Yanking Bill’s license?

By David M. Bresnahan

The notice was filed late Monday after the committee voted last Friday that Clinton violated the rules of conduct for attorneys in Arkansas by lying under oath in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

“Pursuant to the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law, Section 4B(3) and 4C, you are hereby notified of the decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct to initiate disbarment proceedings against attorney William Jefferson Clinton,” wrote James A. Neal, executive director of the committee in his letter to the Supreme Court.

The second U.S. president to be impeached, Clinton has now become the first to face disbarment proceedings while still in office.

“This recommendation is wrong and clearly contradicted by precedent,” said Clinton attorney David Kendall in a prepared statement. “We will vigorously dispute it in a court of law.”

Matthew Glavin, president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, was pleased with the action and said it was “a confirmation that the legal system will police it’s own, regardless of the position held by the attorney in question.” Glavin’s foundation filed the original complaint that led to the disbarment recommendation.

The process is not over, and disbarment is not yet final; the complaint will now be heard in the Pulaski County Circuit Court. If the judge agrees with the committee and decides Clinton should be disbarred for his dishonesty, Clinton will be given a chance to appeal the case directly to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

The action comes after the Committee on Professional Conduct met to give final consideration of the complaint last Friday. The meeting took place under controversy because eight of 14 members recused themselves due to their close personal relationships with Clinton. WorldNetDaily previously reported that

many of the committee members had made donations to Clinton totaling over $16,000.

Additional controversy came out of the committee on Friday because Neal — after having has served as the committee’s executive director for over 10 years — resigned suddenly for undisclosed reasons. Neal has not responded to numerous requests for an explanation of his sudden announcement, but Reeves suggested that he might have left to seek adequate retirement benefits from another position in Arkansas state government.

Neal was heavily criticized for his failure to take action when Arkansas attorney L. Lynn Hogue first filed the complaint against Clinton in September 1998. After inaction for 17 months, Neal was forced to proceed against his will when the Arkansas Supreme Court issued him a direct order to move the case along.

Hogue represented the Southeastern Legal Foundation when he filed the complaint based on Clinton’s untruthful testimony in the Paula Jones case. Federal district court judge Susan Webber Wright later added to the complaint. As presiding judge in the Jones case, Wright issued a civil contempt citation and fine for Clinton’s misrepresentations under oath.

Neal ignored both complaints and took no action until Hogue went directly to the Arkansas Supreme Court in a historic filing that resulted in a writ of mandamus, forcing the reluctant Neal to proceed with the complaint against Clinton.

Notice of the complaint was given to Clinton 18 months after it was first filed. Clinton tried to delay the case further until he was out of office. Even though the decision on a request for a delay was the responsibility of Neal, committee chairman Kenneth Reeves stepped in and issued a letter to Clinton denying the request.

After Clinton’s response to the complaint was received, Hogue responded with a rebuttal. When it became evident that the case would be heard, committee members began to recuse themselves until only six were left to participate in the final decision.

Clinton asked the committee to sanction him with a letter of reprimand when he filed his written response to the charges against him. He argued that even though he lied under oath, he should receive consideration for leniency because of his service as Arkansas attorney general, Arkansas governor, and president of the United States. Hogue argued in his rebuttal that, because Clinton was an elected official, he should be held to a higher standard.

“The entire sad episode — the first time in American history in which a sitting president faced disciplinary proceedings — nevertheless confirms that attorney self-governance does have validity,” Glavin told WorldNetDaily.



Previous stories:
Full house trumped by recusals
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?

David M. Bresnahan

David M. Bresnahan is an investigative journalist for WorldNetDaily.com Read more of David M. Bresnahan's articles here.