Why respecting the judiciary and rule of law is essential for a fair legal system

As licensed California attorneys, we each took an oath necessary for our admission to the State Bar. We affirmed that we would "support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California." We also affirmed that we would "faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney and counselor at law to the best of [each of our] knowledge and ability...[and would] strive to conduct [ourselves] with dignity, courtesy and integrity."

Our oath is more than mere words. It is more than a "checkbox" to practice law in California. It has profound implications. As attorneys, we are uniquely positioned to uphold and support the laws of California and the United States. We advocate zealously for our clients but we are obligated to do so within the bounds of existing law, or with a good faith basis for a change in the law. As attorneys, no one has more experience than we do with the frustration of rulings that we find wrong-headed or the long, at times, arduous process of appeal. But we would not put our whole careers into the work we do, and our system could not have the earned confidence of its people, without the boundaries of our legal system.

Our oath is also an entrée into the inner workings of the administration of justice and, yes, the day-to-day workings of the rule of law. In our roles, we watch as Superior Court judges with close to 1000 cases on each of their dockets routinely provide deeply reasoned and highly intellectual rulings day in and day out. Win or lose, agree or disagree, in the Federal and California trial or the appellate courts, there is never even the grain of a thought that a given matter was decided by anything other than the facts and the law. No politics, no influence, and nothing other than the merits of the matter before the court. Every person in this State who comes before the courts needs to believe that which is true: The judiciary provides a fair forum for anyone who comes before it. We are motivated to write this piece because we believe in the fairness provided by the Judicial Branch above all else.

In the past few years and building to a crescendo at the time in which we are writing, we have all observed citizen advocates, politicians, talk show pundits, and critics attacking individual judges for rulings with which they disagree. This has come from both sides of the political aisle. Now more than ever, it has become all too common to question a ruling based on who appointed the judge writing it, or to cry impeachment or corruption in response to an unpopular opinion or a perceived trajectory of the courts. Making matters worse, those advocating these positions (again, from all political persuasions) often have no formal legal training, are unable to explain our essential system of checks and balances, and do not appreciate or understand the principles of apolitical judicial review enunciated in Marbury v. Madison - the significance of which we all studied before we qualified to take the aforementioned oath.

To be clear, the authors of this piece do not believe, as do some, that the rule of law is teetering on the verge of destruction. We are confident that our system of government is strong enough to support the integrity and independence of the judiciary and our long-standing principles of judicial process and review.

That being said, we note with concern the trends discussed above, and we feel strongly that respecting (and protecting) the rule of law requires that we reaffirm ourselves to the following principles:

A judge is not corrupt or biased simply because they may issue orders with which we disagree. Again, every attorney knows what it's like to disagree strongly with an order - especially one that finds against our client in spite of much hard work and legal advocacy. But we always respect the court, even if we reject its findings. In today's discourse, it's too easy for any citizen to make a cheap attack. It may be direct, such as using words like "biased" or "corrupt." Or it may be subtle, like casually referencing the fact that the judge was appointed by X Democrat or Y Republican. What we fail - or refuse - to recognize is that judges are highly intellectual and dedicated civil servants who take their independent professional obligations seriously, and who are striving to achieve the correct legal result in any given matter.

A judge deserves respect for the judicial office they hold. The position of a judge is exactly that - it is a position and an office, something bigger than the person temporarily occupying those chambers. It is borrowed, not owned. Even if we tend not to especially respect the individual sitting in that seat at any particular time, we must never lose respect for the significance of the position that is assumed in those chambers - a champion in doing the very difficult work of determining the rights of those who appear before them. A judge is tasked with the massive responsibility of faithfully and consistently interpreting and applying the laws of the land, and we cannot cherry-pick which officeholders to treat with respect: Win or lose on any given issue each and every Judge in each and every court deserves no less than absolute deference and respect.  

The law is timeless. At a micro level, the law is intended, in part, to resolve disputes between individual parties, between the government and private parties, or between governments themselves. It is an established framework of rules by which those disputes may be decided. At a macro level, the rule of law is not limited to a determination of individual disagreements. It is a timeless - some would even say living - body intended to provide consistent legal application over time. Laws change at the behest of the Executive and Legislative branches, and the interpretation of those laws may change with the times, but the application and interpretation of those laws are meant to be inherently fair, consistent, and unbiased.

The judiciary is extraordinary: Of the three branches of government, the judicial branch stands alone as an independent institution that is as free as humanly possible from bias and political interference. In California, and in the Federal and State Courts in Los Angeles in particular, the judiciary is beyond extraordinary considering the number and scope of matters the courts handle with professionalism and impartiality at all times. Attacks on the courts or the bench rooted in political motivations, or even a lack of understanding of our system, are dangerous, harmful, and unjustified, diminishing the legal and moral authority of the judiciary and in the process diminishing our society itself.

It is a rare person who is completely apolitical or who holds no views on current and historical events. But our responsibility as attorneys who have sworn to the sacred oath is never to allow those political views to overshadow our respect for the inalienable aspects of the rule of law, the judiciary, and the place it holds in our system of government of review and oversight, whether we agree with any individual decision or not.