3-26-05, 9:07 am
Last year, President Bush nominated Thomas B. Griffith to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Senate Democrats prevented a vote on his nomination. Consequently, President Bush re-nominated Mr. Griffith in February. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on his nomination on March 8, and is expected to vote on his confirmation in April. Also, Mr. Griffith practiced law in the District of Columbia between 1996 and 2000, despite the fact that he was suspended twice from the District of Columbia Bar, and as such was unauthorized to do so. His membership in the District of Columbia Bar was suspended in January, 1998, and again from November, 1998 to November, 2001. According to Mr. Griffith, this was “due to a clerical oversight.”
Mr. Griffith has said that his office accidentally failed to renew his participation in the Bar. The Bar’s policy is to mail out an invoice for dues, with two follow-up notices when the dues are not paid.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals requires that an attorney engaged in the practice of law in the District be “enrolled as an active member of the District of Columbia Bar.” During his suspension, he served as the legal counsel to Senate Republicans and was a partner at a law firm. As such, he actively worked as an attorney after being suspended from the practice of law.
In addition, from 2000 to 2004 Mr. Griffith served as the General Legal Counsel of Brigham Young University. But he was never authorized to practice law in Utah, either. Under Utah law, a person cannot practice law unless they have been admitted to the state Bar. Mr. Griffith could have received admittance to the Utah Bar if he was a member in good standing with another state Bar. Of course, he was not. His other option was to take the Utah Bar exam, but he never did.
As the General Counsel of BYU, Mr. Griffith was engaged in the practice of law. According to BYU itself, the General Counsel is responsible for “advising the Administration on all legal matters pertaining to the University.” In response to a questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee, when asked what the most recent position in his legal career was, Mr. Griffith responded “2000-present: Higher education law.” When questioned by the Committee as to why he didn’t join the Utah Bar, he said he didn’t believe as General Counsel for BYU this was necessary.
However, in 2003 the General Counsel of the Utah Bar sent a letter to Mr. Griffith which stated, “Utah does not have and has never had” a “general counsel rule exception.” The letter further advised him to take the state Bar exam. Although he had eight opportunities to take the exam, Mr. Griffith never did. Presumably, he felt that he was above the law, or was concerned that he was incapable of passing it. However, he did submit an application, under oath, to take the exam.
The application asked, “Have you ever been disbarred, suspended, censured, sanctioned, disciplined or otherwise reprimanded or disqualified, whether publicly or privately, as an attorney?” He had the opportunity to answer “Yes” and offer an explanation. Instead, he answered “No.” Of course, he knew that he had been suspended from the District of Columbia Bar twice. In doing so, he gave a false answer, under oath, to the Utah Bar.
The federal appeals courts play an extremely important role in the judicial system. While the U.S. Supreme Court only hears about 80 cases annually, the appeals courts adjudicate about 30,000 cases yearly. The judges who hold lifetime appointments to these courts have considerable ability to effect enforcement of the nation’s laws. We should expect those judges to have strong professional ethics and a high regard for the law. Sadly, Mr. Griffith has neither.
