May 2004
Letters to the Editor
Dept. of amplifications
Thank you for publishing the article To Be or Not to Be . . . Coached: A Profile of Coach Irene Leonard in the March 2004 edition of Bar News. I really appreciate the exposure. However, one of the statements in the article was incorrect and I would like to set the record straight.
The statement, "Now she is Washington's only International Coach Federation member coaching lawyers" is not correct. There are other members of the ICF coaching lawyers in Washington — especially nonlawyers. I am Washington's only International Coach Federation certified member that is also a lawyer coaching lawyers.
Since the article was written I have become aware of two other members of the ICF that are lawyers coaching lawyers in Washington. Their names are Barbara Jo Levy and Holly Bennet. They are members, but not certified members. There is an important distinction. Membership occurs as a result of paying a membership fee. A certified member of the ICF, on the other hand, is required to pass a rigorous certification process meeting the standards and ethics of the ICF including many hours of training and actual coaching experience in addition to paying the membership fee.
Thank you again for printing the article.
Irene Leonard
Seattle
Chill, dudes
Thomas Mengert's letter to the editor (Bar News, March 2004) spurred me to read and re-read the January Bar News and the letters published there.
For more than 30 years, I have watched our Association as it recognized, reacted to, and sooner or later adjusted to the increasingly rapid changes within and foisted on, our profession. During these years, I have observed — sometimes in wonderment, oft times with dismay — the changing meaning and use of words such as "liberal," "conservative," "moral," and "religious." Often these terms have become a cudgel by one against another's opinions or beliefs.
More recently, the "them" and "us" pronouns have been linked with the adjectives mentioned above as a way to solidify divisions in the fabric of our society and our profession. The referenced letters to the editor illustrate my point.
When one disagrees with the Bar News's editor's opinions or those of Mr. Mengert, must the reaction invoke absolute and apocalyptic predictions, solutions, and terms such as canceling a subscription, branding the News "propaganda," labeling the writer "anti-Christian," and demolition to the country's morals?
In the same January Bar News in which these damning and frightening responses appear were articles about ethnic and gender diversity in our profession; inadequate funding of the court; civil equal justice; accuseds' rights to counsel; court reporters' rules; voir dire; and, reports from various local associations. How can a magazine that devotes so much space and ink to such exchanges of information on the legal profession be perceived as "left wing"?
So, you don't like an earlier article, or editorial, or letter to the editor. For this you are willing to separate yourself from a truly noble profession and its organ? We who should be peacemakers in our society need to re-think our reactions to those with whom we disagree and the ideas and opinions they espouse. A lively and vigorous discourse reflecting these disagreements would be enjoyable and educational. On the other hand, the branding of others with these ridiculous and unjustified name tags (including, "sorts of people") the slamming of metaphorical doors, the equating of legal decisions with the destruction of our civilization, all bring rational discussion to an end, widening the gulf between "them" and "us." These divisions are already well-established and periodically manipulated in the body politic of our country. Do we need to mimic in our profession, what is so virulent and disgusting in our electoral process?
Gary W. East
Shoreline
Defiance or civil disobedience?
I support fellow WSBA member James Winterstein's concerns about Bar News editor Lindsay Thompson invoking anti-Christian bias in his October 2003 column on former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and the removal of the Ten Commandments monument. I agree with Winterstein that court decisions on the interface between religion and the state are very confused.
An ongoing debate and discussion is healthy. I cannot summarily condone Justice Moore's defiance of a federal court order, but have to say I feel a great melancholy when I see public debate focus so much on an expression of religious significance. Certainly the founders and subsequent political icons of the United States have varied in their religious zeal. But the First Amendment establishment and free exercise clauses were certainly written at a time and in the way they were to prevent a "state religion" from being established in our new country, with the inevitable suppression of free exercise of religion for some citizens. It was never meant to sterilize any public forum from an acknowledgement of, or discussion about, religion.
It is very disturbing to me that those who so eagerly employ the descriptive "right wing" of Christian beliefs fail to remember that some of the greatest civil rights leaders of our country were people of God. I need hardly mention that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian minister. He derived his inspiration from his profound belief in God.
I urge WSBA members to read President Washington's Farewell Address. There are other examples, too numerous to mention, to demonstrate that the debate over the presence of religion in our society is anything but over. Religion has been a wellspring of secular principle in our country and those who actively practice religion — Christianity in particular — have nothing to be apologetic about. Nor are we, as a group, people who can be uniformly branded as ignorant, bigoted, or narrow-minded hypocrites. Religion practiced by good people who shared in Jesus' love and tried to walk in the footsteps of Jesus has been a profound, positive influence and anchor in our society.
Although Justice Moore had to pay a price for defying a court order his might be no less an act of civil disobedience than was exercised by Rosa Parks and on a later, more grand, scale, by Martin Luther King Jr.'s historic march from Selma to Montgomery.
Robert E. Repp
Vancouver
Back to table of contents >>
