Join 3,558 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Former President Bill Clinton has been suspended from practicing law before the Supreme Court
October 1, 2001 9:36 AM   Subscribe

Former President Bill Clinton has been suspended from practicing law before the Supreme Court Although I'm certainly not a member of the Clinton Fan Club, there doesn't seem to be any purpose served by this action. Does anyone really think Clinton is going to go back into a law practice?
posted by revbrian (22 comments total)

 
Nope. I doubt we would ever practice law again, BUT the article says that this action almost always leads to permanent disbarment. And I don't know how this works, but could this action keep Clinton from *serving* on the Supreme Court? Not that I think he would be interested in that job. No spotlight, and the interns are uglier I am told ;)
posted by terrapin at 9:48 AM on October 1, 2001


Not if he was telling the truth (heh) about spending a fair bit of his time in Oxford, now that Chelsea's there for her MPhil.
posted by holgate at 9:50 AM on October 1, 2001


This is really petty, and awfully trivial at a time like this. Since the agreement with the independent counsel includes having his Arkansas law license suspended for five years, he's already paying his penance in terms of his standing as a lawyer. And I don't really see him pursuing a legal career anyway.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:50 AM on October 1, 2001


[And I don't know how this works, but could this action keep Clinton from *serving* on the Supreme Court? ]

I've been known to call liberals crazy before (in a moment of exasperation) but do you really think he would ever be proposed or confirmed in that capacity!?
posted by revbrian at 10:02 AM on October 1, 2001


Still a harsh penalty for a blow job.
posted by terrapin at 10:06 AM on October 1, 2001


Just another cheap shot from the conservatives on the bench, the same who gave Dubya the WH.
posted by darren at 10:15 AM on October 1, 2001


I've been known to call liberals crazy before (in a moment of exasperation) but do you really think he would ever be proposed or confirmed in that capacity!?

If a lunatic like Clarence Thomas can get there, why not Clinton?
posted by Irontom at 10:23 AM on October 1, 2001


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
posted by Mack Twain at 10:28 AM on October 1, 2001


Although the reporting would have you believe this was somehow a conscious action on the part of the Supreme Court, it's actually nothing more than an automatic application of the Court's rule that a lawyer's suspension in one jurisdiction automatically results in a suspension in the Supreme Court. When Clinton agreed to the Arkansas suspension, this was the inevitable result. Sorry darren, the "conservatives on the bench" had nothing to do with it.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:32 AM on October 1, 2001


Here's a link to the Supreme Court order barring Clinton and others.
posted by rcade at 10:42 AM on October 1, 2001


This is just the Supreme Court's effort to get the country back to normal. Thanks, Sandra.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:44 AM on October 1, 2001


this is simply SOP; he was disbarred in Arkansas, so he's automatically disbarred here. Today's just the start of the new term for the court, so they are catching up on old business.

He agreed to the Arkansas disbarrment and $25K fine to try to put this mess behind him.
posted by argon405 at 10:59 AM on October 1, 2001


Jesus, these Republicans are Evil!
posted by DragonBoy at 11:07 AM on October 1, 2001


rcade, thanks for the link.

What puzzles me most is the strange informality of his name, as compared with the others on the list.

Dushko S. Zdravkovich
Hanna Zaki Hanna
S. Hal Mercer IV
Andrew B. Estrine
Bill Clinton
William Paul Kaszynski
Ford Lee Noble

(and others)
Not another nickname or informal name in the bunch.
Why 'Bill'? Why not William J.?? Is is law licence really formatted in this way?
posted by anastasiav at 11:20 AM on October 1, 2001


Clinton Fights Back

Give 'em hell Willy!!!
posted by thewittyname at 11:32 AM on October 1, 2001


anastasiav, I did a check on Westlaw, and the only case in which Clinton is mentioned as an attorney (and not as a party) is a 1978 case called Arkansas v. Sanders, when Clinton was Attorney General of Arkansas. In that document (not an opinion, just a simple order), he was referred to as "Bill Clinton, Esq.", so I suspect that is how he applied with the court.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:36 AM on October 1, 2001


Jeez, talk about yesterdays's news.

Just another cheap shot from the conservatives on the bench, the same who gave Dubya the WH.

Conservative hatred is regrettable, doubly so in these troubled times. It almost has the quality of religous fervor, dontcha think?

With justices like this, who needs enemies?
posted by BentPenguin at 11:36 AM on October 1, 2001


Dragonboy, read Pardonyou's and argon405's posts. BentPenguin, read Pardonyou's and argon405's posts. Liberal hatred is regrettable, doubly so when the facts are staring you right in the face and you still ignore them.
posted by aaron at 12:24 PM on October 1, 2001


Thank God the Supreme Court took this action now. If they hadn't, just think what terrible fate could have befallen the Republic.
posted by dhartung at 2:16 PM on October 1, 2001


y'know, I was checking in on this thread, after scrolling past the Gap thread, and for a second I thought dhartung's post said "just think what terrible fate could have befallen Banana Republic."

I woke up to this news & was all set to be pissed at the supremes. but alas, it sounds like utterly boring legal procedure.
posted by epersonae at 2:35 PM on October 1, 2001


Just another cheap shot from the conservatives on the bench

No, it's an AUTOMATIC action required by the long-standing rules of the Court. Any time a lawyer's license gets yanked, the jurisdiction always as a matter of course reports it to all other relevant jurisdictions, who then automatically take their own action. I am admitted in two states - if I lose either one, I'm sure I would lose the other as well. The real question is, why does Clinton think he should be treated any different from any other lawyer disbarred for unethical conduct?

but could this action keep Clinton from *serving* on the Supreme Court?

No, if he is appointed and confirmed, it has no preclusive effect. The Constitution does not even require that one be a lawyer to serve on the Supreme Court. In fact, the Constitution lists NO requirements other than "good behavior" while on the bench. (Not prior.)
posted by mikewas at 10:30 PM on October 2, 2001


To me, this issue really pointed out how badly things can be reported. Most of the news I've heard about this made it seem like a deliberate action against President Clinton when in fact, as others here have said, it was basically a standard procedure that the court was following. I'm pretty sure he will able to successfully argue his case and get his license back--he was obviously singled out for disbarment because of his high profile and the political climate.
posted by ArkIlloid at 10:33 PM on October 2, 2001


« Older Dack is back,...  |  Let your feelings slip, boy, b... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments