Scandal Could Still Cost Clinton, if Only on Paper

Is a federal judge’s contempt ruling against President Clinton a ticking time bomb that will derail any possible law-related career for Clinton after he leaves the White House?

Perhaps, say informed observers. But any financial damage likely would be minimal, as Clinton is sure to face a wealth of post-presidency money-making opportunities.

The greater significance of the confidential workings of an Arkansas legal committee--the unfinished business of the Clinton-Lewinsky saga--may be historical. The same conduct that made Clinton the nation’s second impeached president could make him our first former chief executive to be disbarred, although Richard Nixon gave up his bar membership after resigning the presidency over the Watergate scandal.

If he were a typical lawyer in private practice, Clinton would face almost immediate punishment from his home-state bar as a result of sanctions imposed on him earlier this year for making alleged false statements in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, legal authorities in Arkansas said.

A federal judge in Little Rock, Susan Webber Wright, found the president in contempt of court in April for deliberately misleading the court about his sexual encounters with Monica S. Lewinsky, a former White House intern.

Wright determined that Clinton misled the court in his January 1998 deposition in the Jones case, over which Wright presided, and later contradicted himself in his sworn grand jury testimony in independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s Lewinsky investigation.

In July, the judge fined Clinton $90,000--the first such penalty ever assessed against a president.

Wright also referred her written opinion to the Arkansas Supreme Court’s committee on professional conduct, aide Barry Ward said.

James Neal, the panel’s executive director, says he cannot divulge what, if any, action the committee may be taking. The panel has the power to initiate disbarment proceedings or suspend a lawyer’s license for two years. Lesser sanctions can include letters of reprimand or caution. Deliberations are confidential pending any final decisions.

Evidence suggests the ethics panel is postponing action on the complaint until Clinton leaves office. A legal source close to Clinton said he was not aware of any communication from the panel.

A normal case, Neal said, unfolds this way: When a complaint is received about a lawyer’s professional conduct, the panel investigates to determine if it has merit and invites a response from the lawyer. If the accusation is judged to have merit, the panel calls it a “formal complaint” and is prepared to take disciplinary steps.

“When an action originates with a federal judge, it automatically rises to the level of a formal complaint--without an investigation on our part,” Neal said.

Wright’s complaint was a strong one. The judge declared that when Clinton was asked if he had been alone with Lewinsky and had engaged in sexual relations with her, “the president responded by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process.”

Wright added that Clinton had “undermined the integrity of the judicial system.”

But even if the committee disciplines Clinton, said John DiPippa, a law professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock who specializes in legal ethics, it likely would not have much impact on his career. “Ex-presidents have a pretty lucrative existence being ex-presidents,” he said. “It could hurt him if he tried to associate with a leading law firm, but few presidents go back to their former professions.”

Clinton, who will leave the presidency at a relatively youthful 54, practiced law only sporadically after receiving his degree from Yale in 1973. He was a law professor and state attorney general before serving six terms as governor.

The committee’s five lawyers and two non-lawyers normally act with alacrity. Some cases take only two weeks from start to finish; more complex ones are completed within six months, Neal said.

Though Neal refuses to give any hint of action on Clinton’s case, the very subject seems to rankle the president.

“I haven’t challenged anything, including things that I consider to be questionable,” Clinton snapped at a recent press conference, referring to Wright’s finding. “When I am out of office, I will have a lot to say about this.”