Lynne Stewart

Lynne Stewart was convicted last week. I think it is pretty clear that she violated the special administrative measures imposed by the feds. I am torn, though, in a couple of ways. First, it greatly bothers me that the feds were able to impose these measures about her visiting her client. On the flip side, these measures were put in place after her client was convicted of supporting acts of terrorism against this country. Further, when she did speak to the media and the world on behalf of her client, she announced that her client was withdrawing his support of a cease-fire agreement, which would seem a fairly strong indication of an incitement to violence. That said, no violence followed from her announcement and the cease fire at issue was in the Middle East, not in this country. Ignoring any attorney-client relationship aspects, I have problems with her being penalized for advocating any sort of idea, even an incitement to violence. I think that violates her First Amendment rights.

David Feige, at Slate.com, has an interesting article about Ms. Stewart's conviction. When I first heard of her arrest and of the terrorist measures put in place by the feds, I expected it to have a substantial chilling effect on attorney-client relationships. So far, that has not happened. From messages I have seen on listservs of different attorney groups and from other articles (such as this one from the NY Times) have led me to believe that this case may not have the chilling effect that I had feared. At any rate, it appears that this case is not so clear cut and there is reasonable grounds for disagreement about what this means. I will wait to see what ramifications this brings about.

Comments

[ken]

Perhaps the lesson is the standing joke that if you become too good a defense attorney in either NY or Florida the prosecutors will charge you.