cursed he be above all others who’s enslaved by love of money.”    

-Anacreon                    

Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Franklin D. Roosevelt were all proud members of the legal profession. Their accomplishments and contributions to history and the law are well documented. History is not lacking in thousands of unnamed lawyers who have also played a crucial role in the evolution of their societies and the rule of law. The lawyers who reigned in the world’s  largest company-(the English East India Company; “The Company,” to historians)- are a continuum of that proud legal tradition.

A Behemoth is Born

There has never been anything like The Company in the annals of recorded human history. Today’s giant multinationals are but dwarfs when compared to this corporate behemoth. At the height of its power, The Company employed one of the largest three navies in the world, and an army of more than 200,000 well trained soldiers. It fought wars against the empires of China and India, and controlled more than fifty percent of the world’s trade at its peak. Its geographic expanse and influence were in par with those of the largest empires in history. Julius Caesar would have envied The Company.

 In the process, The Company corrupted the British political system to the point where it was said that every member of Parliament was on its payroll.  It also became a model for the corporate multinationals that followed in its footsteps. The Company’s beginnings, however, went unnoticed for many years. It was dwarfed at first by many of the trading companies that had sprung up in 16th century Europe to tap into the lucrative trade with the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia. Competition from Dutch and French trading companies was especially fierce. The Company’s growing financial interests, however, would embroil Britain in costly wars with China and other European countries.

Envious of the Spanish and Portuguese trade in the Americas and Asia, a small group of English merchants and investors met in a London pub on September 22, 1599, to plan the formation of a company to trade with Asia. They petitioned Queen Elizabeth for a Royal Charter; on December 31, 1600, the Charter was granted. Thus, was formed the Governor and Company of the Merchants of London trading into the East Indies.  Save for a handful of investors, few others took notice; let alone realizing that a multinational Behemoth was born.

Until 1707, The Company was officially  known as the English East India Company; after which it, came to be called the British East India Company. Informally, however, it would be referred to as The Company throughout its history. Its initial staff was small-(fewer than two dozen clerks); it made its headquarters at London’s Nags Head Inn. Years later, moving it to the fashionable India House. The Company sold stock to investors throughout Britain and Continental Europe. Its favored politicians were rewarded with both insider information and stock in The Company; whence came the term “ insider trading.”

Out of Control

By the late 18th century, The Company reigned supreme on the Indian subcontinent. It had bypassed the Dutch and French India trading companies in influence and financial returns for her investors. Many of its initial organizers and investors would become some of the wealthiest individuals in Britain; posing a serious challenge to the country’s political institutions. Her stranglehold over British politics would linger well into the mid-19th century. Promoting Leo Tolstoy to write, “A commercial company enslaved a nation.”

The Company’s lobbyists were the most numerous and best funded in the British Parliament; many having served in that institution.  The Company also retained an army of prominent legal scholars and literary figures to laud its contributions to Britain’s economy and free trade. Among them, such luminaries as Charles Lamb (England) and Ram Mohan Roy (India). The Company’s propagandists inundated the news outlets with reports of The Company’s efforts  to combat inequality, poverty, and the slave trade; neglecting to note that The Company was one of Asia’s biggest slave traders.  A prompting a late 18th century Mughal official to remark, “(The Company is) a handful of traders who have not yet learned to wash their bottoms.”

In her quest to maximize profits for her investors, The Company became embroiled in  costly military and political entanglements that historically had been the province of the British government; these would later come to roost home. Among these, a series of wars with the Mughal Emperors and princely rulers of the Indian subcontinent, conflicts with the Sultanates of East African over control of the slave trade, wars with China over the opium trade, and even entanglements in the American colonies over the tea trade. Unbeknown to many, The Company played no small role in sparking the American Revolution.  

From its inception, The Company’s policy had been to pit the various religious, racial, national and ethnic groups under its governance off against each other. Giving Siks preferential treatment over Muslims in its military; Indians over Chinese in its bureaucracy, light skin Africans over their darker brethren in commerce, and so on.  The Company’s policy of divide and conquer came to an ignominious end with the Indian Rebellion of 1857-(also known as the Sepoy or Indian Mutiny); which prompted the British government to take control of The Company’s global commercial empire. Corruption had finally given way to the rule of law.

The Final Curtain

As far back as the Middle Ages, England has had a tradition of legal reformers. They have played an important role throughout much of English history; constituting a respected and powerful segment of her political class.  As King John and those that followed him on the English throne would  find found out, the English are a nation of laws and lawyers; not of dogma or political zealots. It would only be a matter of time before Britain’s reformist lawyers; allied to their brethren in Parliament, would reign in The Company.

Serious efforts to regulate The Company commenced with enactment by Parliament of the India Act of 1784, which created the India Board; whose task it was to oversee The Company’s trading practices. When abuses by The Company continued, several of its governors-general were impeached; among these, Warren Hastings. Nevertheless, The Company’s powerful lobby was able to blunt many of the legal reformers efforts to curtail its power and influence well into the  19th century.

In 1833, under pressure from both the public and legal establishment, the British government took control over much of The Company’s trade in India; in return for an annual dividend of 10.5% to its stockholders. That dividend continued to be paid for more than 100 years.  The Company’s end as a viable business entity, however, came in 1858.  In response to the political fallout from the Indian Rebellion of 1857, reformers and the legal establishment lobbied Parliament to enact the Government of India Act; which nationalized The Company. This was followed by the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act in 1873, which provided for the formal dissolution of The Company a year later. The final curtain had come down.

Lessons to be Learned

The Company was history’s most powerful and enduring multinational business organizations; a de facto state mobile, with few nations able to rival its wealth and influence. It became a model for many of the multinational businesses that followed in its footsteps.  It embroiled itself in both domestic and international politics and came to view itself as independent of the British state; responsible solely to its investors. It came to view British law as an impediment to its quest for wealth, and Britain’s lawyers as inconsequential blowhards.

The Times of London would write that The Company, “accomplished a work such as in the whole history of the human race no other trading Company ever attempted.”  The Times failed to note, however, that the law and the lawyers that enforced it were not inconsequential and a nuisance as The Company had come to view them; they spanned a proud tradition of more than 1,000 years of English history and were a force to reckon with inside British society and politics.

The Company and her directors, while astute in business, had failed to grasp the important role of the law and lawyers in human governance. The Company‘s wealth and arrogance had blinded it to the realities of British politics and society. While slow to act at first, when the British legal establishment finally acted, it did so decisively at The Company’s detriment. An important lesson to heed for today’s arrogant and self-absorbed multinational corporations..

Closing

The legal profession is not a cult, religion, or political dogma. Lawyers are not a monastic class, ready to evangelize to the world at large. Lawyers are one of the oldest professions in human history and will continue to serve humanity long after many of today’s multinationals and their management are long gone and forgotten. The law is the foundation that enables society to function.

Lawyers as a class, should never forget that they are part of a proud and ancient reformist tradition. Like their 19th century brethren in Britain, they are the firewall that ensures equal justice to both weak and strong alike. These are some of the important lessons we would do well to learn from how Britain’s lawyers reigned in the most powerful business entity in recorded human history.

_________________________________________________________________________

*The views expressed are solely those of the editor.

By: August Bequai, Esq.*

“…no government can stand which is not founded on justice.” – Aristotle

Evolution of the Legal Profession

The world’s legal systems fall under one of four major categories or a combination of these: civil law, common law, customary law, and religious law (primarily Cannon and Sharia). Of these, civil law is the most widespread globally and is heavily influenced by the Napoleonic Code of 1804. The latter constituted the first major comprehensive codification of Western law since Justinian’s Code in the 6th century A.D. No legal document has had the same influence or impact worldwide as the Napoleonic Code. Components of it can be found in every legal system in the world; including the United States (Louisiana and Puerto Rico, partially).

The common law is the second most widely used legal system in the world. By the 12th century, what has come to be called the English common law had evolved from custom, local usage, judge-made laws, and acts of Parliament. While Wales adopted the English common law, Scotland and Ireland developed their own independent legal systems; heavily influenced by those of Continental Europe. With the rise and expansion of the British Empire, the common law system of governance followed; as did the rules that governed her legal advocates.

However, under the English legal system, unlike that in the United States, Parliament (the legislature) reigns supreme; the judiciary is its subordinate. Well until the rise of the Tudor dynasty, the legal profession in England, like that on the Continent, was largely the monopoly of the clergy. This changed with the Protestant Reformation and the legal and religious reforms of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. Secular lawyers came to the fore. Their role and power increased with the rise of England’s mercantile class. The English East India Company needed secular lawyers, not clerics, to ferment its power over a growing empire that dwarfed England.

Customary law has been defined as the organic or living law of indigenous people; regulating their daily lives and dealings. The oldest of all legal systems, it is found in numerous localities worldwide. It is regulatory in that it regulates the lives and interactions of members of the local communities that are subject to it.  Under customary law, elders and other well-respected members of the local community are called upon to hear and arbitrate a variety of disputes. These can range from the simple to the serious.

In some communities, customary law is used to resolve such life and death matters as vendettas between clans or offenses which bring shame and dishonor to a tribe, clan, or family.  A number of nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have incorporated customary law into their legal systems. Section 211 of the South African Constitution recognizes the customary law and traditional authority practiced by many local communities in that nation.         

Religious law (primarily Cannon and Sharia) is also widely used worldwide. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century A.D., the Catholic Church came to fill the political and legal void it left behind. Borrowing from Rome’s legal system, the Catholic Church developed its own hybrid (Cannon law) legal system.  Much of it was codified; with an army of clerical lawyers and judges trained to administer it. Throughout Europe’s Middle Ages, the law was the domain of the Catholic Church. Its monopoly on learning and reading ensured the dominance of Canon Law well into the Protestant Reformation.

In parts of Africa and Asia, the rise of Islam in the 7th century A.D., brought with it the proliferation of Islamic (Sharia) law. Until then, much of the legal system in place in North Africa, the Middle East and Asia Minor consisted of Roman (Byzantine Empire) and Persian (Sassanid Empire) law. Until the rise of Islam, lawyers in those regions were trained in the legal systems of those two empires.

The first Four Caliphs in Islam and those that followed them-(primarily the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates)-established an Islamic judicial system, legal codes, law schools, and cadres of trained lawyers to implement Islamic (Sharia) law. While the Muslim rulers borrowed when needed from the Roman and Persian legal systems, at the heart of Sharia law lays the Koran, and its interpretation over the centuries by Muslim scholars, preachers, and schools. Sharia law is practiced today in one form or another in many parts of the world.

Lawyers Come to the Fore

In Ancient Athens (3,000 to 404 B.C.) and Republican Rome (501 to 47 B.C.), legal advocates were frequently individuals who were self-taught in the customs, practices, and legal systems of their societies. Many of them were public speakers; practicing law as a part-time avocation. While they could not legally charge money for their legal services, a barter system evolved to get around these restrictions. In both Ancient Athens and Republican Rome, unlike in Ancient Egypt (3,000 to 653 B.C.), every citizen was expected to argue his/her own case before the local courts.

The legal profession that we have come to know today had its beginning in 41 A.D. with the ascent of Claudius as Emperor of Rome. Claudius embarked on a series of legal reforms to meet the needs of the expanding Roman Empire (it had topped 100 million persons); also to address the political abuses of his assassinated nephew, Caligula.  

Among his legal reforms, regulations were enacted to provide for the formal schooling, training, and licensing of lawyers. Under Claudius’ legal reforms, lawyers were allowed to charge fees for their legal services, but these were capped. The military was also assigned lawyers to advise commanders in the field on the law of war. While physical brawls (some leading to death) between lawyers had been common in Pre-Claudius Rome, civility within the profession was stressed and enforced under his reforms. He had witnessed firsthand under Caligula’s reign, the anarchy that ensued when lawyers neglected the rule of law and became part of the mob.

By the time that Diocletian became Emperor of Rome in 285 A.D., lawyers had become a common fixture in the Empire. They came from every strata and region of the Empire. To facilitate the running of the vast Roman Empire, Diocletian divided it into two parts in 286 A.D. Administering the Eastern half of the Empire himself, and assigning Maximian to administer the Western half as co-ruler. Rome’s lawyers were called upon to draft the needed documentation to ensure a smooth transition. Roman law and the regulation of lawyers continued as before in both parts of the divided Empire.

With the fall of the Western half of the Roman Empire in the 5th century A.D., the Eastern half, headquartered in Constantinople, assumed the mantle of Rome. It would live on as a successor state for another 1,000 years. Historians came to refer to it in the 16th century as the Byzantine Empire, because of its strong Greek influence. Hence, the term Byzantine Empire has come to reference the Eastern Roman Empire. They are one and the same state.

Lawyers as a class grew in number and influence under the Byzantine state. Legal education became the province of the state, and lawyers were required to study law for four years in state-licensed schools; they also had to join one of the Empire’s court bars; similar to the Inns of Court that were to take shape later in England and pass a written license exam.

The days of the amateur legal advocate were gone. Lawyers had come into their own as professionals and were respected members of society. Civility among lawyers was stressed, and those that failed to comply with the rules of conduct for lawyers were sanctioned or disbarred from practicing law in the Byzantine Empire.

Well into the 15th century, from their ranks came the judges, legislators, governors, and administrators that helped run the Byzantine Empire. Lawyers were also viewed as a stabilizing force in Byzantine society; ensuring that the law and not force, resolved disputes between citizens. When lawyers joined the mob, civil war and anarchy frequently followed. The Byzantine legal model had has a profound (though subtle) impact on the legal systems of Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

Lawyers in America

During the early colonial period in America, there were no formal requirements for the schooling or licensing of the legal profession. Lawyers were frequently local business persons and farmers, who were self-taught legal advocates. By the time of the American Revolution, lawyers as a class had become leaders in their communities. They accounted for 45 percent of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and 69 percent of the members of the Constitutional Convention.

By the 18th century, lawyers started to form bar associations and establish law schools. The Litchfield Law School, established in 1789, went on to graduate more than 1,000 lawyers. The Harvard Law School and others followed in the 19th century. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, a Harvard professor, would help establish a national law school curriculum, and one of Harvard’s Deans (Christopher C. Langdell) introduced the case system.

 Many of the first bar associations emerged in New York City in the 19th century; their numbers growing to over 1,000 nationwide by 1930. The formal licensing, schooling and disciplining of lawyers had become the norm by the early 20th century. The profession grew to the point where it now numbers some 1.33 million lawyers; with civility being recognized as an important component of the state bar codes of professional conduct that govern lawyers. It is firmly understood that if lawyers are an important component of governance. That when they are not civil to each other or join the mob, the profession and society as a whole suffer. Dogma does not supplant 2,000 years of law.

Lawyers Act as a Firewall

While Shakespeare fumed at lawyers because they posed a check on the autocracy of his Tudor masters, the legal profession is one of the more long-lasting achievements of human civilization. It has played an indispensable role in guiding humanity through its primal pitfalls. Without lawyers to implement the law, humanity would be engulfed in civil strife and anarchy. History does not lack such examples.

In difficult times, lawyers must stay the course. They bear the burden of ensuring the peaceful functioning of society. Not long ago, I had the occasion to discuss the role of civility in the legal profession with an attorney from the former Yugoslavia. He had witnessed the horrors that followed the breakup of that nation. “Civility,” he said “is the glue that keeps the legal profession intact and makes it effective.” Adding, “When lawyers cast it aside, civil strife ensues.” More than two million citizens of the former Yugoslavia were killed, maimed, or displaced when the rule of law was set aside.