Attorney General
Ex-AG Gonzales Shunned by Law Firms—and Apparently by Bush
Posted Aug 10, 2009 5:39 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, still under investigation for his role in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, has been accused of being loyal to a fault to the man who appointed him, former President George W. Bush.
Now Gonzales isn’t hearing from Bush—or from law firms wanting to extend job offers. In a question-and-answer interview with the New York Times magazine, Gonzales says he has been tempted to pick up the phone to say hello to the former president. “I do, of course, think about our time together, and there are times when I think about doing that,” Gonzales told the Times. “But listen, I know that he has his life to live. I’ve got challenges and my life to live as well.”
Gonzales acknowledges in the interview that his reputation has taken a hit by his service as attorney general—but he doesn’t believe it is deserved. “It has had an effect, a negative effect, no question about it, and at times it makes me angry because it is undeserved. But I don’t want to sound like I am whining. At the end of the day, I’ve been the attorney general of the United States. It’s a remarkable privilege, and I stand behind my service.”
The privilege, however, has made it difficult for Gonzales to find a job with a law firm. “Listen, I’ve had some interest and I’ve had some discussions, but there has been no offer made,” he told the Times. “In a tough economic climate, I can understand why a company or a firm would want to make sure that the investigations are complete and there is no finding of wrongdoing before they make a hiring decision.”
Gonzales told the interviewer that his legal bills are “substantial” and “obviously it’s been a burden.” He has established a legal defense fund and he has a new job, teaching a political science course at Texas Tech University and helping the school recruit minorities. He also says he is writing a book that goes into some of the details about why he resigned as attorney general—but so far, he has not found a publisher.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
- NU Law Dean Adjusts 'Super Lawyers' Rankings to Reflect Law School Size
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Aug 10, 2009 6:19 AM CST
How can he not realize that the issue is HOW he “served” as Attorney General? I’ll bet all the other past AGs are gainfully employed.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Aug 10, 2009 8:29 AM CST
Comment removed by moderator.
Flag this comment
Abraham Ben Judea
Aug 10, 2009 8:57 AM CST
Here comes the onion skinned moderator.
Flag this comment
Paul the Magyar
Aug 10, 2009 10:38 AM CST
Gonzales’ loyalty to Bush became the issue. In the famous Saturday Night Massacre, Attorney General Elliot Richardson put country and the Constitution first, as did Prosecutor Archibald Cox and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus. Robert Bork did not understand the principle and neither has Gonzales. Ignominy is the reward for those too dense to realize what almost every other lawyer realizes: It is the principle of the thing.
Flag this comment
T.R.
Aug 10, 2009 10:48 AM CST
I don’t recall remembering what Alberto Gonzales did or did not do as AG.
Flag this comment
Cynic
Aug 10, 2009 11:07 AM CST
See, J.D? Conservatism is the disease.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Aug 10, 2009 11:42 AM CST
Wow. I hardly even said anything.
Flag this comment
LLB
Aug 10, 2009 12:29 PM CST
Wow, what a loser.
Flag this comment
Rath
Aug 10, 2009 2:22 PM CST
#5’s humorous comment points at the real issue in terms of Gonzalez’s employment problems. It’s a credibility issue, not a political one. Explaining his role in the botched firing of federal prosecutors, Gonzales uttered the phrase “I don’t recall” and its variants (“I have no recollection,” “I have no memory”) 64 times. He tried to deflect blame and pointed fingers at everyone within his office but himself and even his most ardent Republican supporters during the senate hearings found his statements incredulous.
Ask yourself, as a partner in a law firm, is a lawyer with this kind of national reputation the kind of lawyer you want to have representing your law firm and its clients? Is this the kind of lawyer you think will attract clients to your firm?
If you find him not credible the answer should be no. If you find him credible the answer should STILL be no (do you REALLY want a lawyer with such a porous memory and lack of administrative oversight over his associates?)
Flag this comment
Paul the Magyar
Aug 10, 2009 8:04 PM CST
You make a great point, Rath, but did he really “forget” or did he fall on his sword? I submit his loyalty blinded him to the ramifications of his actions and even the consequences of his actions. Maybe you are right, however, that he is just incompetent instead of morally bankrupt.
Flag this comment
Paul the Magyar
Aug 10, 2009 8:10 PM CST
If you are hardly even saying anything, don’t bother posting partisan political screed. If you are gonna say something, address the point of the article in some way—even a minor way—instead of posting partisan political screed, please. We will all be grateful.
Flag this comment
Paul the Magyar
Aug 10, 2009 8:24 PM CST
“He also says he is writing a book . . . —but so far, he has not found a publisher.”
How about Texas Tech Press? Or Regent Law Review or the Regent Journal of Law & Public Policy?
Flag this comment
Paul the Magyar
Aug 10, 2009 9:10 PM CST
And the title of the book?
“Oh, NOW I Remember!”
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Aug 11, 2009 12:23 AM CST
Heh. Paul is on a roll.
Flag this comment
Abraham Ben Judea
Aug 11, 2009 9:48 AM CST
This is exactly why commenting on blogs is so popular. the germans have a word for it.
shaddenfreude? Enjoying the missery and discomfort of another.
Flag this comment
James
Aug 11, 2009 10:51 AM CST
Rath and Paul,
You two couldn’t be more wrong. US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Bork did the right thing in dismissing in chucking Cox, as that’s what he was ordered by the president to do. The firing of certain US attorneys wouldn’t have even been an issue but for the fact that the media created one. BTW didn’t the messiah obama unload a few US attorneys he didn’t like? As for not being forthcoming in testimony with congress maybe the democrat blowhards should worry about their own wrongdoing rather than trying to turn a political issue into a criminal one.
Also with a snake like Eric Holder slithering around, I wouldn’t be all that forthcoming in what I say.
Flag this comment
Paul the Magyar
Aug 11, 2009 11:56 AM CST
You couldn’t be more confused. The firing of certain US attorneys by Bush and Nixon is completely different from getting a new slate at the beginning of an administration.
If you can’t appreciate the difference, go back to Law School for a refresher course.
Flag this comment
Rath
Aug 11, 2009 1:57 PM CST
James, you are either being disingenuous or are displaying a profound amount of ignorance about how U.S. Attorney appointments work with the changing of each presidential administration, the context for forced dismissals thereafter, and the underlying separation of power concerns that the Senate had as a whole about changes to process for interim appointments.
At the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is traditional for all U.S. Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation. When a new President is from a different political party, almost all of the resignations will be eventually accepted. The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President’s party.
In contrast to the 2006 dismissals, Presidents rarely dismiss U.S. Attorneys they appoint, and have previously done so only based on alleged misconduct. The dismissals of several U.S. Attorneys at one time while in the middle period of Bush’s second term of office was completely without precedent.
The firing of one’s own appointees for purely political reasons when interim appointees are no longer limited to hold the office for 120 days without the traditional Senate approval is not a media created issue and if one cannot appreciate how it undermines the highest office of federal law enforcement in the land to allow such a practice to go unchecked then a remedial course in prosecutorial ethics is strongly recommended.
Notwithstanding James’s puerile attempt at revisionist history, many of the tough questions during the Senate hearings came from not just Democrats, but Republicans that were traditionally allies of the Bush administration, and anticipation of prosecution is no more a valid defense to the credibility issues Gonzalez created than it was a valid defense for President Clinton for his incredulous responses regarding his sexual indiscretions with Monica Lewinsky. You can’t have it both ways.
Flag this comment
Paul the Magyar
Aug 11, 2009 6:45 PM CST
That is just what I said, Rath.
You copy-cat, you.
OK, so you are more eloquent and patient than I am. You get points for using reason.
Flag this comment
Paul the Magyar
Aug 11, 2009 6:49 PM CST
And, straying slightly off-topic, what is Regent Law Grad Monica Goodling doing these days? Is she a Teaching Assistant at Texas Tech?
Texas Tech could staff a whole agricultural school with Bush Admin alumni. Who better to teach manure-shoveling?
Flag this comment
Carl Schwartz
Aug 14, 2009 2:56 AM CST
I’m not surprised at Mr. Gonzales’s ethical blindness. Yes, he was almost overzealously loyal, but he was loyal to a figurehead, a “front” as it were, for other people whose oaths to support the Constitution appear false, to say the least. Mr. Gonzales himself had in imperfect knowledge of the role of the A.G. and also an imperfect knowledge of the Constitution.
He’s more to be pitied than scorned.
I should add that her should try Regnery as a publisher—unless even they wouldn’t publish Mr. Gonzales’s memoirs.
Flag this comment
Brian Thomas
Aug 14, 2009 5:11 AM CST
Gonzalez is unfit to be a licensed attorney in ANY jurisdiction and should be disbarred!
Flag this comment
AK ME
Aug 14, 2009 6:38 AM CST
So where’s the substance behind the “apparently shunned by Bush” part of the headline?
Flag this comment
Bush One
Aug 14, 2009 6:39 AM CST
Abe @15: I also enjoy the poor grammar and misspellings of others.
Flag this comment
QK
Aug 14, 2009 6:42 AM CST
Poor baby Al….Georgie won’t help him even though he loved George so much. No more love.
The article fails to mention that Texas Tech won’t allow him to teach yet and a large majority of the law professors there signed a petition against him!
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Aug 14, 2009 7:13 AM CST
Aye, QK, but he still thinks of their time together.
Flag this comment
Mikey
Aug 14, 2009 8:43 AM CST
@ #11 - that’s right, we at the ABA only approve of one form of partisan political screed around these here parts. Amiright?
Flag this comment
Q
Aug 14, 2009 8:44 AM CST
Gonzales was a pawn to begin with and became a scapegoat. That he is bewildered by this is pitiful, but just goes to show how clueless he is.
Flag this comment
pochantas
Aug 14, 2009 9:21 AM CST
He could go solo.
Flag this comment
Nungesser
Aug 14, 2009 10:25 AM CST
#4 Paul the Magyar. You’re half right. IIRC, Bork should have resigned and was going to. But Richardson urged him not to because it would be too big an institutional body blow to DoJ. So he stayed and fired Cox.
James (#16) yes, the President has the right to fire US Attorneys. But just because he has the right to do it doesn’t make it the right thing to do. When firing is motivated principally by partisanship, it’s Constitutional. But undermines the Republic. Sycophancy isn’t a good quality in an AG, or any other government official for that matter either.
Flag this comment
James
Aug 14, 2009 1:47 PM CST
Paul & Rath,
Really, I wasn’t aware of a law or constitutional provision that stated that a president had to comply with a time table for firing people who serve at his pleasure. I guess my lil ole mind just thought that “serve at the president’s pleasure” meant what it says it does.
Quite frankly the entire controversy was manufactured by the media to discredit the Bush administration. The fact that both of you are all to willing to accept the assertion from a few academics and media spokespersons that Bush somehow did something wrong shows you to be the followers that you are.
BTW, I supported and continue to support former president clinton. He should never have even been asked the questions he was being asked. However, he hardly suffered any lasting damage for his supposed “ignorance” on the facts.
Flag this comment
James
Aug 14, 2009 1:49 PM CST
BTW there are plenty of officers that do not serve at the president’s pleasure. If we want to make US attorneys immune from firing why not have them appointed and disciplined by a non-partisan source.
Flag this comment
Adamius
Aug 14, 2009 3:01 PM CST
James, Paul and Rath are “followers”, and not you?! You seem to think that political motivation for an executive firing a quasi-judicial officer is fine since there is not a specific written mandate against it. If that is the case, why did the administration simply not admit that the motivation was political? If there was no story there, why were the Bushies trying so hard to bury it? They claimed the attorneys were fired for every other reason except politics and then when cornered like rats on the witness stand, they started playing the “I don’t remember” card. It’s very disingenuous of you to say that the media shouldn’t probe into a politician that is obviously changing his story every few days and acting like someone with their hand caught in the cookie jar.
Flag this comment
peoplelaw
Aug 14, 2009 4:27 PM CST
Gonzales’ highest oath is to the integrity of his profession and its ethical rules, and even moreso, to the public. “serving at the pleasure of the President” is a policy, not the end all be all, and it is a ludicrous argument that fell short then and will continue to fall short forever and ever unless a president becomes a dictator.
As far as the firings, there is such a thing called wrongful termination, and there are laws against it that even the federal government has to follow. I should know as an employment lawyer. The glaring issue is the en mass firings that included many Republicans who were refusing to engage in unmerited investigations of Democrats and considered that abuse of power. There were lawsuits filed as I remember on these firings. So again the hollow point about media created is just that: hollow.
I am also disappointed to see “messiah” as an insult. I would think as attorneys we have better reasoning skills and vocabulary to use when making a point in support or against an argument. What a let down to see that kind of hackery here too. And this is not about partisanship. “Messiah” is meant to be derogatory (though I still don’t quite see how, but never mind that). Saying that Bush was incompetent and damaged the country in multiple ways is well, opinion based on the totality of quantitative data.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Aug 14, 2009 5:21 PM CST
Quite humorous, the thought that anyone would have to make up something to discredit the Bush Administration.
Flag this comment
Ethics Count
Aug 14, 2009 6:30 PM CST
Thanks, peoplelaw. I’m surprised that it took 34 comments before somebody pointed out that there was an obvious violation of the rules of professional conduct by Gonzalez (and earlier by Bork). Arguments about “serving at the pleasure of the president” are missing the point. As an attorney, you’re not allowed to violate the rules of professional conduct even if your client want you to do so. The client’s wishes don’t matter, your professional responsibility does. That’s what Archibald Cox understood that Robert Bork didn’t.
Flag this comment
James
Aug 14, 2009 11:24 PM CST
Ok Mr. Employment lawyer, is political affiliation now a protected class for US attorneys?
And yes I’ll use the term “messiah” in a derogatory way when speaking about Mr. Obama because he, quite obviously, thinks he is some kind deity and it disgusts me. Never before have I seen so many “presumably intelligent” people line up like idiot sheep to drink the Obama kool-aide. Only now that we’ve moved onto health care is he finally getting challenged and the media which has been his mistress since he announced he was running for president has the nerve to portray the opposition as something akin to nazism?
Returning to Mr. Gonzalez, I will grant many of you that he looked rather foolish during his “testimony.” I still maintain, however, that he never should have been asked those questions. I’ll say the same thing about President Clinton and I defended him despite not voting for him when he was actually impeached over charges manufactured from questions that should not have even been asked under oath.
Flag this comment
Kalifornia Arnold
Aug 15, 2009 9:49 AM CST
Regarding Mr. Gonzales’ problems in the real world, he thought that, as AG, he could get away with violating people’s rights with impunity. It seems that. the chickens are now coming home to roost. Well, as the old saying goes:” Though the mills of the gods grind slowly, they grind incredibly fine.”
Flag this comment
Steve H
Aug 15, 2009 10:37 PM CST
I’m more impressed with Mr. G’s attitude and response to what must be a difficult situation than I thought I would be. I wish he had that kind of class and demeanor when he was the mouthpiece for a corrupt and criminal torturous administration. I can only suppose that he understands now that as you reap, so shall ye sow.
Flag this comment
Anon
Aug 16, 2009 10:31 AM CST
Seems like he is being treated a bit unfairly. Other public servants like Linda Chatman Thompson SEC enforcement head did poor job and attracted offers when fired. If law firm hiring authorities disagreed with his “torture is legal” conclusions and did not hire him because they did not like his ethics that would seem to be OK but holding it against him because he fired at will employees who worked for him at DOJ seems misplaced. Must be the fear of some type of liability or taint rather than anything to do with him personally—after all so many firings at law firms occur by mediocre partner lawyers at big firms for political reasons (did not kiss up enough) it would be a laughable double standard if this is actually what is holding him back
Flag this comment
chris
Aug 16, 2009 1:32 PM CST
Man, his life sucks! How depressing.
Flag this comment
Abraham Ben Judea
Aug 16, 2009 3:20 PM CST
This is as predicted by an old proverb.
“When you place party politics, before your country. You’ll lose both, your party and your country.”
Flag this comment
Richard
Aug 16, 2009 4:21 PM CST
“Robert Bork did not understand the principle and neither has Gonzales.” If so, you will have to find some evidence to make this charge stick to Bork. Richardson and Ruckleshaus were both bound by promises to Congress not to fire Cox. Bork was not. And both understood and supported Bork in giving Nixon what he wanted rather than gut the Justice Department any further.
Flag this comment
James
Aug 16, 2009 10:06 PM CST
to #38
Once again, if you serve at the pleasure of the president, you don’t have any “right” to the position you hold if the president says you don’t. Political affiliation and / or loyalty or disloyalty to the administration are not protected classes.
Flag this comment
Rath
Aug 18, 2009 11:48 AM CST
James, please stop throwing out straw man arguments. It only exposes the weakness of your position. Nowhere in my comments have I indicated an acceptance of assertions of academics and media spokespersons. I have set forth verifiable facts and real issues which seem to be beyond the grasp of your “lil ole mind”.
The absence of Constitutional provision or laws regarding time tables for terminating U.S. Attorneys is completely irrelevant. The point of setting forth the traditional manner in which U.S. Attorneys are dismissed was twofold (and apparently either went completely over your head, or you simply chose to ignore it with your transparent and pointless argument about legal authority for adhering to some sort of time table). The first was to counter your childish and weak jab at the Obama administration for dismissing U.S. Attorneys from the Bush administration. The second was to show that the unprecedented 2006 dismissals by the Bush administration were not simply traditional dismissals, and, when scrutinized, call into question whether, as alleged, they were done for failure to prosecute Democratic politicians, failure to prosecute claims of election fraud that would hamper Democratic voter registration, and as retribution for prosecuting Republican politicians. Again, that’s not a media created issue nor is it an issue of the President’s right to dismiss U.S. Attorneys. It’s a prosecutorial ethics issue central to the integrity of the Department of Justice, and one which the Bush administration clearly understood even if you and Anon do not. If it were otherwise the Bush administration would not have gone to the pains it did to deny that the dismissals were based on the allegations, and to claim that the dismissals were performance based when its own records would seem to contradict that contention in the majority of the dismissals.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.