On politics: ATLA's duty to inform.

Although it was originally my intention to devote this column to an analysis of the impact of the presidential election on ATLA's legislative agenda, because of the incredible series of events that began to unfold on November 7, that review will have to wait for another day.

Instead, I'd like to share some personal thoughts I've formed about ATLA leadership's proper role in the national political process--views significantly refined by my experiences over the past few months as your president and by the large number of responses I've received to the various "ATLA member alerts" distributed before the election.

Trust me, I have learned from these many hundreds of thoughtful (and occasionally angry) letters and e-mails stating your views about leadership's active participation in political matters that ATLA lawyers are neither homogenous nor reticent about their political philosophies. Without a doubt, among members of our trial lawyer community, few things are more personal or deeply held than political beliefs.

One e-mail states the issue bluntly: "I am totally shocked that our association would attempt to tell a member how to vote." Bear with me as I reflect on this issue and try to answer questions raised by so many of you during this tumultuous time in our country's history.

Should ATLA leadership recommend candidates? Contrary to common belief, our membership is remarkably bipartisan, and this threshold issue presents a fundamental dilemma. Yet, it goes without saying, and ATLA's mission statement makes it clear, that our first organizational obligation is to ensure that "the constitutional right to trial by jury" is preserved and protected. Indeed, our Board of Governors recently adopted a long-range plan whose first goal directs that ATLA must "remain an effective and powerful force to preserve and promote the civil justice system." ATLA officers thus have a duty to further this clear mandate.

Since both the legislative and executive branches of our government have asserted an increasing role in shaping the civil justice system, how can we accomplish that lofty goal without recommending candidates who might :sometimes (or often) assert views that are contrary to the personal beliefs of our individual members? It seems obvious that to succeed in our mission we must, at a minimum, inform our members about the stated and historical positions of candidates on civil justice issues and ensure that individuals whose views mirror ours are elected to positions that will further our collective ideal of fundamental fairness in the legal system.

If we sit on the sidelines and don't actively participate in the process, we will have defaulted to the enemies of open access to justice and failed to protect the interests of our clients. That alternative is, in my judgment, completely unacceptable.

Are we really bipartisan? Here's another e-mail comment: "Please be aware that many ATLA members are Republicans. I value my membership in this organization but have to object to my dues being used to support Democratic candidates."

That's a no-brainer: ATLA leadership has consistently supported candidates of both political parties who are committed to furthering the association's goals. Indeed, ATLA PAC and ATLA's List have strongly urged our members to contribute to Republicans who have opposed the tort "reform" agenda of the organized tortfeasor lobby.

As stated previously in this column, we must work harder to secure the trust of our Republican friends and assure them that our agenda is a public agenda, not a partisan one. If you are a Republican trial lawyer and want to help in this endeavor, contact me and I'll put you to work!

What about Ralph Nader? By a long shot, the most letters I received were from members responding to my comments about the potential effect of Ralph Nader's candidacy on the outcome of the presidential election. (Boy, was that clairvoyant!) Typical comments: "How dare you suggest that a vote for Nader is anything other than a vote for Nader?" and `Your claim that voting for Ralph Nader could help to enact federal tort `reform' is pathetic."

Yet, I felt it was my personal obligation as ATLA president (and a longtime admirer of Ralph's) to be sure that the impact of his candidacy on the eventual outcome of the presidential election was not overlooked. The urgency of this message was underscored by the fact that, in my many years as a political observer, I can't remember a presidential election where one of the national party candidates has made sweeping tort "reform" such a centerpiece issue. To sit quietly on the sidelines would have been, in my judgment, a breach of ATLA leadership's duty to inform members of the consequences of a Nader vote on the future of the civil justice system.

So what's the bottom line? It's clear that we aren't all alike and that what I or anyone else at ATLA has to say about any candidate may have little or no effect on the outcome of any election and the ultimate makeup of the executive and legislative branches of government. But then again, it might. I'm convinced that remaining silent is not a viable option for ATLA's leaders. Thanks for not remaining silent with your views on this important issue.