The bad idea file: Keeping corporate courtroom sponsorships secret

Image via Wikipedia

State governments are tightening their wallets just like us, as the Great Recession has taken a toll on their investments and tax dollars. (“Is California officially bankrupt yet?” wondered a friend during a gathering this past weekend.)

Over at Above The Law, we’ve been tracking the impact on state courts. Some courts have addressed budget shortfalls by laying off workers, cutting back on public defenders, and reducing the amount of cases heard. Not good for justice, but as so many people know, not having money often leads to not getting justice.

Well, the Massachusetts courts have come up with a unique solution to their financial problems. They want to tap into the talent that has been deferred by big corporate firms. That talent conveniently comes with $40,000 to $80,000 salaries attached. It also comes with some ethical dilemmas.

Corporate law firms have been hit hard by the Great Recession as well. (Yes, lawyers do suffer along with the rest of us when things go badly in the world.) Most graduating law students would be starting $160,000 jobs at firms this September, but due to a slowdown in work, many law firms have asked newly-minted law grads to wait a year to start. They’re not leaving these young associates out in the cold though — they have given them “deferral stipends” which range from $40,000 to $80,000, depending on the generosity of the firm. Yup, that’s money to do nothing for a year, though these law grads are encouraged to seek out some kind of legal work, be it with a nonprofit or a government agency.

A light bulb lit up in the Massachusetts courtroom, of the frugal, energy-saving variety. Why not withdraw offers from the 24 clerks they had hired for the fall and instead fill those positions for free with these young deferred lawyers?

A judge ran the idea by the Judicial Ethics Committee and it was approved… with some qualms. These court clerks would be on the payroll of a law firm and their allegiances to those firms could create ethical dilemmas, or the appearance of ethical dilemmas. And judges could be perceived as biased if they know that a particular firm has, essentially, made a donation to the court.

How to address that?  Keep it all secret!

The Flaschner Judicial Institute, which provides continuing education to state judges, would deal with the law firms that supply the interns. Judges and court officials would have no contact with the donating firms, and the firms would be instructed not to identify the interns on their websites. The interns would be barred from disclosing which firms are paying their stipends.

On June 8, the SJC’s ethics committee approved the arrangement, emphasizing that the clerks must keep the identity of their law firms secret even from the judges they are working for.

“Structuring the program in such a way that the law firms’ involvement is unknown not only to the public but also to the judges who will be ‘employing’ the volunteer interns will negate any impression that those law firms are in a special position to influence the judge,’’ said the committee’s opinion, which was reported last week by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

via Law firms may provide clerks for courts – The Boston Globe.

This presents a very convenient financial arrangement for the cash-strapped Massachusetts courts, but this is seriously troubling. Beyond the fact that it stinks for the 24 would-have been clerks that have now lost their jobs, there are serious ethical questions when it comes to protecting the impartiality of the courts.

Everyone’s going to know these “volunteer clerks” are at the courts on a law firm’s dime. Law students usually spend a summer at the law firm they will eventually work at before their final year of law school. With a quick visit to a clerk’s Facebook page, it’s likely to be obvious based on photos and work information where he or she is heading after their clerkship, and thus who is paying their salary. (As I have written before, there are judges on Facebook.)

Are these clerks really expected to scrub their resumes and social networking profiles in order to keep this a secret from judges?

And more troubling is the suggestion that the whole arrangement be kept secret from the public (though the Boston Globe story today is likely to derail that plan). Better now than later though. This secrecy was bound to fail.

While it may be tempting to have flush corporate law firms subsidize the state court system, this is not the way to do it.