I know you wrote about appearing in front of the other judges later, but do you think you attempts to get help affected your career or practice (or that of your co-clerk) either positively or negatively?
I absolutely understand your anger. I don't think they knew what to do either, any more than your judge knew how to get help. It's a very isolating thing to be on that side of the bench, as you kind of pointed out. There isn't a lot of places you can go, and if you do, it risks becoming a huge fucking shitshow everywhere.
Maybe these judges read the situation and because they didn't see an angle to make a difference, they didn't. I might have more mercy on them, and definitely for yourself. It was an impossible situation. Not all problems have a solution.
Sorry you had to learn that early lesson, but at least the story of the narrator has a happy outcome. He went on to have a pretty fantastic carrier, married, kids, etc.
Ken -- thank you for your article and the courage you showed as a young lawyer.
Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers https://www.lclma.org/ started in Boston in 1978 and has been the model for other states' programs for members of the legal profession with substance abuse and mental health issues. I would hope that had your judge been on the bench today, he would have been referred to a committee on judicial conduct and then required to seek treatment.
I teared up reading this. You brought back a lot of memories for me being a woman and in similar situations was told I was "bossy" or "acting like a mother". I was recently told by a departing boss that I shouldn't be so passionate about causes/cases I believe in because people would like me more. I am so sorry you went through this, but grateful that you shared it. I somehow feel that I'm in a good club of people now. I wish I could share a similar story but unfortunately the actors are still living and still practicing lawyers.
I know this story. I was a high-functioning alcoholic in an industry where drinking was an accepted part of the culture. I got worse and my work suffered and there were real consequences. It took me years to build up the courage to confront my problem and I had to nuke my career to get on the path to sobriety.
In my opinion, you did the right thing. Alcoholism is insidious and alcoholics are not reliable reporters of their own lives, but it is still their responsibility to perform the duties that they have taken upon themselves. You tried to help this man and then held appropriate boundaries when his behavior threatened your shared responsibilities in an industry that requires the highest level of professionalism.
As for the other people in this story, they failed to do their duty, morally and ethically. Alcohol and the law has a long history, but even then people knew there were boundaries. They were part of the culture and may have seen a little of this judge in themselves and therefore failed to act, but no excuses are acceptable.
One of the fundamental problems of any hierarchy is that insights into its failures are usually better perceived by people lower within its ranks with the least ability to rectify the situation. It's an age old critique: people who have the most ability in these situations are those whose primary incentives encourage politely acknowledging institutional failures without acting on them in any meaningful way.
However, and I think this might be useful(?), the higher-ups usually cannot understand the real *meaning* of those failures seen from afar. As in, they literally just cannot process that information from their position. I wouldn't be surprised if, from the senior judges' perspectives, they actually were doing all they could (reasonably) do about the situation, and they were making wise and rational decisions given the information they had. Even ignoring selfish motivations not to rabblerouse, the stream of information they had as a higher-up didn't enable them to make what seems from a bird's eye view to be the obvious rational decision. The senior judges were irreparably blinded to the problem because, from their perspective, the polite nodding and refusal to meaningfully intervene *was the system working exactly as intended*, with the little hiccup of some anxious little clerks who had little problems best solved by the little people. If it helps you process the rage any better, I'd offer the explanation that blindness was just as big a factor as cowardice. Maybe this wasn't just the fault of all those individual actors, but also a natural mechanical consequence of the judicial system's structure making the necessary minor internal reforms you demanded being seen as impractical and irrational by the major actors. Rote impotence and blindness are lesser sins than cowardice or neglect. That's what I have tried to tell myself, at least.
Ken - you're a great writer and as a great writer, you give a heartachingly account that must have caused a few sleepless nights, even long after the events in question.
Sometimes it's hard to do the right thing, but doing the right thing makes it easier to do more right things down the road. Thanks for sharing.
Your comment about leaving, “this situation to kids to navigate, let kids risk their careers, left the ugly dirty work and the hard decisions for kids,” reminded me of Cassidy Hutchinson. What a brave woman and public servant in the presence of older men who knew better and should done something. Thank you for sharing your story.
What's supposed to happen in this situation, from a legal/system perspective? Could anyone have forcibly removed them for derelict of their duties? Do any jurisdictions criminalise such behaviour by judges?
Thank you for writing this and shining a light on the failures of those who had the responsibility to act. When we are given responsibility and power we must act to insure that we don’t abuse that power or allow others to abuse their power. I know it was hard for those judges, but that’s their job.
The story ought not to be about the writer, who placed himself at the centre of events. He does not know the steps that other judges took, or that the judge tried to take himself and yet judges hem.
It was not for the writer to take upon himself the responsibility and power to dictate terms to the judge for whom he clerked. It was to serve. To serve, to show loyalty and keep the show-on-the-road.
This is yet another story where someone young has taken it upon themselves to be the most important person, whilst simultaneously the least important and abused. It is the paradigm of an American viewpoint - concerned only with oneself and with no concept of putting one’s feelings, thoughts and judgments second.
All in all, a thoroughly American and, sadly, distasteful telling.
An alternative view might be that the law clerk is not, ultimately, the servant of the judge, but of the court (which is after all the entity that is paying him); and as an officer of that court, the clerk has a higher duty to address concerns when judicial misconduct places the interests of justice at risk, as was the case here.
"I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."
And somewhat less American and much more distasteful telling.
I’m trying out comments for the first time. Comments attempting to identify any of the people in this post will be deleted.
Enraging on so many levels. NOW, what would you do differently? Are there new systems in place for drug testing, etc? Please say yes!
Definitely not.
There are absolutely none.
Drug testing is a punitive measure, and rarely applied to those in senior or even mid level positions.
I know you wrote about appearing in front of the other judges later, but do you think you attempts to get help affected your career or practice (or that of your co-clerk) either positively or negatively?
Not that I perceived.
To do as much as you did took immense courage. Don't beat yourself up.
What a hard story. I get why it haunts you.
I absolutely understand your anger. I don't think they knew what to do either, any more than your judge knew how to get help. It's a very isolating thing to be on that side of the bench, as you kind of pointed out. There isn't a lot of places you can go, and if you do, it risks becoming a huge fucking shitshow everywhere.
Maybe these judges read the situation and because they didn't see an angle to make a difference, they didn't. I might have more mercy on them, and definitely for yourself. It was an impossible situation. Not all problems have a solution.
Sorry you had to learn that early lesson, but at least the story of the narrator has a happy outcome. He went on to have a pretty fantastic carrier, married, kids, etc.
Powerful story. You were very brave. You took a stand. You should be proud of yourself.
Ken -- thank you for your article and the courage you showed as a young lawyer.
Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers https://www.lclma.org/ started in Boston in 1978 and has been the model for other states' programs for members of the legal profession with substance abuse and mental health issues. I would hope that had your judge been on the bench today, he would have been referred to a committee on judicial conduct and then required to seek treatment.
I teared up reading this. You brought back a lot of memories for me being a woman and in similar situations was told I was "bossy" or "acting like a mother". I was recently told by a departing boss that I shouldn't be so passionate about causes/cases I believe in because people would like me more. I am so sorry you went through this, but grateful that you shared it. I somehow feel that I'm in a good club of people now. I wish I could share a similar story but unfortunately the actors are still living and still practicing lawyers.
Hi Ken,
I know this story. I was a high-functioning alcoholic in an industry where drinking was an accepted part of the culture. I got worse and my work suffered and there were real consequences. It took me years to build up the courage to confront my problem and I had to nuke my career to get on the path to sobriety.
In my opinion, you did the right thing. Alcoholism is insidious and alcoholics are not reliable reporters of their own lives, but it is still their responsibility to perform the duties that they have taken upon themselves. You tried to help this man and then held appropriate boundaries when his behavior threatened your shared responsibilities in an industry that requires the highest level of professionalism.
As for the other people in this story, they failed to do their duty, morally and ethically. Alcohol and the law has a long history, but even then people knew there were boundaries. They were part of the culture and may have seen a little of this judge in themselves and therefore failed to act, but no excuses are acceptable.
Sad story all around.
One of the fundamental problems of any hierarchy is that insights into its failures are usually better perceived by people lower within its ranks with the least ability to rectify the situation. It's an age old critique: people who have the most ability in these situations are those whose primary incentives encourage politely acknowledging institutional failures without acting on them in any meaningful way.
However, and I think this might be useful(?), the higher-ups usually cannot understand the real *meaning* of those failures seen from afar. As in, they literally just cannot process that information from their position. I wouldn't be surprised if, from the senior judges' perspectives, they actually were doing all they could (reasonably) do about the situation, and they were making wise and rational decisions given the information they had. Even ignoring selfish motivations not to rabblerouse, the stream of information they had as a higher-up didn't enable them to make what seems from a bird's eye view to be the obvious rational decision. The senior judges were irreparably blinded to the problem because, from their perspective, the polite nodding and refusal to meaningfully intervene *was the system working exactly as intended*, with the little hiccup of some anxious little clerks who had little problems best solved by the little people. If it helps you process the rage any better, I'd offer the explanation that blindness was just as big a factor as cowardice. Maybe this wasn't just the fault of all those individual actors, but also a natural mechanical consequence of the judicial system's structure making the necessary minor internal reforms you demanded being seen as impractical and irrational by the major actors. Rote impotence and blindness are lesser sins than cowardice or neglect. That's what I have tried to tell myself, at least.
Ken - you're a great writer and as a great writer, you give a heartachingly account that must have caused a few sleepless nights, even long after the events in question.
Sometimes it's hard to do the right thing, but doing the right thing makes it easier to do more right things down the road. Thanks for sharing.
Your comment about leaving, “this situation to kids to navigate, let kids risk their careers, left the ugly dirty work and the hard decisions for kids,” reminded me of Cassidy Hutchinson. What a brave woman and public servant in the presence of older men who knew better and should done something. Thank you for sharing your story.
What's supposed to happen in this situation, from a legal/system perspective? Could anyone have forcibly removed them for derelict of their duties? Do any jurisdictions criminalise such behaviour by judges?
Thank you for writing this and shining a light on the failures of those who had the responsibility to act. When we are given responsibility and power we must act to insure that we don’t abuse that power or allow others to abuse their power. I know it was hard for those judges, but that’s their job.
I disagree with the consensus.
The story ought not to be about the writer, who placed himself at the centre of events. He does not know the steps that other judges took, or that the judge tried to take himself and yet judges hem.
It was not for the writer to take upon himself the responsibility and power to dictate terms to the judge for whom he clerked. It was to serve. To serve, to show loyalty and keep the show-on-the-road.
This is yet another story where someone young has taken it upon themselves to be the most important person, whilst simultaneously the least important and abused. It is the paradigm of an American viewpoint - concerned only with oneself and with no concept of putting one’s feelings, thoughts and judgments second.
All in all, a thoroughly American and, sadly, distasteful telling.
An alternative view might be that the law clerk is not, ultimately, the servant of the judge, but of the court (which is after all the entity that is paying him); and as an officer of that court, the clerk has a higher duty to address concerns when judicial misconduct places the interests of justice at risk, as was the case here.
All technicality without substance. An American distinction without a difference.
We may have to differ on whether the interests of justice are technical or substantive concerns of the judicial branch.
As with most Americans - enough about me, let’s talk about me.
I guess you just don't like the new comments, and are trying to get them turned off again?
No.
AFLC: that was beautifully expressed!
"I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."
And somewhat less American and much more distasteful telling.
Whose point of view is he supposed to take in a personal story?
Thank you for telling this story! A minor nitpick, pretty sure this is a typo: "I tell myself those things because if I don’t, it get too angry."