‘It’s Embarrassing to be a Lawyer Today in Massachusetts’

J. Edward Pawlick Sends Letter to Presidents of Massachusetts and Boson Bars

March 15, 2001

The publisher of MassNews sent a letter yesterday to the presidents of the Massachusetts and Boston Bar Associations saying, “It’s embarrassing to be a lawyer today in Massachusetts.”

He said that lawyers are the cornerstone of our bulwark against tyranny, but that important quality is “rapidly crumbling in our state.”

He cited the episode where a mother was separated from her two-month-old baby a few weeks ago and shackled by her wrists and ankles in the Lowell court even though a hearing had never been held by a judge as required by state law within 72-hours.

“How could this be happening in a free country?” Atty. J. Edward Pawlick asked Edward Ryan, President of the Massachusetts Bar Association and Joan Lukey, President of the Boston Bar Association.

“Does this not anger you? … Where is the protest from lawyers,” he asked.

In addition he said that many of the courts have taken the “appearance of a welfare agency for unemployed lawyers.”

Full text of the letter follows.

*                    *                    *

March 14, 2001

Dear Attorneys Ryan and Lukey:

It’s embarrassing to be a lawyer today in Massachusetts.

It’s discouraging to have to say that because I know that lawyers are our most important bulwark against tyranny. But I have grave fears that that important quality of our profession is rapidly crumbling in our state.

Have you heard about Mrs. Heidi Howard who was chained at her wrists and ankles a few weeks ago in the Lowell Courthouse? She was forced to climb flights of stairs without assistance because she refused to give her newborn baby girl to strangers. Why would we punish anyone in that manner? Who believes her to be a dangerous person that she should be treated like that in our courts?

This obscene event occurred even though her child has never been legally taken from her as required by state law!

How could this be happening in a free country?

Does this not anger you? It outrages many! How are state bureaucrats alone allowed to make the decision that her three children be stripped from her? This occurred even though not one of those three decisions has ever been reviewed by a judge. The nine-year-old has already been told he will never return home because he is going to be adopted.

That may not seem important to lawyers in this state because we’ve all become hardened to the fact that no parent in our state ever receives a hearing within 72-hours after a child is taken. It is months or years before the so-called 72-hour hearing is held. How can that be happening universally without protest from the lawyers of the state?

In addition, we witness many courts taking the appearance of a welfare agency for unemployed lawyers. For example, in the ongoing Howard saga, one lawyer was automatically appointed to represent the baby, a practice which is questionable at best.

Then a lawyer for the state demanded that Mrs. Howard have a different lawyer than her husband in matters concerning their children even though she wished to have the same lawyer. Therefore, another unemployed lawyer was appointed to represent her. Even after Chester Darling volunteered to represent Mrs. Howard, the unemployed lawyer appeared at the hearing last week to get a few more billable hours and to present a memorandum in conflict with her “client’s” wishes and to argue that the “client” and her husband should not have the same lawyer.

Then the state lawyers tried to deny the mother the right to breast-feed her baby during visitation even though the child’s pediatrician recommended it. Can you imagine wasting the time of a judge making a decision on this? I thought we were short on judges. Three lawyers had to attend that momentous hearing. The visiting female judge who held the hearing (because the retired judge who was hearing these cases had hip surgery) said it was too difficult for her to decide whether the mother could be allowed to feed her child. It apparently wasn’t too difficult until the judge discovered that both the pediatrician and Chester Darling were in court. She quickly abandoned the hearing to the time which is supposedly scheduled for the 72-hour hearing.

We all know that “Justice delayed is justice denied.” When we are dealing with growing children, every day is important. So the obvious effort by the state to delay these proceedings as much as possible is a successful effort to wear out the parents.

Where is the protest from lawyers?

If either of you practiced before the federal and state poverty lawyers took over from local Legal Aid groups in the early 1970s, you know that all parties used to be forced by economics to settle cases. It was the only way to resolve most problems. Then came federal- and state-funded poverty lawyers with all the resources of the government behind them. They use those resources to frustrate and bankrupt anyone who opposes them.

As we know, those resources today are controlled mostly by feminist lawyers. Is it any wonder that these haters of men and straight women told Mrs. Howard to reject and divorce her husband or she would lose her children? We hear about similar demands made upon women all the time.

The Boston Bar Association is having one of those extremist poverty lawyers, Pauline Quirion, lecture to lawyers on Domestic Violence this month. Can you imagine what effect this has on people who have witnessed her anger and hostility toward men and straight women? She does not try to reconcile families. Her only strategy is outright war and destruction.

Why is it that lawyers like Chester Darling and Gregory Hession receive none of the millions of tax dollars that you receive every year from the Supreme Judicial Court? Do you really believe it is fair that you distribute all of this federal and state money only to ideologues of one political persuasion?

I will guarantee to you that the Howard case is going to tug at the heartstrings of all Massachusetts residents. It will cause severe damage to the reputation of our courts unless we make some serious changes. I hope you will show the leadership that these crucial circumstances demand for our citizens and for our judicial system. It will no longer do any good to laugh this off as just another attack against overworked judges.

Copyright ©2001 Massachusetts News, Inc. Photocopying and data processing storage of all or any part of this issue may not be made without prior written consent.