Verdict on chief justice's letter: not unethical - When Ronald George weighed in on UC Irvine's choice for law dean, some eyebrows were raised. But experts say -- since he was asked -- it was OK.
When California Chief Justice Ronald M. George intervened in the search process for a dean for the new law school at UC Irvine, critics questioned the court's involvement.
But legal scholars said last week that it is neither unusual nor unethical for high court judges to weigh in on candidates for public law schools, particularly when their views are sought.
The Times reported Sept. 15 that George provided a UC Irvine selection committee with a letter contending that candidate Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University law professor, had made a glaring error in an opinion piece he wrote for The Times.
George called it "a gross error." Chemerinsky insisted that his work was accurate.
"If the justices sent a letter to UC Irvine with the goal of influencing the dean process, that is inappropriate," Chemerinsky said when told of the letter.
"No, it is not inappropriate," New York University law professor Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics, said last week when told of George's version of what had happened.
Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen also said it was not uncommon for a chief justice to weigh in on a law school appointment. In fact, he said he owes his deanship to the late California Chief Justice Rose Bird.
"One reason I was appointed dean at Santa Clara was because Rose Bird weighed in," Uelmen said. "She told the president what a great dean I would make, and she was right."
Amid the criticism from George and others, UC Irvine Chancellor Michael V. Drake withdrew Chemerinsky's contract but later reinstated it after the hiring controversy ignited a national debate over academic freedom.
Chemerinsky's Aug. 16 essay in The Times attacked a new federal law that would make it harder for death row inmates to have their cases reviewed in federal court. The regulation would permit the U.S. attorney general to determine whether states were complying with a 1996 law that said inmates would be given less time to challenge their convictions in states that met the law's requirements for providing them with lawyers.
Chemerinsky wrote that only one state, Arizona, complied with the federal law's provisions of legal assistance. That is true. But the story also implied that California provided nothing for death row inmates, which is not the case.
"Everywhere but Arizona, death row inmates still have to pay for their attorneys (unlikely), get pro bono representation (difficult) or represent themselves (unwise)," the article said.
