Story #19
Feat-Greco
2252 words
Standing Tall for Liberty
As president of the American Bar Association, Michael Greco 72 is in a position
champion the causes he holds dear
Interview by David Reich
Since becoming president of the American Bar Association at the ABA convention in
Chicago August 9, Michael S. Greco 72 has made headlines by decrying attacks on the
judiciary and taking exception to some provisions of the USA Patriot Act and the
country s handling of prisoners of war.
A lifelong advocate for liberty and public service a calling influenced by the
memory of sailing beneath the Statue of Liberty when he arrived here from Italy at the
age of seven Greco s work with the ABA includes membership in the house of
delegates since 1985 and chairmanship of several committees. A partner in the Boston
law firm Kirkpatrick and Lockhart, Greco also has been president of the Massachusetts
and New England bar associations.
In this interview, he speaks out further on timely legal issues and outlines his
plans for the ABA.
You have cited the former BC Law School dean, Robert Drinan, S.J., as an example,
mentor, and inspiration. How has he influenced you as a lawyer?
Father Drinan, who was dean when I entered the Law School thirty-six years ago
is a
trusted adviser and close friend. I was honored when he joined my family in Chicago to
see me take ABA president s gavel. I ve been deeply affected by his view of the law as
1
an engine for social justice and his dedication to public service. For me, he s the
embodiment of the lawyer as public citizen. Last year, when Father Drinan received the
ABA s highest award, the ABA Medal, for a lifetime of public service, he spoke
eloquently about the law s historic role in protecting the poor and powerless.
In my own career, and in my year as president of the American Bar Association, I
have striven and will strive to follow his example. As ABA president, I m making it a top
priority to increase lower-income Americans access to the civil justice system. I ve
appointed a task force to develop new strategies for reaching this goal. Studies show that
70 to 80 percent of the legal needs of poor Americans go unmet, and that is unacceptable.
I take seriously the words Equal Justice for All, which are chiseled above the Supreme
Court entrance, and I m committed to making this eloquent promise a reality.
You re an idealist, yet you ve practiced in areas of law that aren t typical choices for
idealists, including real estate and business law. What can an idealist accomplish in
these practice areas?
Virtually every practice area, from tax law to public interest law, gives practitioners the
chance to bring to their work high ethical standards and a commitment to public service.
Also, don t forget that every lawyer can serve the profession and society through
volunteer bar association work and pro bono or public service work.
This has never been truer than in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Even before
the storm had run its course, the ABA formed an emergency task force to address the
countless legal needs that Katrina spawned. Thousands of ABA lawyers have volunteered
to provide free legal services to storm victims for as long as it takes to get them back on
their feet. Every section of the bar
tax, litigation, business law, alternative dispute
resolution, criminal justice, the young lawyers division, and state and local bar
associations around the country
is contributing to this effort, because the legal needs
cover the full spectrum.
As for me, I ve devoted much of my career to public service. For instance, I
chaired the first-in-the-nation Massachusetts Legal Needs for the Poor Assessment and
2
Plan for Action, and I co-founded and co-chaired Bar Leaders for Preservation of Legal
Services for the Poor, a national grassroots organization that helped preserve the Legal
Services Corporation in the 1980s. And as chairman of the ABA s Section of Individual
Rights and Responsibilities, I helped lead the association s call for a moratorium on the
death penalty in states where its administration is constitutionally flawed.
Speaking of pro bono opportunities, you recently told the Boston Globe that lawyers
today don t get enough time for pro bono work. Isn t the underlying problem that
the legal business, especially the big law firms, is increasingly following an industrial
model, with associates work seen as a commodity?
I believe that all lawyers younger and older
never lose the idealism that first attracted
them to the law. But a number of pressures under the prevailing legal business model are
making it difficult for lawyers to do pro bono and public service work. Billable-hours
policies are one very important piece. The debt burden faced by graduating law students
is another.
One of my initiatives as president is what I call the Renaissance of Idealism in the
Legal Profession. I ve appointed a commission charged with formulating real, practical
strategies to get lawyers more time for pro bono and public service work. Making a
greater pro bono commitment is not just good in itself; it s also very much in the
economic self-interest of large law firms. Many clients expect to see this kind of social
commitment at their law firms. It also improves morale and employee retention, and, of
course, it s a tremendous benefit to society as a whole.
Let s say the pressure to rack up billable hours continues, despite the ABA s best
efforts. Will lawyers need to follow other professions
schoolteachers, professors,
nurses, and even some physicians by unionizing?
I m not sure a union is ever going to be the best model for lawyers. About 80 percent of
practicing lawyers work in small firms or are solo practitioners, for whom unions aren t
3
practical. Bar associations probably will continue to be the best model for addressing the
profession s common concerns.
You ve made a number of statements decrying attacks on the judiciary by some in
Congress. What would you say to those who believe that in decisions like Roe v.
Wade and more recently in Lawrence v. Texas and the gay marriage decision in
Massachusetts, the courts are making law up out of whole cloth instead of letting
social issues be hashed out in the legislatures, where they actually belong? Do these
critics of the judiciary have a point?
First, people at all points of the political spectrum have every right to criticize rulings
with which they disagree. That s democracy. But the ABA takes issue with criticism that
crosses the line into threats and intimidation
such as the threats by some members of
Congress to seek impeachment of, or otherwise punish, judges involved in the Terri
Schiavo life support case and other controversial cases.
Americans need fair, impartial courts that inspire public trust, and threats of
reprisal for specific decisions simply have no place in our system. Now, you mentioned
the President. It s important to note that he has not endorsed these extremist calls, and in
fact, Vice President Dick Cheney explicitly rejected the idea of impeaching judges for
specific rulings. So even though any attacks of this kind worry us, it s encouraging to
know that many government officials reject them.
What about accusations by congressional Democrats that some of the recent court
nominees are conservative judicial activists? Do these accusations have any merit?
Again, it is totally appropriate for members of Congress and the general public to
consider ideology in how they evaluate judges and judicial nominees, but it s also
important to be fair-minded about this, and not to exaggerate the activist label. Judges
have a clear role, but it is widely misunderstood. They apply the facts and the law to the
cases that come before them, and their rulings can be overturned on appeal.
4
When you think about it, they re very much like referees in a sporting event. They
have to make tough calls, and often those calls are going to be unpopular on one side or
the other. And, as I said, their calls, as in instant replay, can be reversed.
The most important thing is for us to respect the referee even when the call goes
against us. Our judges have to handle some very difficult cases, and we want them to
apply the law without fear of reprisals or political manipulation. If we don t protect our
courts, they can t protect us.
Our greatest concern is that selection of judges not be reduced to a litmus test
based on one or two hot-button issues. That kind of simplistic approach doesn t reflect
the complexities of judging. Under canons of judicial ethics, judges cannot commit
themselves ahead of time as to how they will rule in specific cases. This is not only a
potential issue in Senate hearings on federal court nominees. It s also an area of particular
concern in states where judges are elected by popular vote.
Could you recommend a way to end the acrimony surrounding appointments to the
federal bench and to assure that we have the best, most impartial judges?
There must be a return to civility in discussing our judiciary, because our courts depend
on public trust to uphold the law. Extremist rhetoric undermines that trust. But I think we
need something more. So many Americans have not been properly educated on the basics
on American government. The ABA commissioned a survey, conducted by Harris
Interactive last July, that yielded some very disturbing data. According to the survey, 48
percent of the respondents didn t know what separation of powers means, and 40
percent couldn t correctly identify our three branches of government. In fact, 22 percent
thought the three branches of government were Republicans, Democrats, and
Independents. Perhaps most troubling, 44 percent didn t know the core responsibilities of
the judicial branch.
We need to do a better job of educating the public about our democracy, so that
all Americans will vigorously protect it. When people don t understand their rights, it s
easy for others to take them away. That s why I appointed a special Commission on Civic
5
Education and the Separation of Powers, which is working to improve school curricula
and to educate the public about the role of judges.
You re widely quoted as objecting to several provisions of the USA Patriot Act and
to the Bush Administration s handling of the Guantánamo detainees. Even if you
object to the government s actions in these areas, do you grant that they may be
necessary?
Ever since the horrific and tragic attacks of September 11, 2001, we are understandably
struggling, as a nation, to reach an appropriate balance between preserving civil liberties
and democratic values, on the one hand, and preserving our nation s security, on the
other. The ABA supports the US government in the war on terrorism, but we must not
allow anyone to undermine the very liberties we re fighting to protect. To do otherwise
departs from our principles, harms our credibility, and accomplishes the objectives of the
terrorists.
Unfortunately, the ABA believes that there have been some missteps in the war
on terrorism. For instance, we have called for more than a year for a bipartisan
commission to investigate allegations of detainee abuse and the shameful treatment of
Iraqi prisoners by US military personnel. To date there has been no action by the
administration or Congress.
The ABA adopted a policy and filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme
Court arguing that US citizens have a right to judicial review of their detention, and
should also have a right to contact and communicate with an attorney. This right of due
process has been fundamental to our democracy and our liberties from the beginning. We
were pleased when the Supreme Court in June 2004 agreed with our position in Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld. We also have urged that for foreign detainees the use of military tribunals be
very limited, and that if any tribunals are used, they conform to fair trial standards.
Finally, as you mentioned, many in the ABA have continuing concerns about
certain elements of the USA Patriot Act that go too far in invading privacy rights and
violating civil liberties.
6
Did the changes Congress made this year when they reauthorized the Patriot Act at
least begin to address those concerns?
Many provisions of the Patriot Act are noncontroversial and are needed in the war on
terrorism. However, a few
roving wiretaps
for example, the so-called sneak-and-peek searches and
also apply to ordinary criminal cases, and they afford limited judicial
review. The ABA is very concerned about them, as are observers from all sides of the
political spectrum, because they represent erosions of the civil liberties of all Americans.
The most worrisome provisions were renewed by Congress this year, so we will
continue to monitor this law with some concern, and continue to call for sunset
provisions so that the most intrusive elements of the Patriot Act are periodically
reviewed.
In general, how would you describe our government s current attitude toward the
rule of law?
As I said before, September 11 presented our government and our nation as a whole with
a terrible and unprecedented challenge. The federal government bears the trust and duty
of protecting our citizens from attack, and I don t think anyone should be lightly
criticized as they do their best to carry out that duty.
We are all determining how to balance the values that have made us a great
nation the liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution
with the need to defend
ourselves from future attacks. But I do believe this: The Constitution has seen our nation
through many crises, and if we affirm its values, it will see us through this one as well,
with our liberties intact.
David Reich is a Boston freelance writer and a frequent contributor to this
magazine.
7