Attorney Oath is more than a ritual

“I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California…” is part of the oath that each California lawyer and Judge must take before assuming their respective positions. The idea being that you must commit yourself to our laws and our style of Government if you wish to practice law or act as a judge. So, for example, if it is your belief that the state’s power is greater than an individual’s rights and that search warrants are superfluous, then the practice of law is not for you as the Constitutions of the United States and the State of California are clear on that issue.

Similarly, the U.S. Constitution is unambiguous when it comes to how our leaders are elected: The President must win a majority of electors based on the votes in each state and lesser offices must win a majority of the votes. As such, if you do not believe that the Constitution should be binding when it comes to how our representatives are elected, then the practice of law is not for you. Afterall, it is our representatives, duly elected, who legislate the laws we all follow. It cannot be that a potential lawyer raises her hand to swear an oath to support the Constitution of the United States while simultaneously crossing her fingers with the other hand when it comes to Articles I and II of the Constitution. As practitioners of the Laws of the United States we cannot choose to follow some Constitutional mandates while ignoring those we find inconvenient. If that were so, we would not be a nation of laws but a collection of individuals subject to the whims of more powerful individuals with the ability to enforce their laws.

On Jan. 6, 2021, supporters of President Trump gathered in Washington D.C. to protest the election result which showed Joe Biden winning 7 million more popular votes and 74 more electoral votes. The former President claimed the election result was fraudulent. However, despite the Department of Justice and the FBI being administered by Donald Trump’s appointees, no evidence of fraud substantial enough to overturn the election was revealed. Regardless of those facts, the former President’s supporters forced their way through police and into the Capitol Building with the apparent purpose of physically harming politicians who did not reject the election result. Over 700 of the individuals who forcibly entered the Capitol building have been charged or convicted of crimes associated with that act. Clearly, seeking to overturn a legitimate election by force is not supportive of the Constitution of the United States and is a clear violation of the laws of the United States.

The January 6 Committee hearings currently investigating the attack on the Capitol building revealed that many lawyers offered advice to the President and others on how to overturn the election result. Clearly, there is an enormous disconnect between the oath of office each lawyer and judge must take and the goals of the insurrectionists on January 6. You cannot simultaneously claim to support the U.S. Constitution and also support those who would use force to overthrow a duly elected representative. It is important that those who practice and enforce the laws of our nation understand the importance of following all the laws in the Constitution and respect their binding nature. My criminal practice causes me to appear in court almost every day. Those experiences have led me to believe that judges and lawyers in California reflect the same divide as the population at large when it comes to the events of January 6. To that end, the State Bar of California should require every Judge and Lawyer in the State of California to attend training on the events of January 6, to include the recording of the former President’s address to the demonstrators, the graphic video of the assault on the police officers that left 140 injured and the statements of insurrectionists at their sentencing. If our nation of laws is to survive, the oath must be a real one. Not a hollow formality.