Full house trumped by recusals

Half of the people eligible to be on the committee deciding on the
fate of Bill Clinton's law license later today have recused themselves
over conflicts of interest, leaving only six of a possible 14 to sit in
judgment in the president's disbarment case.

The Arkansas Committee on Professional Conduct has seven standing
members and seven alternates, but only a total of six will meet to
consider a complaint that could make history -- the disbarment of the
president of the United States while he is still in office. The ethics
complaint is the result of Clinton's admitted lies under oath during
questioning in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

James Neal, executive director of the committee, told WorldNetDaily
that four members of the committee and three alternates have withdrawn
from today's regular monthly meeting. A fourth member of the alternate
committee, David Solomon, is not eligible because his term of office
recently expired and the Arkansas Supreme Court has not yet filled that
vacancy. All committee members serve by appointment of the Supreme
Court.

"The committee members who will be handling and adjudicating that
case are from the regular committee, Ken Reeves (chairman), Win
Trafford, Sue Winter," said Neal. "Alternate committee members that will
be participating in connection with that case, at such time as they may
have occasion to, will be John Rush, Jacqueline Johnston-Cravens, and
Michael Cogbill."

That makes a total of only six who will vote on whether Clinton will
keep his law license, which is fewer than the regular seven who make up
the standing committee.

"Our rules state that four members shall comprise a quorum to conduct
business," explained Neal. So even though the committee is shorthanded,
there are enough members to get by.

On Feb. 11,

WorldNetDaily first reported the discovery of apparent
conflicts of interest on the part of many of the committee and alternate
committee members. At least six members have made large donations to Clinton in the past. One, Dr. Patricia Youngdahl, was rewarded with a night in the Lincoln bedroom in the White House.

When WorldNetDaily contacted the chairman of the committee and asked if he would take any action, he answered by saying, "I think they will all do the right thing."

At the time of the discovery, none of the people identified by WorldNetDaily would say whether or not they would recuse themselves from the case. All of them have done so now, plus two more.

Richard Reid, Bart Virden, Dr. Patricia Youngdahl, David Solomon and Dick Hatfield donated, as WorldNetDaily previously reported, a combined total of over $16,000 to Clinton, other democrats, and the Arkansas Democratic Committee. Each has now withdrawn from participation on the committee in the Clinton case. Law professor Carlton Bailey, as well as an undisclosed member of the alternate committee, have unexpectedly joined them.

"It is heartening to know that Arkansas committee members who have recused themselves for apparent or perceived political reasons are helping to maintain the integrity of this process," said Matthew J. Glavin, president of Southeastern Legal Foundation in an interview with WorldNetDaily.

"It is especially gratifying to see that attorneys on the committee, who are held to a higher ethical standard, are recusing themselves despite the absence of any obvious political taint -- we believe these actions will help keep this process above reproach," said Glavin when he learned that Bailey also recused himself.

The complaint which brought Clinton's right to practice law into question came from the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm, represented by Arkansas attorney L. Lynn Hogue.

The complaint was first filed in September 1998 by Hogue, followed by a long delay of no action by Neal until the Arkansas Supreme Court stepped in and forced the process along.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright, who presided over the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, also filed a complaint against Clinton after she cited him for contempt of court and fined him $90,000.

Clinton was served notice of the complaint and given until April 21 to submit a response. He had attempted to have the process delayed further, but Reeves stepped in and refused Clinton's request that action on his disbarment be delayed until he is out of office.

WorldNetDaily could not reach Clinton's attorney, David Kendall, for comment. His office said there was no statement prepared and no spokesman to give comment.

Clinton sent the committee a written response to the charges, but it has not been made public by Kendall. Glavin called the defense submitted by Clinton "pathetic," and Hogue said Clinton admitted that he lied, but claimed it should simply be

regarded as a legal strategy.

"Southeastern Legal Foundation has been calling on the White House to make the president's legal defense public," said Glavin. "Once the duly constituted committee acts, the attorney accountability process, which is designed to be a public matter when disbarment is called for, will finally be exposed to the American public."

The American Bar Association provides guidelines to state bar associations that clearly indicate that Clinton's actions merit disbarment, according to Glavin. Actions by a lawyer in public office, such as those by Clinton, are considered to be so serious that immediate action should be taken, according to the ABA.

When a lawyer has engaged in "intentional interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud," or when "a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation," then the lawyer should be suspended "from the practice of law immediately pending a final determination of the ultimate discipline to be imposed," according to the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility in its guidelines, "Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions."

Hogue, 56, labels himself a political independent. A search of public records did not find any donations by Hogue to any political candidate. He said he could not teach his law students about ethics and yet take action when he sees "the world's most well-known lawyer" give his profession a bad name.

"Our profession is already held in low repute. The committee will confirm this perception if it doesn't disbar Bill Clinton for his conduct," said Hogue.

Hogue is a native of Little Rock and a former law professor at the University of Arkansas. He began teaching at Georgia State University in 1982.

Current University of Arkansas law professor John DiPippa does not believe Clinton should be disbarred, according to a recent editorial he wrote in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Despite Clinton's admission that he lied, and despite the contempt charges and fine issued by Wright, DiPippa maintains that Clinton should keep his law license.

The editorial staff at the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Clinton's hometown newspaper, disagrees with DiPippa and has called for disbarment in an editorial that ran side by side with DiPippa's comments.

"But he's the one who teaches legal ethics, and if his standards are the prevailing ones," said the editorial, "that might explain the number of lowlife lawyers who are still practicing in Arkansas, not to mention the occasional sullied judge. Make standards sufficiently low, and surely men will meet them."

When asked if the committee would issue a public announcement after making a decision on whether to disbar Clinton, Neal responded by saying the meeting "is one of our regular scheduled meetings. We have a public hearing or two scheduled and other business to attend to, so without reference to any particular matter that may come before the committee, the only thing that would be announced tomorrow for public dissemination would be in connection of a public hearing that may be scheduled."

He said the meeting is scheduled to last all day and may even run late -- because "we have a lot of business."

Glavin told WorldNetDaily that he expects the committee will not make a public announcement and will only send a notice of its decision to Hogue and to Clinton.

"We may not know the results until next week if they send it by mail," said Glavin.

Previous stories:

Clinton's rebuttal to disbarment action

Clinton's response to disbarment complaint

Clinton responds to disbarment charges

Should Clinton be barred?

Disbarment chief speaks out

Disbarment delay denied

Clinton seeks disbarment delay

Clinton renews law license

Clinton faces disbarment

Could Clinton be disbarred?