Let the Train of Democracy Continue to Roll By William L. Staugaard, MCBA President
As my wife and I watched some of the presidential candidate debates in New Hampshire prior to thier recent primary, I was absolutely amazed by the fact that I was even watching. In the 35 years that we have been married, I don’t recall ever watching a debate in a primary state this early in the process. As I reflected on that thought, a number of things came to mind. First, the impact of technology, the media and instantaneous communication. Someone recently said if you are getting your news information from the newspaper, you are getting your news at least a day late, however, I still enjoy sitting down with a cup of coffee and having a little quiet time to read the morning paper, as opposed to surfing the internet for clips of the news headlines and twenty second sound bites. Second, this period of time is no longer considered to be "early in the process." By the time you read this article, it will probably be just prior to Super Tuesday, February 5th and according to the predictions of many political analysts, the campaign for each of the parties nominations may be over by the end of the evening. Of course, these were the same people that told you that Barack Obama would win the New Hampshire primary convincingly and that John McCain’s campaign was over. Finally, I am grateful and proud to be an American, to live in a democracy that is over 200 years old and to be able to have the opportunity to participate in the democratic process. Even with the many shortcomings and inequalities that exist in our system of government, I still believe that our system beats any other alternative.
Clearly one of the factors in all of the heightened interest in this election is the fact that for the first time in 56 years and only the second time in 80 years, neither one of the candidates for President will be a sitting United States President or a sitting Vice President of the United States. The talk is all about change. Who is going to bring about change? Is it an "outsider"? Is it somebody with experience? But heaven forbid that you would want to label a person with experience as an "insider" or part of the "system".
I take comfort in the fact that even though there is going to be a change in the leadership of this country, and even if the winning candidate is not the person that I voted for, I know that the transition of power will be smooth and orderly. There will not be a military coup. There will not be some dictator declaring himself/herself to be president for life. No one is going to declare that the Constitution has been suspended, that the Supreme Court has been shut down and that all the lawyers and judges opposed to the current leadership are to be incarcerated. When that situation occurred recently in Pakistan, the American Bar Association took a stand opposing such actions as "a blow to the rule of law everywhere" and encouraged "all governments, bar associations and other civil society organizations to support the rule of law, and .... to persuade President Musharraf to restore justice to the people of Pakistan."
We are a nation of laws and we support the rule of law. Isn’t that why we went to law school, ....or was it all about some notion that you were going to make a lot of money? I am always fascinated when I read the paper, by how many stories involve some aspect of the law. Whether it involves criminal law, civil law, family law, real estate law, contract law, labor law, probate law or passing legislation to make new laws, the rule of law and the influence of the law is everywhere. I enjoyed the recent comments of Stephen Rabaut, past president of the Macomb County Bar Association, when asked about his role as a criminal defense attorney and his response was that he was a "government lawyer." Our system of justice provides for trials and there is a role and a responsibility for the prosecution/plaintiff lawyer and a role and a responsibility for the defense lawyer. We are all "government lawyers" and a part of our government system and the rule of law. Sometimes you come to a mutual agreement, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, but we all play a part in this very special form of government called democracy.
And in the event you should lose, don’t wine and complain about it, but remember the words of admonition from former Macomb County Circuit Court Chief Judge George R. Deneweth, who was fond of saying, "And counselor, if you don’t like my ruling, you can just go up the road here to M -59 and take it due west to Lansing and the Court of Appeals!"
Congratulations are in order for the Hon. Kathryn A. George, Macomb County Probate Court Judge who has been appointed Chief Judge of the Macomb County Probate Court. Judge George has served on the Macomb County Probate Court Bench since 2002. We look forward to working with Judge George and her staff during her tenure as Chief Judge. Congratulations and my apologies for not mentioning the appointment in last month’s column.
P.S. Make sure you have marked your calendars for the afternoon of Friday, February 29th for the Bench/Bar Conference at the ConCorde Inn. Don’t miss this opportunity to meet with fellow practitioners and judges to discuss the practice of law in Macomb County. Advance registration is required. The cost is only $10.00. Be there!
P.P.S. And make sure in this important election year that you exercise your right to vote!
Unpredictable By Rick R. Troy, MCBA Executive Director
Twelve inches of snow on New Year's Eve and tne inches of rain seven days later. New England Patriots winning and Ohio State losing. Presidential primaries? Some things can be predicted. Other things we learn to adapt to.
As we prepare for upcoming events, I predict that the Bench Bar Conference will be a tremendous success. The phones have been ringing off the hook with judges and members registering for this bi-annual event. Moderated discussions on the administration of justice in Domestic, Criminal and Civil practice areas and a special session on practicing in District Courts are scheduled to be featured. The Bench Bar committee is committed to installing an implementation committee that will keep the recommendations originating from this conference alive and work with the Judges to make them as much of a reality as possible. The MCBA and the Circuit Court Bench have created this opportunity. Now its up to you to provide your recommendations.
As advertised, the April 2, 2008 Spring General Membership Meeting features Family Feud II. This classic game show trivia contest will be hosted by Macomb County’s own Ryan Seacrest, (a.k.a. Matt Licata). The Polish Advocates, captained by Mr. Joseph Kosmala, will duel the Italian American team captained by Mr. Anthony Urbani. The winner will advance to take on the reigning Irish American team captained by Mr. Peter Peacock. The evening will also feature a buffet of Polish, Italian and Irish food and a dueling piano show. I dare not predict the winner of this contest. I will, however, predict that if you do not attend you will miss out on great fun, food and friends!
On behalf of the Young Lawyers Section, a great big THANK YOU to the sponsors of the YLS Holiday Party held at the Full Kilt.
As always, please feel free to contact me with any questions, concerns or ideas regarding your association.
Best Regards,
Rick R. Troy
Executive Director
YLS Holiday Sponsors
Becker and Lundquist PLC
Chioini Sarnacki Reynolds Doherty & Piatt
Community Central Wealth Management Anne MacIntyre
Circuit Court Corner
By Keith Beasley, 16th Circuit Court Administrator
Court Leadership
Chief Judge Caretti has named Judge Antonio Viviano the Chief Judge Pro Tem. Judge Donald Miller is the Presiding Judge of the Civil/Criminal Division and Judge John Foster is the Presiding Judge of the Family Division.
Electronic Future?
In these days of budget challenges and staffing shortages, technology has offered and continues to offers some relief for the legal profession and the judiciary. It is hard to believe how far we’ve come since I started with the Circuit Court in 1982. The Court had a locally written case management system that mostly tracked the Court’s register of actions. Case scheduling and management via automation were beginning, but were very basic. The Assignment Clerk still tracked our cases on index cards. I had to hand-write memos and proposed opinions in the Court’s Research Department. We didn’t have Dictaphones at that time, let alone personal computers. Our copy machine was very slow and primitive.
Our tools are much better now. Personal computers, laser printers, faxes, scanners are ubiquitous. Yet, the basic process of filing and handling written documents has changed little. They have to be hand delivered or mailed to the Clerk of the Court for filing. They can only be processed during business hours. We have document imaging, but if we want to create an electronic copy of written documents in the ‘imaging’ component of our computer system, we have to convert them through manual scanning. We also have to maintain hard copies of all filed pleadings for 25 years from the last action in the case.
The technology is now readily available to send, receive and maintain documents electronically. Attorneys would not need to pay for mailing. Attorneys would not need to drive documents to the Court or send runners. An electronic receipting process could greatly reduce the data entry that our Clerk’s Office staff have to do to receipt and index documents. That Office receives around 5,000 documents a day – so any reduction in the physical handling of documents would be welcome. In addition, we should be able to receive electronic filings 24 hours a day. The filing attorney or staff member would get an immediate receipt that the electronic transmission has been received. The electronically filed document could be automatically added to an electronic case file. We would no longer have to mail bulky hard copy files to the appellate courts and get them back. Web based access to documents could be implemented.
The question I have for you is whether the legal profession is interested in this next generation of document handling? An electronic filing component is part of the Court’s integrated case management system. We are a couple of years away from actually implementing it because a lot of work has to be done. The Michigan Supreme Court experimented with an electronic filing mechanism through the Web, which was abandoned because the legal profession did not widely use it. This might be due to design or due to the lack of interest. Please let me know your thoughts on moving to electronic filing. It would help us determine the priority that should be placed on looking into this technology. We don’t want to spend a lot of resources developing something that won’t be used. Feel free to e mail comments to Keith.Beasley@macombcountymi.gov.
Lost in the controversy last March regarding the appointment of counsel in the Stephen Grant case is the much larger and more serious issue of Michigan's broken public defense system. I have no doubt that an attorney from the A list could have been assigned to the case that would have been fully capable of representing Mr. Grant. The question is, could any attorney on the list actually afford to represent Mr. Grant while providing a defense on equal footing with the money and resources of the prosecution?
Steve Rabaut and Gail Pamukov provided Mr. Grant with the kind of defense that should be provided in every criminal prosecution, especially a capital crime. Such a defense requires a tremendous amount of time. Unlike the prosecution, defense counsel is not compensated for pretrial work, but rather only paid for the days actually spent in trial. A trial is won or lost during pretrial investigation and preparation. I have no doubt that by providing Stephen Grant a constitutionally effective defense, both Ms. Pamukov and Mr. Rabaut are essentially volunteering much of their time. The problem is not that they are doing their jobs as our prosecutor's office claims, the problem is that most court appointed counsel can not afford to provide the same defense. There are few attorneys established enough in their practice to take on such an involved and publicized case for little to no pay. When court appointed attorneys are not compensated for their time, nor given resources on par with that of the prosecutor’s office to prepare their case, the defense of their clients will suffer, and thus our system of justice suffers. Stephen Grant received exactly the kind of constitutional defense to which he was entitled. This is basic constitutional law. A vigorous defense helps to ensure not only that the accused rights are being upheld, but that the government is acting legally not only in the prosecution of that individual, but in the prosecutions that preceded it, and the prosecutions that follow. Most reading this article understand this. However, we all know how difficult it can be to explain to people who do not practice criminal law, why it is important that an accused is afforded his right to counsel and a vigorous defense. As attorneys, and especially criminal attorneys, it is our obligation to explain to lay people why this is so important to our system of justice, why it is important not only to the accused, but to them.
This is not only an obligation of the defense bar, but of prosecutors as well. This fundamental message becomes much more difficult when our Prosecutor publicly objects to Mr. Grant receiving two attorneys claiming he is receiving "special treatment", then files an appeal in a subsequent capital case in which the judge ordered a second attorney, claiming that this is somehow unfair. The absurdity of this argument is highlighted by the fact it is made, at least in the Stephen Grant case, while our Prosecutor is flanked by at least one member of his administration, and more than one assistant Prosecuting Attorney, all of whom are working on the prosecution of Mr. Grant, and all are getting paid to work on the prosecution of Mr. Grant! Yet, it is somehow unfair that the defendant is appointed two attorneys, to essentially work for free. What should be obvious to any attorney, and something that as a criminal bar we have to start being much more vocal about, is that the problem is not that Stephen Grant was appointed two attorneys to represent him while on trial for a capital crime. The problem is that we don't provide every defendant charged with a capital crime at least two attorneys.
There is now, and there is every few years, a push for fair wages for court appointed criminal defense attorneys. Indeed, the amount of pay given to court appointed counsel for the work we do is a joke. However, a push for more fees without a subsequent overhaul of the entire system of court appointed counsel in Michigan is worthless. While most attorneys who do court appointed work represent their clients to the best of their ability, we all know criminal defense attorneys who simply don't, or despite their sincere efforts their abilities do not match that which the case demands, or they simply can't afford to spend the time required on a case at the expense of neglecting their other cases. In addition, the disparity between the resources of the prosecutors office, and the resources of the average court appointed defense counsel is nothing short of momentous. This is a problem in Macomb County, and throughout the State.
In February, the Michigan Coalition for Justice filed a lawsuit against the State of Michigan, and Governor Granholm in Ingham County Circuit Court. Quite simply, the lawsuit asks the Court to fix the public defense systems in three counties, Muskegon, Berrien, and Genesee. It alleges that the State has neglected its "Constitutional duty by failing to fund or provide oversight for public Defense services. Instead, delegating to each of its 83 Counties the responsibility for funding and administering the right to counsel in trial courts within their borders." In addition, a study requested by the State Legislature, and conducted by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association in conjunction with the State Bar of Michigan, is due to be released soon. The study focuses on a cross section of approximately ten counties across the State. Michigan is ranked at or near the bottom of the Nation in both the quality of representation it provides to indigent clients, and the compensation it provides for the attorneys who represent them.
Last November, the MCBA Criminal Law Committee held a meeting in which one of the attorneys of record of the lawsuit spoke about the Michigan Coalition for Justice and its goals. At that time, there were several attorneys who voiced concern about the lawsuit as they didn't see it as addressing their concerns of a fair wage for their work, or worse they saw it as a direct attack on the work they do. The two issues of fair wages for attorneys and quality of representation for indigent clients are inseparable. A poorly funded indigent defense system inevitably leads to inadequate representation of counsel, regardless of the effort or skill of counsel. The goal of the coalition is to establish a uniform state system of indigent defense, with both fair pay, and better training and oversight of defense attorneys to ensure quality of representation. The lawsuit is not about individual attorneys, or an attack on our work. As attorneys, both prosecutors and defenders, we have all sworn to uphold the same Constitution. Improvements to our public defense system is something we should welcome based on the belief that our system of justice only works when defendants are represented by competent legal counsel who vigorously advocate for their clients. Towards this end, progress towards a more uniform, fully funded public defense system, is something we should welcome and work to advance.
The Analysis of the Witness Sequestration on Rule By Stephen Kaplan, Macomb County Prosecutor's Office
At the beginning of nearly every trial, an attorney will seek to exclude from the courtroom all potential witnesses other than the litigants. The rule empowering the trial judge to exclude witnesses until they testify, known as the sequestration rule, is embodied in MRE 615. The purpose of the rule is to prevent witnesses from shaping or tailoring their testimony to conform to the testimony of other witnesses. MRE 615 and MCL 600.1420Prior to the promulgation of the Michigan Rules of Evidence in 1978, MCL 600.1420 and case law governed the issue of excluding witnesses from the courtroom. The foregoing statute required that court proceedings be open to the public, but it contained a clause permitting judges, “for good cause shown,” to exclude witnesses from the courtroom except when they testified.
Like MCL 600.1420, MRE 615 enables a trial court, on its own motion or the motion of a litigant, to sequester witnesses so they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. The sequestration rule is not applicable to four classes of witnesses: (1) a party to the case; (2) an officer or employee of a corporate or business litigant; (3) an individual whose presence is essential to the presentation of a party’s case; and (4) the victim in a criminal case.Trial Court’s DiscretionAlthough a trial judge is vested with discretion when a party moves in a timely fashion to exclude witnesses from the courtroom, case law clearly favors the exclusion of witnesses. A refusal by a court in a criminal case to grant the defendant's motion to exclude witnesses may result in a reversal of a conviction.
In 1882, the Michigan Supreme Court, in People v Hall,1 first addressed the question of whether a litigant’s motion to remove witnesses from the courtroom until they testify should be granted. The Court, through Justice Campbell, held that the trial court erred in denying the motion of the accused to sequester the witnesses. The Court stated that, “such a request, seasonably made, should not be refused.”
In People v Erb,2 the defendant was charged with and convicted of armed robbery. After the selection of the jurors, he moved to sequester the prosecution witnesses. The trial court denied the motion, giving no reason for the denial other than that it was exercising its discretion.
The Court of Appeals ruled that a two-prong test must be satisfied in order for the defendant to gain a reversal of his conviction based on an adverse sequestration ruling. First, the defendant must show that the trial court abused its discretion and, secondly, that he suffered prejudice as a result of the denial of his motion. The Erb Court held that the trial judge erred in denying the motion of the accused to exclude the witnesses from the courtroom, but that the improper ruling constituted a harmless error.
The Appellate Court overturned a conviction as a result of the denial of a sequestration motion in People v Cutler.3 Charged with manslaughter, the defendant unsuccessfully sought to remove the witnesses from the courtroom prior to the presentation of proofs. The manslaughter charge was based on the allegedly grossly negligent driving of the defendant, which caused the death of his passenger. The main issue at trial revolved around whether the defendant or the decedent operated the automobile. The prosecutor called 28 witnesses in its factually complicated case. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, on the basis that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to sequester and that the defendant sustained prejudice by the erroneous ruling.
According to People v Insley,4 a trial court is required to explain its reasons for refusing to grant a sequestration motion. In that case, the judge, in denying the motion, stated that trials are open to the public and, thus, the witnesses had the right to attend the entire trial. Although finding that the error was harmless, the Court of Appeals held that the decision of the judge was arbitrary, for he did not exercise any judgment on the sequestration motion.
Under MRE 615, litigants to a civil case are exempt from the enforcement of a witness exclusion order. In 18905, the Supreme Court decreed that a trial judge is not empowered to exclude a litigant in the case while other witnesses are testifying.
The granting of a sequestration motion was upheld in Kwaiser v Peters.6 There, the plaintiff argued without success at trial and on appeal that his witnesses should not have been excluded from the courtroom until they testified.
It appears that appellate courts are less likely to find an abuse of discretion in civil actions. For example, in Johnston v Farmers Fire Insurance Company7, the trial court allowed the plaintiffs’ assignors to remain in the courtroom throughout the proceedings. The Michigan Supreme Court found that the ruling did not amount to an abuse of discretion. In a later case, Coburn v Goldberg8, a witness of the plaintiff violated a sequestration order by remaining in court during the opening statements of the attorneys. The Supreme Court held that the defendant did not sustain any harm as a result of the sequestration violation. In Harrison v Green9, without commenting on the particulars of the ruling, the appellate court upheld the denial by the trial judge of a motion to sequester the witnesses.Suppression of TestimonyFrom time to time, a party’s witnesses will stay in the courtroom despite an order excluding the witnesses. When the trial court is advised of the sequestration rule violation, it is vested with discretion to impose the appropriate remedy.
In People v Szeles10, the prosecutor and the defense attorney jointly moved to sequester the witnesses. A defense witness, aware of the ruling, remained in the courtroom. When the defendant called this witness, the prosecutor objected to his testimony, claiming the defense knowingly violated the sequestration order. The trial court prohibited the witness from testifying, a decision affirmed on appeal.
The defendant faced a first-degree murder charge in People v Walton.11 Larry Hicks, a person unknown to either the defendant or the prosecutor, surfaced after the defendant called his last witness. Hicks attended the entire trial, despite the court’s issuance of a sequestration order. Hicks intended to offer evidence in favor of the defendant. Based on the violation of the sequestration order, even though the defendant was not responsible, the trial court excluded Hicks’ testimony.
The Court of Appeals noted that the credibility of the witnesses was a pivotal factor in the hotly contested trial. The appellate court, therefore, concluded that it was appropriate for the trial judge to exclude the testimony of an individual who had an opportunity to hear the testimony of the other witnesses.
The witness in People v Dickerson12 did not know that the trial court had issued a sequestration order. When she was called as a defense witness, the prosecutor moved to prevent her from testifying. The trial court granted the suppression motion, stating that the defendant’s attorney had a duty to advise his witnesses of the exclusion order. The Court of Appeals held that the exclusion of the testimony did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
In another vein, two police officers in People v Stanley13 were excluded from the courtroom until they testified. After the first officer testified, he discussed the case with the second officer. The defendant sought to suppress the testimony of the second officer, contending that the sequestration order had been violated. Denying the motion, the trial judge stated that neither attorney asked the court to instruct the witnesses not to discuss the case with one another. The Court of Appeals ruled that no court rule or statute requires a trial court, on its own initiative, to admonish witnesses not to discuss the case with one another. The appellate court intimated that if requested by an attorney, a trial court’s failure to give such a warning might create a reversible error.Expert Witnesses Does a sequestration order apply to the detective-in-charge of a criminal case? In the 19th century case of People v Burns14, our Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err by allowing the investigating officer to assist the prosecutor during the trial prior to the officer giving testimony in the case. It seems elementary that the police official responsible for the case may attend the entire trial, as evidenced by the decisions of the Court of Appeals in People v Hayden15 and People v Buero.16 In both cases, the Court upheld the rulings of the trial courts permitting the arresting officers to sit next to and assist the prosecutor before the officers were called as witnesses.
The defendant interposed an insanity defense in People v Martin.17 The prosecutor’s expert witness, a psychiatrist, gained permission to attend the trial during the defendant’s presentation of proofs, after which the expert testified as a rebuttal witness for the prosecutor. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s refusal to sequester the psychiatrist did not amount to an abuse of discretion, apparently because the witness was essential to the prosecutor’s rejoinder to the insanity defense.
In People v Cowles18, an anachronistic case predating Michigan’s rape-shield law, the defendant, charged with statutory rape, contended that the complainant was a pathological liar and a sexual pervert. His expert witnesses were excluded from the courtroom while the complainant testified. The Cowles Court held that the experts should have been permitted to observe the demeanor and actions of the complainant during her testimony.
From the Cowles and Martin cases, it can be gleaned that an expert witness, particularly one not familiar with the facts of the case, should not be excluded from the part of the trial related to his upcoming testimony. Whether the expert is a physician, a handwriting expert, or a chemist, he should not be deprived of the opportunity to attend the trial if his hearing the testimony of other witnesses would be helpful to him in forming an expert opinion. Rebuttal WitnessesIf a witness testifies in rebuttal or sur-rebuttal, is he in violation of a sequestration order if he attended the trial? By definition, a rebuttal witness is one used by the prosecutor or plaintiff to refute, contradict, repel, or explain evidence admitted in the defendant’s case. Thus, if the testimony of the rebuttal witness did not relate to the plaintiff’s or the prosecutor’s case-in-chief, but solely was used to rebut evidence offered by the defendant, it would appear that such a witness would not be governed by a sequestration order.
In People v Boles19, the jury convicted the defendant of manslaughter. His defense revolved around a self-defense claim. He presented witnesses who testified about the violent nature of the decedent, including an episode where he had stabbed his pregnant wife. To rebut this assertion, the prosecutor called the decedent’s wife, whose name did not appear on the witness list, and who had been in the courtroom throughout the trial. Arguing that the witness knowingly violated the sequestration order, the defendant objected to the rebuttal testimony.
The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the decedent’s wife to testify. The Court reasoned that the prosecutor did not anticipate using her as a witness and her testimony related to issues first raised by the defendant during the trial.
In People v Fields20, a prosecution witness remained in the courtroom after she testified. The prosecutor, over the defendant’s objection, called the witness in rebuttal despite the existence of a sequestration order. The appellate court held that the trial judge properly admitted admit the rebuttal testimony, since the prosecutor limited the witness’ testimony to a refutation of the defendant’s affirmative defense.Victim’s Right to Attend the Entire TrialIn a criminal case, the victim is not considered to be a party to the case. As a result, the complaining witness usually is excluded from the courtroom until his or her testimony is received.
On November 8, 1988, the voters approved an amendment, “Rights of Crime Victims,” to the Michigan Constitution. The newly adopted constitutional provision, found in Article I, Section 24 of the Michigan Constitution specifies numerous rights of victims of crime, including the following:
“The right to attend trial and all other court proceedings the accused has the right to attend.”
Although no appellate court has formally interpreted the 1988 amendment, it seems indisputable that the import of the clause is the victim, like the accused, has an absolute right to be present at all court hearings. Since a constitutional article has priority over a statute (MCL 600.1420) or an evidentiary rule (MRE 615), a victim of a crime should not be the subject of a sequestration order.
The term “crime victims” extends beyond the individual who was allegedly victimized by the accused. The persons who qualify as victims, such as siblings, spouses, and children of the complainant, are delineated in MCL 780.752. For example, a spouse of a homicide victim is deemed a victim under the statute, as is a parent of a child younger than the age of 18.ConclusionAs a general rule, a trial court should grant a timely sequestration motion. Rebuttal and expert witnesses, depending on the circumstances of the case, may be exempt from a sequestration order. In order for a defendant to gain a reversal of his conviction on an erroneous sequestration ruling, he must show that he suffered prejudiced by the judge’s adverse sequestration ruling.
Biography: A 1981 honors graduate of Detroit College of Law, Steven Kaplan has served as an assistant prosecuting attorney for Macomb County since 1986. He teaches criminal procedure and trial advocacy courses at Michigan State University College of Law.
News Items By James Miller, Macomb County Bar Foundation
?Item A: In her diary, Anne Frank often mentioned a chestnut tree, visible from a small window in her hiding place. Recently, the City of Amsterdam has moved to cut down the tree as it appears diseased and is a danger. Court proceedings were held and an Injunctive order was issued, pending further analysis of the trees condition. The City, however, expressed a potential liability issue if the tree fell and caused damage. Enter the Dutch Association of Insurers and, as a group, volunteered to insure the tree against any liability, citing the significant emotional issues involved.
Item B: As many of us have seen on television, lawyers in Pakistan have led protests over the actions of that country’s president, who has, among other things, jailed Supreme Court Justices. For this, they have been beaten and arrested and risked death. While this has been going on for months, recently lawyers in the United States have staged marches in sympathy.
Item C: Recently an extremely rare private copy of The Magna Carta was sold for millions of dollars. The document when written over 700 years ago established the right to jury trial and habeas corpus. Yet, after 700 years, both of these ideas are being questioned.
How do we as lawyers effectively communicate to the public about the importance of issues like these? Certainly as individuals, we can try to work them into conversations at social gatherings, if we are prepared to have the group respond by saying, “I think another drink”. Trying to educate our families at the dinner table is a difficult prospect for obvious reasons.
The Bar Foundation represents a vehicle to remind people about law and lawyers, even if it is just having our name shown as a sponsor or contributor. These efforts may be akin to subliminal advertising, i.e., an idea placed in the subconscious, surfacing later with positive effect. Perhaps seeing the Foundation as a sponsor of an event or school program (as we often are) may provoke in some way that dinner table or social discussion on these important issues.
While well after the fact, I would like to thank everyone for the continued support of the Care House party. This event remains our major fundraiser and gives us a beneficial exposure. Thank you for eleven great years.
Recently the Bar Foundation received a generous donation from the Financial and Estate Planning Counsel of Macomb. We want to thank that group and specifically Chuck Turnbull for this gift. I mention this also because we have learned that other Bar Foundations have been the beneficiaries of Estate Plans established by their sister Bar Association members. I hope our scholarship grants could be considered in this regard.
