As should be obvious from my previous posts, Alaska is substantially different from the other states. While a lot of states can point to geographic differences in attitude (compare LA to San Francisco), no other state has the geographic diversity and the cultural diversity that Alaska has. Only about 1/3 of the state is accessible by road. The other communities must be reached by plane or boat. As you might imagine, practicing in such a community is substantially different than other practice areas. To fully describe those differences would require a book, which I may write someday, but not now. Time will show how many posts I make on this subject, but I thought that it might be interesting to convey some of what it is like to practice in a 'bush' area.
First, bush practice is characterized by informality. This reflects the lifestyle in general. I cannot imagine a more impractical outfit to wear in the Alaska Bush than a business suit. They are too thin to provide warmth and they are too easily torn, dirtied, damaged, etc. Business dress shoes do not last long on dirt roads or paths because the mud and gravel chew them up. I've also not seen a business shoe that will keep your feet warm at -30 or colder. When it is that cold (or colder), your car or other equipment does not work well (to say nothing of people). This greatly increases your chances that you will have to exit your vehicle to get it working, get it on the road, extract a moose from your grill, whatever. A business suit is an extremely poor choice of an outfit in those circumstances. It is hard to get axle grease, gasoline, antifreeze, or moose blood out of your suit. I realize it is just as hard to get axle grease, etc., out of jeans, but who cares? Just buy another pair to wear to court and wear the grease-stained ones when you're hunting.
Judges understand this and frequently do not wear suits themselves. In fact, most of the time, judges and lawyers do not wear even ties. During the time I spent in Dillingham, I would usually wear jeans and a flannel shirt to court for the most part. I would wear suits during trials, but this was a tremendous inconvenience.
The informality is also seen in the relationships between attorneys and also judges. In a town with three, maybe four lawyers, it is hard to be a jerk. I am not saying that it does not happen, but it is usually not cost-effective. The same with judges. I can recall several times getting a phone call from the judge who would say something like, "Hey, I just talked to the DA, and I am wondering if we can move the sentencing hearing set for tomorrow. The kings are running [for those who are not from Alaska, this means that the king salmon are swimming upstream, ready to be caught!] and I have a chance to get up river." Of course, if the judge was up fishing, I would try to go at the same time (not with the judge, although I did see him sometimes up the river. I would stop by his camp and have a beer or two).
Bush judges also have what I would refer to as a pragmatic practicality to their rulings. For example, in DUI cases in Alaska, first time offenders are required to pay a fine of $1500. If a client of mine lived in Togiak, for example, and had to pay $125 to fly to Dillingham, the court would frequently credit that flight cost to the fine, court costs, or mandated attorney fees. His reasoning, which I cannot fault, was that the cost to fly to Dillingham would not have to be paid by a Dillingham resident. Thus, the Togiak resident is being charged to exercise her constitutional right to live where she wants to.
I remember the first felony trial I had in Dillingham. A client of mine was charged with masturbating in front of children. As the proof came out at trial, the children had seen him doing this and yelled at him. He left and, unknown to him, the children followed him. When he resumed his hobby, the kids began to pelt him with rocks. He had a prior conviction (He was legally innocent on this charge) that came into evidence. I fought hard to exclude that conviction. Afterwards, the judge told me not to worry about it. He said that in small communities, the jury would know about the prior conviction even if it were not introduced into evidence and that the rumor mill would have made the conviction much worse than what actually happened. This was not a discussion about that particular case, but more about trying cases in small communities. The judge had practiced for several years in that community and he always followed the ethical rules, but he also was a good source of advice about local juries and attitudes.
The few attorneys in town formed the Bristol Bay bar association. We held our bar meeting in, you guessed it, a dive bar. And yes, I did have clients come and yell at me while we were having a meeting. The clients seemed to take that I was present with the DA, the magistrate, judge, and a couple of other attorneys from town as proof that we were all in cahoots together. We had no regularly scheduled meetings; at random intervals, one of the participants would suggest to all the others that 'it was time for a bar meeting', whereupon, we met and drank beer. Our Bar Association gained some notoriety for sending a resolution to the Alaska Bar that attorneys not be forced to wear ties in court. The law in Alaska (and there's an actual case on this) is that the judge has the authority to require attorneys to wear a tie. We wanted to change that law. The resolution was forwarded to the Alaska Supreme Court but was never acted upon. I suppose it did not make much difference because unless we were in trial or a felony sentencing hearing, nobody wore a tie anyway.
Life in bush Alaska is truly different and the practice of law reflects that difference. I hope to explore that difference further in the future.
Comments