No Comment — October 22, 2007, 12:27 am

A Further Ethics Assessment on Judge Fuller and the Siegelman Case from Prof. Luban

Back on August 7, we asked Professor David Luban, one of the nation’s leading legal ethicists, to take a look at the motion which had been filed for the recusal of Judge Fuller in the Siegelman case, the Government’s response, and Judge Fuller’s ruling and then also to consider a number of further facts unearthed by our investigative series. The result appeared here. Since that time the Weeks affidavit, which evidently had been ordered placed under seal by Judge Fuller in an effort to prevent it from becoming public knowledge, has become known. I therefore asked Professor Luban to supplement his prior interview with a review and comment on the allegations contained in the Weeks affidavit.

luban-bw

7. Professor Luban, since our initial interview, an affidavit has surfaced in which a Missouri lawyer lodges, under oath and with substantial corroboration, a series of extremely serious accusations against Judge Fuller. In particular, the charges include perjury, criminal conspiracy, a criminal attempt to defraud the Retirement System of Alabama, misuse of office as a District Attorney, and an obstruction of his background check by the FBI in connection with the review of his appointment by President Bush to the bench. The affiant charges that he lied under oath in connection with the RSA claim, and notes that a former judge who succeeded him as district attorney and all of the trustees of the RSA shared that assessment. This affidavit was submitted to the Public Integrity Section, the same entity which was at that time prosecuting the Siegelman case before Judge Fuller, and which aggressively (and with extraordinarily sharp and contentious language) opposed the motion for Judge Fuller’s recusal. That motion was based on Fuller’s business dealings with the government through his closely-held company, Doss Aviation. It appears that Siegelman’s counsel were unaware of the Weeks’s affidavit. Indeed, the affidavit appears to have been placed under seal by order of Judge Fuller so as to block the public from gaining knowledge of it. Do these facts affect your analysis of whether Judge Fuller should have heard the case? Should Public Integrity have informed the parties of the fact that it had charges against Fuller before it?

As you say, the affidavit levels serious charges against Judge Fuller, and the lawyer who wrote it offers evidence to back them up. It’s written as a request to federal officials to investigate those charges. To be perfectly fair, I have to observe that the affidavit is very much an advocacy document, and a lot of it represents the lawyer’s opinions and speculations – as the author himself makes clear. It would be a bad mistake, and very unfair to Judge Fuller, to assume that these charges are true. But there certainly is enough there to warrant an investigation, if only to clear the judge’s name.

In answering your previous questions, I’ve already said that Judge Fuller should have disqualified himself from the Siegelman case. This affidavit doesn’t change that diagnosis. Does it make it stronger? Not at first glance, because the new charges in the affidavit don’t have anything to do with the Siegelman case.

But at second glance, I’m not so sure. The affidavit quotes a 2002 Alabama newspaper story saying that Judge Gary McAliley applied to Siegelman for the DA’s job that Fuller vacated – and he did so because of “questionable practices” in the DA’s office under Fuller. (¶ 63 of the affidavit.) Siegelman appointed McAliley to the DA’s job. That certainly gives Fuller a reason to be angry at Siegelman – even more so when Fuller received the affidavit and read in ¶ 74 that McAliley had started to investigate him and thought Fuller had lied. The possibility of personal anger against Siegelman on Fuller’s part is just the kind of thing that the judicial disqualification law tries to guard against. You simply can’t preside over a criminal case against somebody who appointed a DA to investigate you!

What’s even more startling is that the lawyer sent this affidavit to the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section in 2003 – so that at the moment that PIN was signing papers in the Siegelman case attesting to Fuller’s judicial rectitude, it had in its possession a 39-page detailed accusation against Fuller that gives ample grounds for PIN to investigate him. And, as I suggested, once PIN took a public position in the Siegelman case about Judge Fuller’s rectitude, it became harder for PIN to do its job of investigating Siegelman in the other matter.

And, what’s worse, one of the accusations in the affidavit is of exactly the same kind of misbehavior that Siegelman was protesting: refusing to disqualify himself from hearing a case when a reasonable person would question his impartiality in that case. Take a look at paragraphs 95 and 96. The Retirement System of Alabama – the RSA – turned down Fuller’s request for a $70,000 raise for one of his employees, and in the course of doing so questioned the integrity of Fuller’s reasons for making the request. In an entirely different matter, RSA is suing Enron, and Judge Fuller was hearing the case. RSA apparently moved to have him disqualify himself on grounds of possible bias against RSA, and Judge Fuller refused. That’s just what happened in the Siegelman case.

My question is this: Having this affidavit in their possession, with this particular accusation in it, why did PIN go out of their way to support Judge Fuller’s decision not to disqualify himself in the Siegelman case? At the very least, it shows remarkably bad judgment on the part of PIN.

I want to emphasize that I don’t have any idea whether the charges in the affidavit are true. The affidavit is very one-sided, and its author puts the most sinister interpretation on all the facts he cites. Maybe he’s right, maybe he isn’t. My point isn’t about the new charges, but about the way that both Judge Fuller and PIN responded to the affidavit – or rather, failed to respond to it.

lubanbook_004

David J. Luban is the author of a number of important books on law and legal ethics, including, most recently, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity published by Cambridge University Press, which can be ordered here.

“If the rule of law is a necessary condition for human rights and human dignity, lawyers in all fields will play a vital role in securing these goods. And the ethical character of the legal profession – the commitment of lawyers to the rule of law and the human dignity it helps secure – will determine whether the rule of law is anything more than a slogan.” David Luban in Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (2007).

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

November 2018

Rebirth of a Nation

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Tragedy of Ted Cruz

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Combustion Engines·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On any given day last summer, the smoke-choked skies over Missoula, Montana, swarmed with an average of twenty-eight helicopters and eighteen fixed-wing craft, a blitz waged against Lolo Peak, Rice Ridge, and ninety-six other wildfires in the Lolo National Forest. On the ground, forty or fifty twenty-person handcrews were deployed, alongside hundreds of fire engines and bulldozers. In the battle against Rice Ridge alone, the Air Force, handcrews, loggers, dozers, parachutists, flacks, forecasters, and cooks amounted to some nine hundred people.

Rice Ridge was what is known as a mega-fire, a recently coined term for blazes that cover more than 100,000 acres. The West has always known forest fires, of course, but for much of the past century, they rarely got any bigger than 10,000 acres. No more. In 1988, a 250,000-acre anomaly, Canyon Creek, burned for months, roaring across a forty-mile stretch of Montana’s Bob Marshall Wilderness in a single night. A few decades on, that anomaly is becoming the norm. Rice Ridge, for its part, swept through 160,000 acres.

At this scale, the firefighting operation is run by an incident management team, a group of about thirty specialists drawn from a mix of state and federal agencies and trained in fields ranging from aviation to weather forecasting and accounting to public information. The management teams are ranked according to experience and ability, from type 3 (the least skilled) to type 1 (the most). The fiercest fires are assigned to type 1s. Teams take the name of their incident commander, the field general, and some of those names become recognizable, even illustrious, in the wildfire-fighting community. One such name is that of Greg Poncin, who is to fire commanders what Wyatt Earp was to federal marshals.

Smoke from the Lolo Peak fire (detail) © Laura Verhaeghe
Article
Rebirth of a Nation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Donald Trump’s presidency signals a profound but inchoate realignment of American politics. On the one hand, his administration may represent the consolidation of minority control by a Republican-dominated Senate under the leadership of a president who came to office after losing the popular vote by almost 3 million ballots. Such an imbalance of power could lead to a second civil war—indeed, the nation’s first and only great fraternal conflagration was sparked off in part for precisely this reason. On the other hand, Trump’s reign may be merely an interregnum, in which the old white power structure of the Republican Party is dying and a new oppositional coalition struggles to be born.

Illustration by Taylor Callery (detail)
Article
Blood Money·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Over the past three years, the city of South Tucson, Arizona, a largely Latino enclave nestled inside metropolitan Tucson, came close to abolishing its fire and police departments. It did sell off the library and cut back fire-truck crews from four to three people—whereupon two thirds of the fire department quit—and slashed the police force to just sixteen employees. “We’re a small city, just one square mile, surrounded by a larger city,” the finance director, Lourdes Aguirre, explained to me. “We have small-town dollars and big-city problems.”

Illustration by John Ritter (detail)
Article
The Tragedy of Ted Cruz·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

When I saw Ted Cruz speak, in early August, it was at Underwood’s Cafeteria in Brownwood. He was on a weeklong swing through rural central Texas, hitting small towns and military bases that ensured him friendly, if not always entirely enthusiastic, crowds. In Brownwood, some in the audience of two hundred were still nibbling on peach cobbler as Cruz began with an anecdote about his win in a charity basketball game against ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. They rewarded him with smug chuckles when he pointed out that “Hollywood celebrities” would be hurting over the defeat “for the next fifty years.” His pitch for votes was still an off-the-rack Tea Party platform, complete with warnings about the menace of creeping progressivism, delivered at a slightly mechanical pace but with lots of punch. The woman next to me remarked, “This is the fire in the gut! Like he had the first time!” referring to Cruz’s successful long-shot run in the 2011 Texas Republican Senate primary. And it’s true—the speech was exactly like one Cruz would have delivered in 2011, right down to one specific detail: he never mentioned Donald Trump by name.

Cruz recited almost verbatim the same things Trump lists as the administration’s accomplishments: the new tax legislation, reduced African-American unemployment, repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, and Neil Gorsuch’s appointment to the Supreme Court. But, in a mirror image of those in the #Resistance who refuse to ennoble Trump with the title “president,” Cruz only called him that.

Photograph of Ted Cruz © Ben Helton (detail)
Article
Wrong Object·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

H

e is a nondescript man.

I’d never used that adjective about a client. Not until this one. My seventeenth. He’d requested an evening time and came Tuesdays at six-thirty. For months he didn’t tell me what he did.

The first session I said what I often said to begin: How can I help you?

I still think of what I do as a helping profession. And I liked the way the phrase echoed down my years; in my first job I’d been a salesgirl at a department store counter.

I want to work on my marriage, he said. I’m the problem.

His complaint was familiar. But I preferred a self-critical patient to a blamer.

It’s me, he said. My wife is a thoroughly good person.

Yawn, I thought, but said, Tell me more.

I don’t feel what I should for her.

What do you feel?

Photograph © Joseph S. Giacalone (detail)

Chance that a homeless-shelter resident in a major U.S. city holds a full- or part-time job:

1 in 5

Turkey hunting was deemed most dangerous for hunters, though deer hunting is more deadly.

The unresolved midterms; Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III replaced; the debut of the world’s first AI television anchor

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today