Comments (51)

danger wrote on December 12, 2007 5:11 PM:

The same criteria that made a certain invocation of Godwin Time's person of the year.

drational wrote on December 12, 2007 5:29 PM:

Don't forget this comment though:

"Think about Time magazine's Person of the Year," [ABA Magazine publisher Edward] Adams said in an interview. "In years past they've named people like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin. So we're not suggesting by these awards that these are the best lawyers in any sense of the word.

PrgrsvArchitect wrote on December 12, 2007 6:02 PM:

The worse tragedy.... Stewart, Colbert, Leno, Letterman, etc are still off the air. Hundreds of lawyer jokes that will never be heard....

EH wrote on December 12, 2007 6:11 PM:

If the ABA is in fact the Time Magazine of lawyer's organizations, I guess I can't argue with his rationale.

buckley wrote on December 12, 2007 6:15 PM:

Well, if they made their person of the year someone who did something to be respected, they would have only a few nominees.

wagonjak wrote on December 12, 2007 6:25 PM:

PrgrsvArchitect-I don't want to be paranoid here (though events in the US encourage this mind set)...
but what if the Writer's Strike is being stretched out by the Studios with encouragement from the White House and its cronies to keep the "real news" from the American public in the lead-up to the election?

A complacent and docile public needs to be bottle fed the "truthiness news" by Fox News, CNN and the other cable news channels and not get it from a bunch of rabble-rouser comics like Stewart, Colbert and Letterman.

The only saving grace these days is Olberman.

Little Brøther wrote on December 12, 2007 6:28 PM:

Gonzales makes the cut for being the "most talked-about" lawyer around, not for the quality of his lawyering.
____________________________________________

The question isn't only "Why Gonzales?", the question is "why" is a title like Lawyer of the Year, which suggests an honorific, is really just a tawdry, superficial, designation for the winner of a zero-quality popularity contest.

I feel compelled to disclose that I have a very strong antipathy to commercial pageants, contests, award shows, etc. But I can at least credit an organization who bestows special recognition on someone who accomplished something in their profession-- from the low end of highest sales to loftier accomplishments and achievements.

But "Lawyer of the Year" for the schmuck who sparked the most buzz is simply perverse.

And Yet... wrote on December 12, 2007 6:32 PM:

This story is already being completely misinterpreted by Joe & Jane Public, who will just read the headliners about it & no further.

If number of news stories is the criterion, why not name the fired USAs as Lawyers of the Year, since they were all so widely publicized in national & local news following the crapfest that was/is the politicizing of DoJ under BushCo?

Lousy call, ABA Journal.

Heraldblog wrote on December 12, 2007 6:43 PM:

The legal profession needs to do a better job of policing itself, and projecting a more serious image to the lay public. This doesn't help.

JW wrote on December 12, 2007 6:47 PM:

Spare me the rationalizations, and scratch the ABA from the organizations of the (even halfway) respectable.

al in la wrote on December 12, 2007 6:57 PM:

Maybe instead of "Lawyer of the Year" they should just call him a "Person of Interest"

also (as long as I have you)

What's with the cheap shot about Alec Baldwin being "Father of the year?"

Why not Micheal Vick as American Kennel Club's Man of the Year ("PETA" would be to obvious, and besides there a bunch of assholes.)

Sully18 wrote on December 12, 2007 6:59 PM:

Jesus H.Christ,what a country!

BarnOwl wrote on December 12, 2007 7:06 PM:

Maybe the ABA did it for the shock value.
But no matter how you cut it, it's a no win proposition for them

SP Biloxi wrote on December 12, 2007 7:27 PM:

Gonzo as Lawyer of the year. They must have mention liar of the year. It must be April fools day or I need to restart my computer.

buck wrote on December 12, 2007 7:30 PM:

Was Jack Kevorkian ever the AMA's Doctor of the Year? That's probably a closer comparison than Hitler or Stalin. The latter give Fredo way too much credit.

Tyrone Biggums wrote on December 12, 2007 7:32 PM:

Aw, give Alec Baldwin some credit for Pete's sakes. He's still a better at being a father than Gonzales is at being an AG. At least he actually apologized for being a jerk to his daughter. The US Attorneys that got fired are still waiting on their apology.....^_^

Bill wrote on December 12, 2007 7:47 PM:

It just goes to show you how honest and upright the ABA is. HA HA HA They look like a bunch of idiots. It will sure look good on Abu Gonzales' criminal record.

Bill wrote on December 12, 2007 7:48 PM:

It just goes to show you how honest and upright the ABA is. HA HA HA They look like a bunch of idiots. It will sure look good on Abu Gonzales' criminal record.

Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 8:09 PM:

That explanation is rastionalizing. Most of the ABA members admire Gonzales and lawyers who break the law, as long as they get away with it. That's the highest standard of the the profession: honors to dishonest lawyers who don't get convicted.

Bokonon wrote on December 12, 2007 8:10 PM:

Infamy, incompetence and disgrace are a poor yardstick for granting someone the title "Lawyer of the Year."

As a lawyer, I am revolted at the ABA's poor judgement. Whatever rationale and excuses they use, it was a piss-poor decision that reflects very, very badly on the profession that the ABA supposedly represents.

Particularly galling is the fact that the ABA's poor judgement will make ALL lawyers look bad -- because the general public will see this as the legal profession holding Gonzalez up and exalting him.

-- Bokonon

casam wrote on December 12, 2007 8:24 PM:

This is what is wrong with society. We have got to stop making "hero's" of criminals. Get them of the @#$% news. Ignore them. Stop watching stations that show those criminals, like Kristol, Hannity , Beck, Coulter. Let's put good, honest people back in the spotlight. Don't allow criminals to write books and make big bucks, don't allow people who have committed crimes TV time. Stop watching Britney Spears and other drug junkies...what in @#$% do they offer society. Get people who look after the injured vets on TV, people who look after the homeless...
It's time for good news and stop giving those @#$% criminals any credibility.

Old fucking hippie here wants to see honest people honored!

casam wrote on December 12, 2007 8:26 PM:

This is what is wrong with society. We have got to stop making "hero's" of criminals. Get them of the @#$% news. Ignore them. Stop watching stations that show those criminals, like Kristol, Hannity , Beck, Coulter. Let's put good, honest people back in the spotlight. Don't allow criminals to write books and make big bucks, don't allow people who have committed crimes TV time. Stop watching Britney Spears and other drug junkies...what in @#$% do they offer society. Get people who look after the injured vets on TV, people who look after the homeless...
It's time for good news and stop giving those @#$% criminals any credibility.

Old fucking hippie here wants to see honest people honored!

Rick B wrote on December 12, 2007 8:35 PM:

Wow.

If you aren't already disgusted by the ethics and antics of lawyers, just look at who they present as role models for other lawyers.

tpmfan wrote on December 12, 2007 8:43 PM:

Obviously, you've never been a father. Alec Baldwin is not a poster boy for bad parenting.

Andre wrote on December 12, 2007 9:38 PM:

The word "lawyering" always makes me giggle.

I get this mental picture of men (exclusively) in expensive suits standing around in gaggles mumbling "lawyerlawyerlawyer" to each other like a rhubarb-rhubarb crowd.

No.9 wrote on December 12, 2007 10:01 PM:

Hey, in a culture bent on self-destruction like ours why is it any worse when lawyers follow the established cultural practices?

NMRon wrote on December 12, 2007 10:25 PM:

I really don't know what to say without cursing or mumbling incoherently.

nrglaw wrote on December 12, 2007 10:27 PM:

I think this was a dumb thing for the ABA to have done, precisely because it ended up in stories with headlines like this one. People look at the headline, don't read the story (you know who you are) and then post lawyer jokes.

Lawyers have simply gotten as silly as the rest of the country. There is a certain common sense to the designation Lawyer of the Year for Gonzo--he is the lawyer who has had the greatest impact this year on how our profession is viewed.

So yes, Lawyer of the Year in a weird kind of way. For most people, Lawyer of the Year is not an honorific anyway.

nrglaw

JD Glass wrote on December 12, 2007 11:19 PM:

Can this still go on his CV?

moondancer wrote on December 12, 2007 11:36 PM:

Hitler was Time Magazines' Man of the Year 1939, is this the same deal?

Helena Montana wrote on December 13, 2007 6:05 AM:

That's their standard--getting yourself talked about? No wonder I hate lawyers.

ronbon wrote on December 13, 2007 6:47 AM:

My God! Chesterfield Smith must REALLY be glad he's dead !!!

mnmlstarchitect wrote on December 13, 2007 9:26 AM:

wagonjak--
nothing wrong with being paranoid. these days it usually just means you're reaching the right conclusions a little earlier than others. I always say to consider the conspiracy first.

ihatebeets wrote on December 13, 2007 9:35 AM:

And the ABA expects to be taken seriously???? This is the same organization that rates prospective judges. The next time there's a Supreme Court vacancy and anyone on the Judiciary Committee mentions the ABA rating, remember Alberto Gonzales was their Lawyer of the Year.

casam wrote on December 13, 2007 9:43 AM:

Rick B, good site but your link doesn't work. Too many http's.

Habanero wrote on December 13, 2007 9:56 AM:

Who votes on these things?

ABA street cred in peril?

Habanero wrote on December 13, 2007 10:02 AM:

A better choice would have been coleen Rowley. She could set the award next to her TIME Magazine Person of the Year award.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley

Alguien wrote on December 13, 2007 10:31 AM:

Following the same rationale, I propose Dana Perino for the Pulitzer Prize in current events and US History.
And more importantly, Dick Cheney as "Miss Congeniality".

Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 11:00 AM:

Please cancel my subscription.

jcd wrote on December 13, 2007 11:08 AM:

A further sign of the de-professionalization of the legal profession: Chasing after sensationalistic attention (newsstand sales?!) at the expense of promoting high lawyering standards. What's next--the ABA Journal on your local Safeway checkout rack?

DHN wrote on December 13, 2007 11:09 AM:

Can I nominate Jeffrey Dahmer for America's Top Chef?

anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 12:35 PM:

Forgetting for the moment that Time is a news organization and "person of the year" doesn't rub one wrong for including an implied "newsworthy," and that it is a questionable practice by the media anyway to choose monsters for such publicity, why would a private organization like the ABA choose to celebrate the "most notorious lawyer of the year" as "lawyer of the year" when it is not clear that "lawyer of the year" should imply "newsworthy" or "notorious" or any other implication other than a lawyer who best contributed to the profession.

The ABA's action is scurrilous and indefensible, as most of the public will not understand this as anything other than some kind of praise, redemption, or justification for Gonzales.

King wrote on December 13, 2007 12:40 PM:

As I said at the ABA site, I completely agree with those lawyers who have said they will quit/non-renew their ABA memberships over this. And let’s be clear about one thing: the ABA Journal knew exactly what it was doing here; it took the damage to the profession over the intentionally caused outrage as an acceptable price to create some buzz for their publication. That is totally unaaceptable to me and, I suspect, the majority of their readership. Indeed, calling it “Lawyer of the Year” but then explaining that it’s not meant to be an honor is, in and of itself, a disgraceful example of what everybody hates about lawyers. But don’t be fooled: there was no unintentional confusion here. It was a premeditated magazine sales strategy at the expense of all the lawyers who are trying to create a positive message about the profession.

JaDe wrote on December 13, 2007 1:19 PM:

There's no such think as BAD PUBLICITY

Alguien wrote on December 13, 2007 3:06 PM:

DHN wrote on December 13, 2007 11:09 AM:
Can I nominate Jeffrey Dahmer for America's Top Chef?

Of course! But only if you agree to give Britney Spears the "Mother of the Year" award and Texaco the "Greenest Company in America" distinction.

Argie wrote on December 13, 2007 3:11 PM:

Could someone please clarify this for me:
Is it LAWYER of the year or LIAR of the year...?
[I am hoping it's the battery in my hearing aid that's failing!]

phil james wrote on December 13, 2007 6:49 PM:

Simply put, Gonzo was under enormous pressure from Congress in multiple televised sessions to name names and give up his main client--no, no, not the American people--but Dubya and anyone connected to him, and he in fact never did. That must be the standard for lawyer of the year. It's not the scumbag you defend that makes or breaks you its the kudo's you get for obfuscating, blathering, lying, forgetting, or whatever other techniques you apply to hose the prosecution. In that context he certainly performed admirably since everyone knew that was his real job...not advancing the cause of justice in America. Congratulations ABA you have shown your true colors!

Waiting in Texas wrote on December 13, 2007 8:18 PM:

BTW, the story has been pulled from the ABA's site. I sent in a comment last night and their editor wrote me back wanting to talk with me via telephone on my thoughts about the story.

parrot wrote on December 13, 2007 11:18 PM:

Libby doesn't count since he is no longer a lawyer. As for the rest, we can only hope...

Jamey wrote on December 14, 2007 5:25 PM:

Sorry to be a grammar prig, but headline should read "...sinks FURTHER into ignominy."

Farther = actual measure of distance, comparative
Further = metaphorical distance

And what's the ABA's beef? He's NOT a lawyer?

JNagarya wrote on December 28, 2007 8:34 PM:

Is this the same ABA that unanimously condemned the use of torture [which is defined in law as being a war crime]?

The author at the center of which use was none other than Gonzales?

What is the ABA trying to tell us? That dealing with lawyers is torture?

Didn't we all already know that?