Marvin H. Morse is the immediate past president of the Federal Bar Association. He is an administrative law judge in the Executive Office of Immigration Review at the Department of Justice.
A: The FBA's constitution includes a mission statement, which is to advance the science of jurisprudence, and to promote the welfare, interests, education, professional growth and development of the members of the federal legal profession. This mission is accomplished through specified objectives, the first of which is to serve as the national representative of the federal legal profession.
The FBA, which celebrated its seventy-fifth anniversary last year, initially was comprised of only government lawyers and judges. We now consider the federal legal profession to include federal judges in all the branches, government lawyers and those who practice before and have an interest in the federal courts and agencies, and all lawyers involved in matters directly affected by what happens in the federal courts and agencies. FBA membership today is 84 percent private sector lawyers. The overwhelming bulk are in law firms, but we also have a healthy participation from the corporate and academic communities.
FBA membership has for many years hovered at 15,000, making us the seventh largest voluntary bar association in the country. We have 80 active chapters in approximately 40 states, varying in size from a handful of members to the District of Columbia chapter's more than 2,000 members.
A: Traditionally, the FBA has been a strong voice in response to the needs of the federal Judiciary. We recognize that the Judiciary needs to be delinked from congressional pay and from subordination to the political climate year to year. Asking for a pay raise puts this independent branch of government into the position of the supplicant. I mention this with some sensitivity because my salary as a federal administrative law judge is linked to that of the legislative branch, but the FBA has arrived at its important support for the Judiciary independent of that consideration.
Federal judges should not be obliged to ask for special consideration when, for whatever political reason, the Congress does not raise its own pay. There is a competitive market for lawyers' services and we've all seen experienced federal judges leave the bench for private practice, frequently for the reason that their family has been sacrificing. Federal judges are individuals who have made a public commitment and have the education and the experience that is certainly worth more than what they are paid.
A: The biggest single membership component of the FBA is our federal litigation section, the lawyers who are in the courts and in the agencies trying cases. We have sections across the many specialties such as the antitrust, bankruptcy, and immigration law sections. All these folks have an interest on behalf of their clients to see their cases move forward. And so does the public. Cases can't move without judicial resources.
We recognize that you can't keep increasing the size of the bench as more cases come in. You need other solutions. For example, we're very supportive of alternative dispute resolution. I was very impressed by a talk last month at our annual convention in Portland by the former chief judge of the Third Circuit, Ruggero J. Aldisert. He pointed out that the caselaod of the courts of appeals has increased disproportionately and in substantially larger numbers than in the district courts. I agree with him that the answer at the appellate level is not just to add more judges. In contrast, at the district court level, an increase in the number of judges seems to be absolutely essential. With bankruptcy filings at an historic high, an increase in bankruptcy judgeships is necessary.
What's really involved here is how much the nation is willing to pay for due process. I don't believe there can be a principled objection to increasing the number of judges up to some reasonable point, from time to time.
A: In a number of districts we have had great success in sponsoring admission to practice exercises. Annually, for example, the Maryland chapter hosts a reception where the district court and fourth circuit law clerks are admitted to practice in federal court. I had the great privilege earlier this summer of participating with Judge Louis H. Pollak of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania who conducted, in conjunction with the FBA chapter, a swearing-in ceremony for admittees to that court.
In several districts, the FBA participates in developing bench books and local rules manuals for lawyers. As to ethics, civility, and professionalism, FBA leadership was instrumental in organizing the Federal American Inn of Court in the District of Columbia.
But the paramount issue is judicial independence. My President's Message in the June 1996 issue of the FBA magazine, The Federal Lawyer, responded to political rhetoric critical of a judge's specific decision and calling for the judge's impeachment or resignation. An Article III judge's lifetime appointment is designed not for the benefit of the incumbent but to protect decision-making independence, so judicial decisions will not be susceptible to political winds of change. Hostility to judicial independence is a sad reflection on the lack of civic understanding of the role of the Judiciary.
I have suggested that each FBA chapter establish lawyers committees for effective assistance. Attacks on judges for unpopular decisions can be well intentioned. But if they are more than a criticism on the merits and impugn the integrity of the decision-maker, the organized bar should act decisively in response. After all, the courts are where the problems of our society are resolved, and the courts are not equipped to speak out on their own behalf. There's no higher calling for the organized bar than to represent the principle of judicial independence free from political interference.
A: The FBA and the Judicial Conference have evolved a close working relationship. Our Judiciary division, of which I am a former chair, is the principal focus for matters of concern to the Judiciary. But our greatest interaction is through the chapters, where we have the opportunity to work with district and circuit courts. Most recently, the FBA's immediate past president, the president-elect, and I met in July with the director of the Administrative Office to confirm our willingness to become even more involved.
A: What concerned us was the threat to the ongoing efficiency and integrity of the courts and the executive branch. As the Judiciary was running out of money, the Chief Justice was rightly outspoken about the threat to court operations. The justice system in this country, now more than ever, needs support.
A: At our annual meeting, the FBA's National Council authorized an amendment to the constitution to establish a government relations committee, to be submitted to the membership at large. An initial issues agenda, consistent with policy positions already adopted by the FBA, was approved that includes advancing the support of the federal Judiciary. We also are funding a consultant to help us better identify and improve government relations. We're not going to take on solving the multibillion dollar deficit, but hopefully we can improve our efficiency in playing a role on issues of concern to the branches of government generally and on the Judiciary, specifically.