Re: Re[2]: POL: Reaction to Microsoft Ruling

From: Zero Powers (
Date: Thu Apr 13 2000 - 23:09:54 MDT

>From: Lee Daniel Crocker <>
> > Saying that lawyers have a "monopoly" on the practice of law is like
> > that licensed drivers have a monopoly on driving.
>It's much worse than that, though: a license to practive law requires
>the holder to do far more than merely demonstrated competence. One must
>swear and oath to become an "officer of the court"--so even if you intend
>to practice law only to sue the government, you have to swear loyalty to
>your opponent--and most places _require_ you to join the "private" BA,
>and abide by its regulations (which does indeed make it a government-
>backed monopoly). A defendant, who supposedly has a right to counsel
>for his defense, does not have the right to hire counsel that has not
>thus sworm loyalty to the court and to a private organization with its
>own warped sense of ethics (ethics, to the bar association, means
>making sure the right pockets get lined).

Not quite. No one has to swear an oath of loyalty to the *court*. Lawyers
merely take an oath (1) to support the Constitution and (2) to faithfully to
discharge their duties. There is no law, rule or requirement whatsoever
requiring an attorney to swear loyalty to *anyone* other than their client,
not even the courts or the government. The only loyalty sworn is to the
Constitution, and this will never constitute a conflict of interest because
it is not possible to sue the Constitution.


"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson

Get Your Private, Free Email at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:19 MDT