Chutzpah

Attorneys in some recent high-visibility cases are making the practice of their profession seem totally ludicrous.

Michael Deaver’s counsel tried to cop a plea of innocence on the ground that his client was too drunk to know what he was doing or remember what he was saying. And when Deaver was convicted, his lawyer explained his decision not to call even one of about 200 witnesses he had lined up to testify because he thought it was so obvious that his client was innocent.

The lawyer for Dovie Beams de Villagran (Ferdinand Marcos’s ex-mistress) tried to defend her from charges that she swindled some banks out of $18 million because she was afflicted with the AIDS virus (which it turned out she wasn’t when tested by doctors for the prosecution) and therefore not responsible for her actions.

And Ivan Boesky’s counsel came up with what must be the ultimate in appeals, arguing that Boesky “was driven by some blind compulsion.” Did this fool ever hear of Hitler? Or Genghis Khan? Or . . . (fill in the monster of your own choice.)

Once upon a time, in a more innocent age, a certain kind of outrageous behavior or attitude was described by the Yiddish word chutzpah --which was explained in English as the quality demonstrated by the child who murdered his parents and then pleaded for leniency on the grounds that he was an orphan.

I can’t think of any word to describe these lawyers. But I won’t be surprised when another attorney makes an appeal on the grounds that his client’s counselor was an idiot.

NORMAN BORISOFF

Santa Monica