Clinton Fights Disbarment
L I T T L E R O C K, Ark., Aug. 29, 2000 -- President Clinton said Tuesday heshould not be disbarred over his testimony in the Paula Jonessexual harassment case, telling a state judge that losing his lawlicense is too harsh a penalty.
In a five-page response to a complaint filed by the ArkansasSupreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, the president saidthat he would not receive such a stiff sanction if his case washandled like similar cases.
“On the basis of the relevant facts, the governing law and theapplicable decisions of the Arkansas courts ..., a sanction ofdisbarment would be excessively harsh, impermissibly punitive andunprecedented in the circumstances of this case,” Clinton’slawyers wrote.
Pulaski County Circuit Judge Leon Johnson said he expected toreceive Clinton’s filing Tuesday but otherwise would not discussthe case, including when it might be scheduled for a hearing ortrial.
Motivated by Embarrassment
The state conduct committee says the president lied about hisrelationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky whenasked about it, under oath, in January 1998. Jones’ lawyers askedthe president about Lewinsky while a federal judge presided overhis deposition.
In a lawsuit filed against Clinton June 30, the conductcommittee’s prosecutor accused the president of lying to sparehimself embarrassment. In the response filed Tuesday, Clinton’slawyers acknowledged that was the case.
Clinton “took actions motivated in part by a desire to protecthimself and others from embarrassment,” the lawyers wrote.
Marie-B. Miller, the prosecutor, would not comment on Clinton’sfiling. She had asked that the matter be cleared up before the endof the year when Johnson leaves office, but would not say ifTuesday’s filing would help her meet that timetable.
U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found Clinton incontempt last year and fined him more than $90,000, saying heintentionally gave misleading testimony about Lewinsky.
Clinton’s lawyers also acknowledged that the president didn’tfight the contempt citation, but said he did not do so because theneeds of the country came first.
Importance of Testimony Questioned
Jones filed suit in May 1994, alleging Clinton made a crudesexual advance toward her three years earlier in a Little Rockhotel room. Jones had hoped to use evidence of the Lewinsky affairas part of an attempt to show a pattern of predatory behavior.
Wright, however, said the Lewinsky material was not essential toJones’ case, and later dismissed Jones’ lawsuit.
Clinton’s lawyers said Tuesday that the testimony at the centerof the disbarment lawsuit was so minor that stripping the presidentof his law license would be too severe of a penalty.
Matt Glavin, president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation ofAtlanta, which had asked for Clinton’s disbarment, said afterTuesday’s filing that the proposed sanctions were not too harsh.
“In fact, they are precisely what the American Bar Associationrecommends based on this behavior,” Glavin said.
“Honesty and candor are absolute prerequisites in our bar,”Glavin said. “The Supreme Court has made it clear what’s requiredfor membership in the Arkansas bar. Mr. Clinton doesn’t meet thosestandards.”