Attorney’s Oath – Massachusetts
I (repeat the name) solemnly swear that I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; but I will conduct myself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity as well to the courts as my clients. So help me God.
Attorney’s Oath – Rhode Island
You solemnly swear that in the exercise of the office of attorney and counselor you will do no falsehood, nor consent to any being done; you will not wittingly or willingly promote, sue or cause to be sued any false or unlawful suit; or give aid, or consent to the same; you will delay no man's cause for lucre or malice; you will in all respects demean yourself as an attorney and counselor of this court and of all other courts before which you may practice uprightly and according to law, with fidelity as well to the court as to your client; and that you will support the constitution and laws of this state and the constitution and laws of the United States. So help you God."
Attorney’s Oath – Federal Bar
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will conduct myself as an attorney and counselor of this court, uprightly and according to law, and that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
Oath of Office – Federal Office
5 USC PART III, Subpart B, CHAPTER 33, SUBCHAPTER II: OATH OF OFFICE
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: "I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
*******
I had the honor to have taken the first three of these four oaths. I never had the opportunity to have taken the fourth.
These were oaths that I adhered to with a profound sense of my responsibility to the rule of law. Contrary to television dramas and some popular opinion, 99% of attorneys do their best for their clients within the parameters of the law.
As the Massachusetts oath requires, “I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit, nor give aid or consent to the same; I will delay no man for lucre or malice…”
Or as the Rhode Island oath requires, You solemnly swear that in the exercise of the office of attorney and counselor you will do no falsehood, nor consent to any being done; you will not wittingly or willingly promote, sue or cause to be sued any false or unlawful suit; or give aid, or consent to the same…”
“…not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless or unlawful suit…”
“…you will do no falsehood or consent to any being done…”
“…I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.”
These are not mere words, guidelines, or precatory language. These are affirmations of specific mandates. Any straying from the letter, let alone spirit of the words in the oaths taken can result in severe professional or legal consequences, or both.
Nowhere do these oaths contain exceptions for corrupt political bargains.
Thus when a managing attorney directs a subordinate attorney to violate their oath and perform a task that is blatantly illegal, and obviously an assault on any tenant of the rule of law, that attorney is placed in a position where they have two options – perform the task in violation of law and their conscience; or refuse the task, maintaining law as dictated by their conscience.
There are consequences to either decision in that either way you place your law license and livelihood at risk. But in the end, this choice comes down to conscience; whether you can tolerate the pangs of conscience for selling out your principles and oath, or as a matter of conscience stand on principle and accept the risk of the consequences.
Most often it does come down to this binary choice. Whatever the choice, you live with the consequences, sometimes for a very long time.
In the last analysis, it comes down to whether an attorney has the moral courage to follow the dictates of their conscience.
When I was in law school, one professor admonished us stating that “a lawyer is only is good as his word.” [Note: this was more than a few years ago, thus the pronoun.] He reminded us that because most attorneys practice a specific area of law in a specific geographic location, over time attorneys get to know one another either directly or by reputation.
Therefore, because attorneys, even in adversarial matters, have to work with each other as well as the court in order to successfully promote the interests of their clients, it’s vital for them to be trusted by all parties.
Attorneys who have proven to be untrustworthy are the least effective in promoting their client’s interests. Nobody wants to be one of those guys.
In other words, if you give your word you’d better keep your word. Put another way, when you take an oath, you’d better keep your oath. Even if it takes the moral courage to do so.
A lawyer’s reputation for honesty, trustworthiness, and professionalism is the most important attribute they can have. Like so much else in life, how you conduct yourself, especially in important matters, depends on the dictates of conscience.
Attorneys who take their oaths seriously must live up to a set of high standards and principles.
Mark Twain once wrote that “It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare." Moral courage is the ability to act in accordance with your ethics or values, even when it’s difficult or risky. It involves standing up for what’s right, even if it means going against the crowd or facing negative consequences.
Last week we saw a drama between attorneys exercising the dictates of the consciences to promote the highest legal standards and a “boss” who evidently has no conscience at all. Without rehashing the already reported details, this drama arose when acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove gave written instructions to acting United States Attorney Danielle Sassoon, who assumed the position three weeks earlier, to file a motion withdrawing felony charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams.
Bove’s instructions were not in furtherance of any legal principle. To the contrary, Bove admitted in his writing to Sassoon that he had not reviewed the strength of the evidence against Adams or analyzed the legal theories on which the prosecution was based.
This was a sordid attempt to drop the charges against Adams, without prejudice, in furtherance of the president’s policy agenda. An administration that promised to prosecute its enemies evidently intends to also use the law as a cudgel to extort policy compliance from public officials.
Danielle Sassoon, and seven other members of the SDNY and Main Justice resigned rather than participate in furthering a corrupt political deal under the guise of the law. She wrote to newly installed Attorney General Pam Bondi telling her that she, Sassoon, could not comply with Bove’s instruction.
Included in Sassoon’s letter was:
“When I took my oath of office three weeks ago, I vowed to well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I was about to enter. In carrying out that responsibility, I am
guided by, among other things, the Principles of Federal Prosecution set forth in the Justice Manual and your recent memoranda instructing attorneys for the Department of Justice to make only good-faith arguments and not to use the criminal enforcement authority of the United States to achieve political objectives or other improper aims. I am also guided by the values that have defined my over ten years of public service.”
The “values” that defined Sassoon’s public service. In other words, she showed moral courage when her conscience would not let her participate in a blatantly corrupt motion submitted to the court.
And let’s be clear about what’s happening here. A presidential candidate who ran claiming about the weaponization of the law, or “lawfare,” is now in office weaponizing the law for his own political purposes.
Evidently Bondi didn’t read her own memo referenced by Sassoon. Rather than considering Sassoon’s position, Bondi kicked the matter over to Bove who quickly accepted Sassoon’s resignation. By the end of Thursday, Bove had accepted seven additional resignations.
One was from Assistant United States Attorney Hagan Scotten. In a memo to Bove, Scotten defended himself from any allegation that he refused to file the desired Motion to Dismiss the charges against Mayor Adams. He also said,
“But any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.”
Bove needed to find “enough of a fool” or “enough of a coward,” but it was never going to be Scotten. Often the exercise of conscience requires courage. Hagan Scotten is no coward. Nor is Danielle Sassoon and the others who resigned their positions rather than debase themselves in service to a corrupt, lawless president.
Like Sassoon, Scotten showed moral courage standing against the imposition of an illegally immoral order.
Standing by your convictions, your conscience, is often an intensely lonely act. Some will understand, others will actively oppose, and still others won’t understand or care. Standing on your convictions is never a rash act, but calls for a deliberate consideration in the exercise of your values.
The ultimate question is what kind of person will emerge from the exercise and defense of their values, or subordination of those values in service to another whose values are clearly antithetical to theirs?
For make no mistake, when a situation arises where you’re given a stark choice of either standing by or subverting your values, there is a cost to be paid. That cost can often stay with us for a very long time – long past the precipitating event.
We’ve all been there at one time or another. For myself, I had a choice foisted on me where I either could maintain my values – listening to my conscience – or modify those values. If I abandoned my values I would have destroyed my sense of self.
If I did the former, I’d have been potentially open to severe consequences. However, if I did the latter, I would have avoided those consequences, but that would have grievously impacted my conscience. I would have commenced living a lie.
I wrestled with my conscience, challenging my motives. I examined the depths of my values. And in a situation where there were only two options, I searched for a third. Like most of us, I searched for a away to avoid the absolutes. I searched in vain.
When time expired, I had to choose. I chose living according to the dictates of my conscience and face whatever consequence came my way. To me, any consequence was far preferable than subordinating my conscience or modifying my values in order to do that which I knew was wrong.
Like everyone, I have my flaws and shortcomings. I probably have too many. And like each of us, I make any number of compromises just to get through the day. And like each of us, I try to avoid life’s aversives.
Being certain of my values, living according to my conscience has given me a strength I might never have had. I do not impose my values on others or assert that others follow my example. Nor should others impose theirs on me. My conscience is mine and mine alone.
I acted as I needed to act. Whether doing what I did was moral courage I’ll leave it to others to decide.
When I raised my hand three times to take those three oaths, those oaths were the embodiment of what I value. Honesty, fidelity to something larger to myself, and working in service to a greater good. Others can decide whether or not I was a good attorney but nobody can say that I put my own interests above those of my clients’.
And nobody can say that I didn’t maintain the letter and spirit of the oaths I took.
Danielle Sassoon was faced with an impossible dilemma. But when she followed her conscience her course was clear. Knowing that she would face the consequences for her actions and an uncertain future, she acted as her conscience dictated – in furtherance of her values.
As did those who stood on their values and refused the cowardly alternative offered to them.
In my view, they all displayed moral courage, a level of courage that Twain reminds us is rare.
In the coming days, weeks, months, and perhaps years we will need persons of conscience, of strong civic values, to stand against the onslaught of those who have the lack of values, principles, and yes – a lack of conscience as was manifested by Emil Bove.
Each of us can display, in our own way, the moral courage necessary to combat and defeat those who would use the law in service to a base antidemocratic political agenda.
Comments