Yes, Lamberth is a great Judge:
January 28, 1999
Politics & Policy
Babbitt and Rubin Face Fiery Judge
On Native American Trust-Fund Case
By JOHN J. FIALKA
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
WASHINGTON -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist isn't the only jurist presiding here over a case of a top government official in hot water. As the U.S. Senate considers President Clinton's impeachment, Federal Judge Royce Lamberth is mulling how to bring his stern brand of justice to two cabinet members.
Judge Lamberth is weighing whether to hold Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin in contempt of court in a dispute over an American Indian trust fund their two agencies jointly run. The case is a tangled mess of missing records and bureaucratic finger-pointing over alleged losses involving more than 500,000 savings accounts containing $300 million kept each year for Indians. During closing arguments this week, Judge Lamberth called this the most mishandled federal case he has seen in more than 29 years as a judge and a lawyer.
Federal lawyers admit they have missed two court-ordered deadlines to provide records. Judge Lamberth has spent the past two weeks hearing evidence that Interior Department officials may have intentionally slowed the record-gathering process.
Justice Department lawyers defending the two departments have been treading gingerly. The judge has become the legal equivalent of volcanic Mount Pinatubo when it comes to erupting over the Clinton administration's sometimes wayward handling of legal matters. "This is a man who takes no prisoners," says Elizabeth Rindskopf, a former general counsel for the Central Intelligence Agency.
In 1997 Judge Lamberth accused White House lawyers and President Clinton's former adviser, Ira Magaziner, of "dishonest" and "reprehensible" conduct involving the use of advisory panels in preparing the administration's ill-fated health-care reform in 1993. Just this month, hearing a lawsuit brought by a conservative group, Judicial Watch, he likened the actions of former Commerce Department officials to "con artists" and "hooligans."
In the latter case, Judge Lamberth shows no sign of flagging in his four-year crusade to piece together what he recently termed an "unsightly puzzle" of shredded and missing documents allegedly describing political payoffs to late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. In one of the law's stranger maneuvers, lawyers for the department recently attempted to close the matter by asking the judge to decide against them in the case, which involves requests for the information under the Freedom of Information Act. But Judge Lamberth decreed that the case will continue, giving more time for Judicial Watch to hunt for records.
'No Words' for 'Incredulity'
It did not help the Commerce Department's position when the judge discovered that agency officials in 1997 had awarded some of the accused document-shredders medals for showing "unusual commitment" in the effort to respond to his court's orders. "Finding no words to adequately express its incredulity, the Court simply disagrees," wrote Judge Lamberth in a recent decision that hints contempt proceedings may follow, both against Commerce Department and White House officials.
Case Book
Recent high-profile cases before Judge Royce Lamberth:
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Inc. vs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, et al.
Judicial Watch Inc. vs. United States Department of Commerce.
Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. vs. Bruce Babbitt, et al.
Michele E. Shepherd, et al. vs. American Broadcasting Cos., et al.
The judge's tough actions draw mixed verdicts. "He's a hard taskmaster with a healthy dose of suspicion of government activities," says Ms. Rindskopf. "You come to realize that you're dealing with a judge who won't take your positions without challenge... . I think that's probably quite healthy."
"I think he abuses the way a judge should act," says Mr. Magaziner, now a business consultant in Rhode Island. "He should not be able to just spout off at the mouth and hurt people's reputations." After an investigation by the U.S. attorney's office here, Mr. Magaziner was later cleared of making intentionally misleading statements in the health-reform matter. He is appealing Mr. Lamberth's decision, hoping to get words such as "dishonest" stricken from the record.
Whatever he may be, Mr. Lamberth is a man who is thoroughly at home in the middle of paper-strewn, bureaucratic foulups. During the Reagan administration, he was an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. As head of the civil division, his job was often to defend government agencies when they found themselves in a legal mess.
"When you represent the government, you learn that it sometimes does funny things," explains Joseph diGenova, who was Mr. Lamberth's boss. Mr. diGenova talked up Mr. Lamberth to the Reagan administration, which appointed him to the District Court bench in 1987. It was a rare career move for a lifelong civil servant with no major political backers on Capitol Hill. "He's a damned good trial judge," says Mr. diGenova.
Stickler on Behavior
In an era where judges are sometimes subjected to arm-waving, table-pounding harangues by lawyers, Mr. Lamberth, 54, is a throwback. He is the author of the Federal Bar Association's "Model Rules of Professional Conduct for Federal Lawyers" and is a stickler for proper courtroom demeanor.
"You are civil in his court; he insists on it," says Mark Lane, 71, a liberal lawyer who specializes in civil-rights cases. In 1993 he found himself in an uphill battle against American Broadcasting Cos. and its lawyers from Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, one of Washington's white-shoe law firms. He was trying to prove a civil-rights violation on behalf of two ABC employees, but their names didn't appear on company documents the court ordered until Mr. Lane found a witness who testified that one document was doctored.
Judge Lamberth erupted, granting a default judgment against ABC. He declared: "ABC and its attorneys engaged in a pattern of misconduct ranging from document alteration to witness harassment." His ruling was later overturned, and the case was settled out of court. William Perlstein, chairman of the management committee of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, says the higher-court ruling "reflected a just rejection of plaintiff's unfounded allegations."
Mr. Lane, who has also lost a decision before Judge Lamberth, still feels awed by the judge. "He's one of those judges who hark back to the time when it was honorable to be a lawyer. He's one of the few left."
Meantime, the Interior Department, facing the probability of sanctions from Judge Lamberth for not producing the documents in the Indian trust-fund case, appears to have compounded its troubles by telling the judge that it had solved the problem with a reorganization. Judge Lamberth found out later that the reorganization downgraded the two officials in the department who were trying to fix the trust fund's faulty record-keeping.
Dictating the Future
"The secretary [Mr. Babbitt] has forfeited any right to dictate the future of this case," the judge said last week. "This court is going to dictate the future." Dennis Gingold, representing the Indians, asked for a contempt finding, fines and a court-appointed master to force the producing of documents.
To put its case in the best light, the Justice Department selected Phillip Brooks, a scrupulously polite, mild-mannered attorney who speaks in a soft voice. Mr. Brooks even apologized to the judge for his actions as well of those of the departments of Interior and Treasury, but it may not help.
"You got yourself behind the eight ball," said the judge, flashing a wolfish grin as the lawyer launched into his defense.
URL for this Article:
For information about subscribing, go to wsj.com |
