Category Archives: Editor’s Corner

The Editor’s Corner

                                                                  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”)

Professor Anthony Morella.
Professor Anthony C. Morella

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 18th 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.

Editor’s Corner: Freedom of Speech and Diversity

         By: August Bequai*

        “The most beautiful thing in the world is freedom of speech.”

             -Diogenes (404-323 BC)

Freedom of speech has a long history, which predates the modern democracies by several thousand years. In the West, it can be traced back to Ancient Athens and Republican Rome. Examples of it can also be found in Ancient China, India, Persia, and Egypt. 

Global Evolution                                        

In the West, freedom of speech found support in the writings of Erasmus and Milton. Lord Edward Coke viewed it as an integral part of Parliamentarian freedom, and in 1689 the English Bill of Rights established the right of freedom of speech in Parliament.

 In 1766, the Swedish Parliament enacted one of the first freedom of the press laws in Europe, while the French Republic adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen in 1789; affirming freedom of speech as the inalienable right of every citizen. In 1791, freedom of speech was adopted in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Freedom of speech is currently recognized, though far from always practiced, as an inalienable right under numerous international and regional human rights laws. Among these: Article 19 of the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights;  Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights; and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. Freedom of speech as a right has come to include not only its content but also its mediums of expression; among these,  the Internet.

U.S. Experience 

In the American colonies, controls on free speech, as in England, frequently focused on religion, morality, and the British monarchy. For example, in 1612, Virginia made it illegal to speak ill of government officials; while  Massachusetts law in 1646 made it illegal to deny the immortality of the soul. 

The  trial of Peter Zenger in 1735, however, was an important turning point in efforts to advance free speech. Charged with seditious libel for criticizing the Governor of New York, his lawyer (Andrew Hamilton) convinced the jury to disregard the charges and acquit his client ( Zenger). The case set an important precedent for the drafters of the U.S. Constitution.

The American Revolution enshrined freedom of speech in the U.S Constitution; while many state constitutions, and numerous federal, state, and local laws would follow. The First Amendment’s constitutional right of free speech, applicable to state and local governments under the  incorporation doctrine, prevents governmental restrictions on speech; but not restrictions imposed by private individuals and businesses, unless these are acting on behalf of the government.

When a speech restriction is challenged in court, it is presumed to be invalid, and the burden falls on the government to convince a court that it is constitutional. There are also federal, state, and local laws that provide additional safeguards-i.e., attempts by employers to limit or  infringe on the political speech of its employees are illegal. The courts have also interpreted the First Amendment to  protect the right to receive information.

The First Amendment, however, is not absolute. The courts have carved out exceptions to it. Among these, the publication of child pornography, false advertising, promoting illegal conduct,  inciting lawless action,  and more. These narrow exceptions aside, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, a staunch First Amendment supporter, summarized it best, “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” 

Diversity and Free Speech

In October 2005, UNESCO adopted the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. This was done to protect cultural diversity worldwide in the face of the trauma of globalization. Concerns over the same, prompted the United Nations General Assembly in 2012 to declare the World Day for Cultural Diversity for Dialogue and Development. The European Union followed with its own Declaration on Cultural Diversity.

The term “diversity” itself has taken on numerous meanings over the centuries. Some view it as necessary safeguard for “cultural minorities” the world over, against the profound disruptions in their culture and development wrought by the forces of globalization. Others view it as analogous to biodiversity; while still others as a form of cultural protection against the forces of global commercialization. 

Diversity is no stranger to history. One can find written references to it in Ancient Persia,  India, and China. Ptolemaic Egypt had enacted laws that protected its diverse minorities, and the Abbasid Caliphate enshrined diversity in its code of laws. The Mongol Empire was very likely the most diverse in written history.

The Roman Empire, with 13 Emperors of African descent and dozens of others from its Euro-Asian regions, promoted diversity in its legal system and governmental apparatus. Save for its name, the Roman Empire bore little semblance to its predecessor (Republican Rome).  Many of the Sultans of the Ottoman Empire, likewise, promoted diversity and some even came to embody it. The mothers of many of the Sultans came from non-Turkic backgrounds; to name a few: Albanian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Persian. 

Diversity, however, has also had its failings. The collapse of the Umayyad Caliphate being but one example. Followed by others like the Almohad Caliphate, Mali Empire,  Habsburg Empire, Tsarist Russia, and in our own time, the breakup of the Yugoslav state. When diversity fails, millions often lose their lives; while millions more find themselves displaced from their homelands.

A study of the many diverse nations and empires that have collapsed in the last 4,000 years, reveals that the majority of these all shared one common trait: a disdain for freedom of speech. Autocracy was often the rule of governance. Diverse cultures , races, religions, and languages while often tolerated and even encouraged, fell afoul if they posed a threat to the ruling elite. To paraphrase the old adage:  all people are equal, but some more than others.

Freedom of speech has also met in the last two centuries, with fanatical disdain for it from political dogmatists. Robespierre, Napoleon and Lenin acknowledged the right to free speech, provided it met their dogmatic prism of governance. For diversity to survive and thrive, free speech is a necessity; dogmatic driven movements its anti-matter

In Closing

While lawyers are often vilified and viewed as corrupt tools of the affluent sectors of society; yet, without their assistance and commitment, there would be no freedom of speech. From their ranks have come its champions and guarantors of free speech. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution best exemplifies the force that promotes diversity and lawyers are its guardians. Without freedom of speech and lawyers to safeguard it, diversity withers like a flower without water. 

*The opinions expressed are solely those of the Editor and not those of the VSB or the Diversity Conference.


                                                              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 18th 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 19th 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.

When Lawyers Reigned in the World’s Largest Company

By: August Bequai, Esq.*

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


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..


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.


Why Lawyers Matter: History and Lessons – The Editor’s Corner.

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.


Editor’s Corner (The Liberum Veto: A Lesson for Lawyers)


Photo by Skitterphoto on

By: Gus Bequai, Esq.*

           Written laws are like spiders’ webs, and with them only entangle and hold… (Anacharsis)

For historians, it is axiomatic that history repeats itself and great civilizations fall largely from within. In the 17th century, Poland was the most powerful and wealthy nation in Central Europe. It was the Poles under King John III Sobieski, who in 1683 defeated the Ottoman Turks at the gates of Vienna; dealing them a military setback from which they never recovered.

Seventeenth century Poland was also one of Europe’s most diverse and cosmopolitan societies. While predominantly Catholic; within her borders also lived Orthodox Christians, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Budhists, animists, and morer. Living side by side with the Poles, were Cossacks, Lithuanians, Ukranians, Germans, Russians, Latvians, Estonians, Swedes, Mongols, Gypsies, Turks, Bulgars and Roumanians.

Poland was the envy of both her friends and enemies alike. Her Parliament (the “Sejm”), and not England’s, was viewed as the most democratic legislative body in Europe. Yet, by the late 18th century, Poland had become a failed state and was partitioned by her enemies (Russia, Prussia and Austria). She would not regain her national independence again, until the 20th century.

The debate that lingers among historians to this day is, “what caused Poland’s collapse?” and what are the lessons to be learned. While the answers are many; nevertheless, two key factors stand out: the Sejm’s liberum veto (“free vote”) rule; and a political elite that made use of the liberum veto to manipulate Poland’s political process when it suited its interests.

The Liberum Veto

To check the power of her kings, the Polish Sejm enacted a rule called the liberum veto; which gave every member of the Sejm the right to veto any proposed legislation that came before it. Thus, a single member of the Sejm needed only to shout, Sisto activitatem! (Latin: “I stop the activity!”), to derail legislation on its tracks.

No matter how well meaning, by checking royal power, the liberum veto led to serious political abuses; paralyzing the workings of the Sejm. Bribery, extortion and blackmail became the norm; with most members of the Sejm up for sale. In a span of 200 years, the Sejm held 150 sessions; the liberum veto was used to ensure that no legislation was enacted in 50 of those sessions.    

History Can Repeat Itself

Shakespeare’s view of lawyers aside, the legal profession is one of the oldest and most durable in history. Lawyers drafted the first laws and treaties in history; among these, the Code of Hammurabi, Justinian’s Corpus Juris Civilis, Treaty of Kadesh, Magna Carta, Canon and Islamic law and more. Lawyers have been at the forefront of efforts to advance human rights, civil liberties and diversity.

Lawyers have a history to be proud of; without lawyers, civilization would have long since disintegrated into anarchy. They serve as guardians of the law; from their ranks come society’s judges, administrators and legislators. A modern version of the liberum veto, no matter how well intentioned, cannot be dismissed. If enacted, it would erode the political and social edifices on which American democracy rests.  Lawyers need to be vigilant.

*The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author. They are not representative of the Virginia State Bar, it’s Diversity Conference, or Invictus.

The Editor’s Corner (Issue 3 of 2020)

Editor in Chief, Gus Bequai, Esq.

                                                     By: August Bequai, Esq.

                              “Experience never errs, what alone may

                                 err is our judgement” (Leonardo Da Vinci)         

Infectious diseases have plagued humanity since its beginnings. They have killed in the millions, and have caused the collapse of numerous civilizations. The word “quarantine” has its origin in 14th century Venice. Referred to as “guaranta giorni” (40 days), ships arriving in Venice’s were quarantined for 40 days before being allowed to land as a precaution against infectious disease. 

Examples of global devastation unleashed by epidemics abound. One of the earliest documented cases was that of Flu like disease in 1,200 BC; which ravaged Central and Southern Asia, Babylon and Mesopotamia. Many others followed. The Cyprian Plague (250-266 BC) savaged Europe; leaving one million dead in its wake. 

While the Antonine Plague (165-180 AD) killed 5-10 million in the Roman Empire alone, the Justinian Plague (541-542 AD) left 25-100 million dead in Europe and West Asia; and the Black Death (1347-1351 AD) left 75-200 million dead  in Europe, Asia and North Africa.

With the dramatic growth in commerce between Europe and Afro-Asia from the 17th century onward, Europe and the Mediterranean world continued to be revisited by  devastating epidemics.  The Egyptian Plague of 1609 killed more than one million; with the  Plague of Naples in 1656 surpassing it. The Icelandic Plague of 1707-1709 wiped out 36 percent of its population, and the Russian Plague of 1846-1860 left more than one million dead. 

The Spanish Flu killed between 17 million and 200 million worldwide; while smallpox outbreaks  from 1877 to 1977 left 500 million dead worldwide. Some 40 million worldwide have lost their lives to HIV/AIDS  since 1981, and the seasonal flu kills 60,000-80,000 Americans annually.

The engine that drives epidemics is global trade; accompanied by mass migrations from the impoverished rural areas of the globe to its large urban centers. Microbes have been quick to follow. Those who suffer the most are always the poor, disabled and elderly. 

Epidemics  kill not only people, but they also ravage their societies. While global trade has spawned impressive technologies, COVID-19 should serve to remind us that global trade comes at a price. With a multitude of microbes waiting on the sidelines; some potentially more devastating than COVID-19, the challenge for us will be how best to employ global trade without endangering our survival.

Editor’s Corner


                            By: August Bequai, Esq.

                        “To be poor and independent

                              is an impossibility.”

                                              -William Cobbett

While Virginia’s three northern suburbs are the wealthiest in the United States, thousands of its citizenry remain homeless, poor, and destitute. While more than 900,000 Virginians suffer from some form of disability, assistance programs for them; including for those who reside in the state’s three wealthiest suburbs, are, at best, cosmetic.

A 2017 study by the National Center for State Courts (“NCSC”) found that Virginia’s poor and disabled enjoy little or no legal representation in its courts. The NCSC study concluded that a lack of legal representation and poverty, appear to go hand in hand.

The NCSC study also found that the poor and disabled, lacked adequate legal representation in 99 percent of the state’s General District Court cases, and 62 percent of its Circuit Court cases. For a state which prides itself on helping the needy and disabled, the NCSC study speaks ill of its efforts to provide legal services to this segment of our society.

A 2017 study by the Legal Services Corporation (“LSC”) confirmed the same. According to the LSC study, more than 50 percent of the poor and disabled in the country are in dire need of basic legal assistance. The existing nationwide legal aid programs do not suffice to meet those needs. According to the LSC study, legal assistance for the poor and disabled in wealthy Virginia, fares no better.

To help address the dire need for legal services for the poor and disabled in Virginia, the  Virginia Supreme Court’s Access to Justice Commission launched several initiatives to address the justice gap; largely by encouraging Virginia attorneys to commit more time to pro bono work. The Commission’s efforts have also prompted the local courts and bar associations to promote pro bono efforts throughout the state.

While these efforts are commendable, yet they fall short of addressing the many legal needs of Virginia’s poor and disabled in Virginia. While Virginia’s legal profession, well into the 1980s, was viewed as an economic bastion of the community; the overwhelming majority of its young lawyers today are saddled with significant student debts. Compounded by a highly competitive and shrinking legal market. Many in the public who can afford legal services, are turning, in large numbers, to the Internet and non-lawyer professionals for their legal needs.

One young lawyer recently lamented: “How can I do pro bono work, when I gross less than $10,000 annually and I am saddled with an $85,000 student debt?” The son of a friend who was severely disabled in one of America’s foreign wars, said it best: “I gave my country all I had, and now I have to beg George Soros for legal help.”

It is now time for Virginia’s legal edifice to seriously consider a state funded Legal Aid program; comparable to the state’s Medicaid program. The existing legal model to help Virginia’s poor and disabled falls short of the existing need.  Handouts from a dozen billionaires; who fund legal programs that conform to their political whims, is not the proper vehicle for one of the wealthiest states in the country to provide for the basic legal needs of its less fortunate citizenry. A state Legal Aid program would also tap the talents of thousands of young Virginia lawyers, who now face economic difficulties.

A state with the three most affluent counties in America, needs to seriously consider funding legal services for its poor and disabled from its treasury. Pro bono efforts, while commendable, will no more address the legal needs of Virginia’s poor and disabled, than private charity alone can address their medical needs. It is time that we seriously consider a state funded Legal Aid program.


Gus Bequai, Esq., is the Editor in Chief of Invictus. You may reach him at

All opinions expressed here are those of the author and not the Diversity Conference or the Virginia State Bar.

Editor’s Corner – May 27, 2019

By: August Bequai

                                  Howe rapidly the iron age succeeds the age of brass!

                                                -William Erskine, Epigram

The legal profession has been part of the human existence since the dawn of civilization.  The Code of Hammurabi was the construct of lawyers, and Emperor Justinian’s Code stressed the indispensable role that   lawyers play in society. No less today, than in antiquity.

Lawyers, however, have not lacked for cynics and detractors. Oliver Goldsmith observed, “Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law”; while Anatole France noted, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges.”  The Industrial Revolution, with its economic inequalities, did much to reinforce the perception that lawyers are the Praetorian Guard of the rich.

Today, we find ourselves in the midst of a profound social, economic and political transformation of our society. Wrought on us largely by the impact of the IT Revolution; with no end in sight. Privacy is threatened at every turn; while the chasm between the economic elite and the masses has grown astronomically. Confidence in our political institutions has dramatically waned, and hucksters use social media to play our citizenry off against each other.

These are dangerous times for our society, and confidence by the public in our legal system is, more than ever, of paramount importance. It is the firewall that safeguards our freedoms. Writing at the time of the Industrial Revolution, W.S. Gilbert said it best, “The law is the true embodiment, of everything that’s excellent.” Now, more than ever, those words ring true.

With that in mind, our readers should feel free to contact us with any ideas that they may have for an article. The role of Invictus is to serve the VSB community. Please feel free to contact me directly with any ideas that you may have, at: “”. . Thank you.