Good enough for government work.

Good Enough for Government Work! Which of us in government has not been irritated that the expression is used in characterizing civil servants as less talented and hardworking than those outside of government? Made famous, and originating during World War II, the expression then symbolized the extraordinary effort by large numbers of government employees to build such things as ships, aircraft, and munitions to support the war effort of America and our allies. The standards for performance were rigorous and if something was good enough for government work, it met these high standards. In the ensuing years, however, the expression came to mean something quite the opposite--good enough for government work came to mean, in some circles, "just good enough." I have found no historic explanation of the how, when, and why this perspective changed but change it did.

Of course, this view is not universally held and there is some recognition that, "good enough for government work" means what it says. And, it is worth noting that since 9/11, there has been recognition by many potential government contractors or employees that the selection criteria for those contracts or positions make it abundantly clear that the standards are indeed very high.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Standards Higher, Resources Lower

In a career of 30 years in the public sector, most of that as a government lawyer, I have concluded that civil servants, and especially government lawyers, are held to and deliver on performance standards surpassing many in the private practice of law. Experientially, public lawyers are not only expected to know and argue the law but they have fewer resources than the private attorney, and they must take into account the political environment in which they perform their jobs.

Examples abound. When the government is involved in litigation with a large corporation, that corporation comes armed with a multitude of lawyers and considerable resources; the public lawyer typically responds to the litigation through his or her own work. When the private lawyer needs to review public documents, he or she can purchase the assistance of a vendor to collect and image large numbers of documents deemed necessary for the litigation, and then review them at leisure. Government lawyers, in contrast and by virtue of responsibility to taxpayers, are necessarily more circumspect before they expend funds for litigation.

Political Considerations

The public lawyer must also take into account the political environment in which legal work is being performed. A colleague recounted that a brief containing some harsh language was written by private counsel for a hospital; the public lawyer was precluded from responding in kind because of the expectation that the public lawyer perform in a manner that is beyond reproach.

Another colleague offers the following:

We also are expected, and rightly so, to project an air of professionalism--even when provoked. I can't recall the number of times that opposing counsel has taken cheap shots at my client or me. As a representative of the state, although I am expected to fight back, I must maintain the dignity of the office at all times.

Why a Government Lawyer?

The government lawyer faces these unique challenges and expectations while having to juggle other responsibilities, quickly and accurately, and for wages that are substantially less than could be obtained in the private sector. So, why then become a government lawyer? Charles Miller, a respected lawyer and senior counsel with Covington & Burling LLP, who has worked in cooperation with or in opposition to public lawyers in the human service arena, sees it this way:

For some, it may be a temporary engagement, to be used as a means of moving into a private practice position, or at least to gaining the experience of being responsible for matters sooner than would be the case in a private firm. But most of the lawyers I deal with have chosen public service as a career, and are quite devoted to it. For them, I can only think that they have defined their satisfaction goals differently (to some degree) from those on the private side. For them, a sense of advancing the public good, and of not being required to advocate for positions they do not personally embrace, is the dominant consideration.

Rather than seeing them as a negative, those of us who have chosen as a career the public service frequently find these challenges, expectations and pressures to be opportunities to have an impact on important public issues. We also have the opportunity, because of our limited resources, to work independently on the most challenging of questions, bringing personal professional satisfaction.

Government Recognition Of and Support for a High Performance Workplace

Recognizing the significance of the work the government lawyer does for the public, some agencies work to enhance the already high level of performance by their employees.

Take Minnesota, for example. The Minnesota Department of Human Services has established a Compliance Office to "support the work of DHS programs and employees by assuring accountability with all applicable requirements and appropriately managing risk in an ethical environment where integrity, trustworthiness, responsibility, respect, diversity, justice, fairness and caring are of paramount importance."

Then, there is the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, which is a central panel administrative hearing. Strong emphasis is placed on the mission of the office to fairly and impartially hear the contested matters through highly trained Administrative Law Judges. Capturing the notion of excellence in public service, a quote from Aristotle appears on the web site of the Arizona OAH: "We are what we do repeatedly. Excellence is, therefore, not an act, but a habit." It has been my privilege to have had the opportunity to work with numerous civil servants who have delivered on Aristotle's habit.

Marcia Slotnick is deputy legal counsel at the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.