Pa Bar Sign-on Letter

Dear Pennsylvania Bar Association: We, the undersigned students of Berkeley Law, write to petition the Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee to conduct a full and thorough investigation into the conduct of Mr. John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice (2001-2003), current professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. The legal advocacy of John Yoo, which purported to authorize torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees, directly facilitated gross violations of core human rights and civil liberties. The ethical violations alleged are so severe that they implicate not only the integrity of the legal profession, but also the very basis of the rule of law. As directed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, the Disciplinary Board must carefully examine members of the State Bar who may have (a) failed to meet the scope and objectives of legal representation, and (b) failed to exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. Rule 1.2(d) states: that “A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.” Rule 2.01 provides that “[i]n representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice.” There is no valid legal precedent that supports Mr. Yoo’s arguments advocating torture, and, in fact, all well-established law holds to the contrary. The memos authored by Mr. Yoo are not concerned with the question of minimal due process protections for detainees, nor do they fairly represent relevant case law, such as previous prosecutions of those who employed waterboarding. As such, Mr. Yoo’s advocacy was not made in “good faith” as required by Rule 1.2 (d). Instead of exercising “independent professional judgment” and rendering “candid advice,” Mr. Yoo was deeply engaged in the actual application of torture. He failed to provide “good faith” analysis of the applicable law bearing on the practices in question, and he did not consult with his client, President Bush, regarding legal limitations on the president’s conduct. The seriousness of these complaints demands a thorough and rigorous investigation by the Pennsylvania Bar. As students of the law, our education and our future life’s work depend on the ethical legitimacy of the legal profession and the preservation of its foundation in the pursuit of justice. Condoning through inaction transgressions as fundamental as those alleged of John Yoo communicates a dangerous message to the next generation of lawyers and society as a whole. Respectfully submitted,