Letters to the Editor

      PRO BONO V. LOW BONO
      While I appreciate the desire to give a pro bono award, I find it a bit pretentious to give the award to an attorney from a law firm with 700 attorneys ["The Angel Awards," December]. As I am sure you are aware, big law firms have attorneys who can do more hours of pro bono work than a sole practitioner, primarily because the big law firm uses associates to get the work done. We sole practitioners, on the other hand, do everything ourselves. There are no associates to do the "grunt work." There are no clients paying $500 or more per hour.
      Sole practitioners give their time and energy on focused projects that help low-income individuals. Most of their work is "low bono," a term that was introduced to me by Lovely Dhillon, executive director of the Law School Consortium Project.
      A sole practitioner is never going to be able to give the time and resources to pro bono work that a big-firm attorney can give. Therefore, in the future, you may want to consider a separate award for sole practitioners.
      Jonathan G. Stein
      Elk Grove
     
      "LOW TIDE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW"
      The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) profiled in the December issue ["Californians
      at the Hague"] paints a deceptive picture of justice being dispensed. In fact, the ICTY is a miserable excuse for a court and should not be held up as an example to be emulated. Defendants accused of serious crimes including genocide lack even the most basic rights?foremost being those of a speedy trial and the right to adequate discovery and investigation.
      The ICTY's main defendant, Slobodan Milosevic, died before his drawn-out trial concluded, and now Dr. Vojislav Seselj, the other major Serb defendant, is in grave danger of death due to a hunger strike. Dr. Seselj's trial has been delayed for several years while the ICTY has engaged in a comic-opera dilemma regarding the right to self-representation that could have been resolved by any California judge using rudimentary rules of criminal procedure within 15 minutes. The ICTY lacks basic safeguards for defendants and often pursues a political rather than criminal agenda.
      The ICTY will be remembered as the low tide of international law, and until such time as the International Criminal Court shows some understanding of basic criminal procedure, the U.S. government and people are well served by abstaining from participation there too.
      Dr. Jonathan Levy
      Committee for Vojislav Seselj's Defense
      Hilton Head Island, South Carolina
     
      SERRA'S DETRACTORS 
      Apparently the only reason California Lawyer didn't give Tony Serra an Angel Award is that he's in prison ["Letter from Lompoc," December]. Serra's picture is plastered all over the December issue, along with his "manifesto" for prison reform. Peter Allen's editorial gushes over this "charismatic" and impulsive rebel. Serra's tedious, self-serving rant is neither novel nor original.
      The obvious implication is that certain individuals really are above the law and shouldn't be punished. Serra is in prison, sure, but only because he was indifferent about paying his taxes! California Lawyer never uses the words "convict" or "convicted" to describe its hero, who has lost weight watering plants at Lompoc. Your glowing depiction of Serra as a legal Robin Hood is an affront to ordinary Americans who are not indifferent about paying their taxes and generally obeying the law.
      Amy Lyons
      Los Angeles
     
      Almost every American pays federal and state income taxes. Violators are relatively few, especially in comparison to other countries. J. Tony Serra, no matter his qualities of heart and mind, is, however, one of those who believe that he can with relative impunity defy duly enacted income-tax requirements. And you provide, with implicit approbation, a forum for an attorney sworn to obey the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the state of California who thumbed his nose at the law in the 1970s and again in this century. You set a shameful example for over 160,000 State Bar readers.
      Quentin L. Kopp
      Judge of the Superior Court (Ret.)
      San Mateo County
     
      Serra complains about the lack of books in prison, yet he is incarcerated because he willfully failed to pay the very taxes that pay for said books. What a hypocrite. The State Bar should never reinstate him.
      Don Rory
      Los Angeles
     
      Tony Serra's "Letter from Lompoc" was hilarious. He expresses shock and dismay that the objective of prison is "punishment." Message to Tony: You're in prison, not summer camp.
      Tony pines for the good old days of the '60s and '70s, when the purpose of prison was "rehabilitation." However, Tony's residence in Lompoc suggests that rehabilitation was not all it was cracked up to be, at least in his case.
      Tony laments that "not one prisoner ... believes he has been treated fairly by the judicial system." He calls for the elimination of "all prison-camp facilities," and he calls for probation for first-time offenders, apparently without regard for the crime committed. These are the sentiments of any and every common criminal. To dress them up as the deep thoughts of an enlightened, radical, social activist/criminal defense attorney who is championing the rights of the downtrodden in our society insults the intelligence of the inmates with whom Tony is privileged to serve, as if they were too stupid to come up with these mundane ideas by themselves.
      Tony postulates that "[t]he mark of a dysfunctional society is the magnitude of its prison population." However, as Tony's letter states at the outset, he chose to commit his crime-twice, no less. It seems that Tony is the one who is dysfunctional, and it seems that Tony himself is contributing to the burgeoning prison population by choosing to be a repeat offender.
      Tony ends his missive with "[W]hen I am released I promise I will attack!" I think this is unlikely, as he probably will be "medicating" himself on medical marijuana and catching up on all those missed conjugal visits.
      Mark E. Abramson
      Chicago
     
      The law and society are benefited by activist counsel who believe passionately in their clients' causes and who, within the bounds of the law, act zealously to represent them. To be sure, none should doubt that attorney Serra will indeed do what he can to attack the evils he identifies. But will he also attack the rule of law?
      Part of the sentence imposed on Serra, by a judge who said Serra is not above the rule of law, is the obligation to pay to the federal government (which runs Lompoc and similar institutions) $100,000 at the rate of $1,500 per month once he is out of prison. Come about March 15, he should be released from his ten months' incarceration. Perhaps his first payment will be due on April 15. He writes that prison in the '60s and '70s meant rehabilitation and that now it means only punishment. When Serra attacks, will he feel punished or rehabilitated? Come April 15, all who admire him will know.
      Stephen Ehat
      Lindon, Utah
     
      TONY SERRA RESPONDS: I find that being steamed by adversaries is ennobling. I believe that most of my life I've been appreciative of the reciprocity of oppositionals, sort of an intuitive yin/yang of perception: The vigor of the adversary elevates the meaningfulness of the protagonist. I used to box for Stanford when I was a student there, and an aggressive opponent always stimulated my prowess and enhanced my fisticuffs. I've been doing jury trials for 41 years now, and it's been prosecution tactics that have defined my strategies.
      Therefore, in regard to passionate detractors to my prison-reform platitudes, I thank them for the accentuation of the issue, thereby increasing the magnitude of their meaning. With respect to the ad hominem attacks, such are always the last resort of the defeated to diffuse the thrust of the substantive premise.
     
      THE FOLLY OF OUR WAYS
      EDITOR'S NOTE: The following letter regards an item in December's "The Legal Follies 2006" about a former popcorn factory worker who blamed his lung disease on the butter flavoring used. Also, the defendant in the suit was the flavoring manufacturer, not the factory owner. California Lawyer regrets the error.
     
      You are joking about something that is a life-or-death issue, because diacetyl, the chemical additive involved, is applied to popcorn ["Kernel of Truth," The Legal Follies]. Here's how the Sacramento Bee described what diacetyl does ["Investigative Report: Flavoring agent destroys lungs," July 30, 2006]: "The lung disease is as bad as its name suggests: bronchiolitis obliterans. It's a condition that literally obliterates the bronchioles?the lungs' tiniest airways?resulting in drastically reduced breathing capacity ... The disease permanently disabled dozens of popcorn workers and killed at least three, according to the doctors."
      I don't blame you for not knowing more?you are not required to be omniscient to put together a collection of humorous items. But you can do justice to the issue?and maybe even help the people exposed to this chemical?by giving your readers some of the facts about this horrible, and avoidable, disease.
      Henry M. Willis
      Los Angeles
     
      OTHERS DO DISAGREE
      In 20 years of membership in the State Bar, I have never felt the need to send a response to an In Pro Per article, but I am compelled to do so regarding "Keeping Secrets" that appeared in December. How Rich Merritt can even type the words "others would disagree" that failing to disclose a planned memoir that "briefly described" a legal professional's involvement in gay adult videos is not a lie of omission is beyond this reader's understanding. Merritt kept his uncomfortable human secrets from his employers when he went through the interview process, yet he feels it is fair to publicly malign his employer when they fire him for withholding this truth. If Merritt feels that he needs to publish a manuscript that discloses these "destructive behaviors" to "move past" them, that is his decision, not his law firm's. It seems especially unfair to deride a Georgia law firm for firing a gay former porn star who has obtained employment under false pretenses.
      Al Webber
      Stockton
     

---