Attorneys for hire: the firing of eight qualified barristers

By Francesca Lo Basso
Collegian Editor
March 28, 2007

The recent slew of federal attorney firings has got me fired up. According to The New York Times, eight attorneys have recently been removed from their positions as U.S. prosecutors, the latest one being let go the last week of February. “Poor job performance” was the official justification for the dismissals.

There are 93 U.S. attorney districts and thus 93 U.S. attorneys, each one appointed by the president. The eight that were fired were, oddly, all Republicans. Six of the eight also had glowing evaluations of their performances submitted over the past four years.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) led a Congressional investigation to look into the matter, and discovered that the attorneys’ so-called poor job performances were anything but. The official assessments of the attorneys’ work-related functions, carried out by the Internal Justice Department, are known as Evaluations and Review Staff Reports. Each report is based on extensive interviews with other judges, federal law enforcement agencies and staff members in each attorney’s office.

A review, dated Jan. 23-27, 2006, of attorney H.E. Cummins III of Arkansas, dismissed last summer, stated, “Cummins was very competent and highly regarded by the federal, judiciary, law enforcement and civil client agencies.” A report from Feb. 7-11, 2005 of Carol C. Lam, former district attorney in San Diego, said that she was “an effective manager and respected leader in the district.” Similar language, such as “well-regarded” and “capable,” was used to describe several of the other attorneys who have been fired.

The attorneys understood that they were federally appointed, and thus capable of being removed at any time. Presidents routinely remove most of them at the beginnings of their terms; George W. Bush did this, as did Bill Clinton.

These attorneys were even willing to leave their positions quietly – until news of their inefficiency began being touted by Bush Administration officials. According to The New York Times, Paul J. McNulty, the deputy attorney general, stated at a Senate hearing in early March that most of the dismissals were carried out to correct performance problems.

Now, some of the prosecutors have stepped forward and revealed that tension with the Justice Department over death penalty cases and pending political corruption investigations may be the real motive behind their firings.

Cummins was also temporarily replaced by J. Timothy Griffin, both a military and civilian prosecutor who was closely linked to Karl Rove – the senior White House political advisor who has allegedly been linked with revealing CIA operative Valerie Wilson’s identity. For some unknown reason, Griffin has recently withdrawn himself from consideration as Cummins’ permanent replacement.

The fact that Bush has once again committed an unethical politically motivated action is not exactly news – frankly, it’s so old that it’s probably gone out of style – but that doesn’t mean one more wrongdoing should be ignored. He appointed these attorneys because he thought they would agree with him, and then when they didn’t, he canned them. The weight of evidence piled against Bush is so staggering I don’t know how he manages to get out of bed in the morning. Oh, wait, that’s right. He has a war to ill-plan and megalomaniacal tendencies to inflate. Way to go, Georgie.

lobassof1@lasalle.edu