‘Surrogate’ Lawyer an Embarrassment

Richard C. Gilbert lost the “surrogate mother” case. Then he castigated the respected trial judge, Richard N. Parslow Jr., in a mean and personal attack. The judge, Mr. Gilbert said, wasn’t bonded to his brain.

Citizens should view Mr. Gilbert with contempt, irrespective of their views on surrogate mothering. Mr. Gilbert is an embarrassment to the 8,000 lawyers in Orange County who have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the profession--and the public’s respect for it.

First, the comment was a cheap shot. Judges aren’t allowed to defend themselves. Mr. Gilbert was not brave and zealous in criticizing a system run amok; he was cowardly in attacking an individual judge whose hands are tied by the canons of ethics.

Second, the comment abused the broad latitude of citizens to criticize the government. As the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in the McCarthy era: “Citizens have a right under our constitutional system to criticize government officials and agencies. Courts are not, and should not, be immune to such criticism.” Konigsberg versus State Bar of California, 353 U.S. 252, 269 (1957).

As the American Bar Assn. states in its Model Code of Professional Responsibility: “While a lawyer as a citizen has a right to criticize such officials publicly, he should be certain of the merit of his complaint, use appropriate language, and avoid petty criticisms motivated by reasons other than a desire to improve the legal system.”

If Richard Gilbert thought that saying Judge Parslow is not bonded to his brain is a fair and judicious application of these rules, then one should not be surprised at the result Mr. Gilbert achieved for his client.

STUART P. JASPER, Newport Beach