Basham, Thomas

Solomon, Barbara

English

University of Baltimore School of Law

University of Baltimore Law ForumVolume 7Number 1 October, 1976 Article 210-1976Sarbanes and Beall: Interviews with Maryland'sSenatorial CandidatesThomas BashamBarbara SolomonFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lfPart of the Law CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion inUniversity of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, pleasecontact snolan@ubalt.edu.Recommended CitationBasham, Thomas and Solomon, Barbara (1976) "Sarbanes and Beall: Interviews with Maryland's Senatorial Candidates," University ofBaltimore Law Forum: Vol. 7 : No. 1 , Article 2.Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol7/iss1/2The Forum Law Journal conducted in-terviews with the Republican and Dem-ocratic candidates for United StatesInterviewswithMaryland'sSenatorialCandidates_________________________________________________________ 1~~~~ 4PAUL S. SARBANES: Interviewby Thomas Basham (Sept. 14, 1976)photo by Tom BashamForum: The first series of questions con-cerns ethics-legal ethics in particular.Would you be in favor of some kind offederal legislation to enforce legal ethics,or do you think the system is working theway it's set up now, i.e., self-policing?Sarbanes: I've never considered federallegislation and my initial response to thatwould be a negative reaction. It seems tobe that the policing in large part has to bedone by the bar itself and by the courts.After all, lawyers are ostensibly officersof the courts and you're really dealing, ina sense, with the third branch of the gov-ernment in that respect, with thejudiciary. That's not to say you can'tlegislate in that area, but it seems to methe emphasis ought to be on a greater ef-fort by the bar itself with respect to legalethics.Forum: Do you think the system worksthe way it is now?Sarbanes: Oh, I think there are prob-lems, but I notice there's been state legis-lation and, in some areas, really rathermajor efforts on the part of the bar to setits own house in order.Forum: Do you get mail from your con-stituents on the subject of legal ethics?Senate from Maryland. The opponents,incumbent Senator J. Glenn BeaU, Jr.(R) and Representative Paul S. Sar-banes (D., Maryland 3rd Congressionaldistrict) were questioned separately intheir Congressional offices inWashington, D.C. Each candidate wasasked essentially the same 'questions.Senator Beall was elected to the U.S.Senate in 1970, after serving one term inCongress as a member of the House ofRepresentatives. Before his election tonational office, he was a member of theMaryland General Assembly for sixyears. The Senator, a 49-year-old nativeof Frostburg, Maryland, is a 1950graduate of Yale University.Sarbanes: We occasionally get com-plaints from people in terms of theirdealings with lawyers, and we alwaysrefer the people to the bar associationgrievance process.Forum: Any suggestions for legislativeaction to get lawyers into line and en-force legal ethics?Sarbanes: As I've indicated, my ownpreference would be that the bar itselftake more effective measures to governthe conduct of its members. The bar isnot without remedy in that regard be-cause they can go to the courts and havepunishment, including disbarment,meted out to lawyers.Forum: Do you think that's enough, inthe context of the effect of Watergate onthe reputation of lawyers and legislators?Sarbanes: Enough in what sense?Forum: Enough in the sense that....Sarbanes: I think that a lawyer beingdisbarred is a pretty serious penalty.Now if he's also committed a criminalviolation, I assume he'll also be prose-cuted under the laws.Forum: Seems like lawyers were theculprits in Watergate. They were the badguys..1 _________________________________ ~I.Congressman Sarbanes, currentlycompleting his third term in the House ofRepresentatives, served in the MarylandHouse of Delegates from 1966 to 1970.He is 43 years old and was born in Salis-bury, Maryland. Congressman Sar-banes is a 1954 magna cum laudegraduate of Princeton University and a1960 cum laude graduate of HarvardLaw School. He attended Oxford Uni-versity in England on a Rhodes scholar-ship from 1954 to 1957.Senator Beall was interviewed by Fea-tures Editor Barbara Solomon; Con-gressman Sarbanes was interviewed byFeatures Editor Tom Basham.Sarbanes: They also were the goodguys. Don't ever forget that Judge Siricais a lawyer, Sam Ervin is a lawyer, PeterRodino is a lawyer, I'm a lawyer, all theother members of the judiciary commit-tee are lawyers, John Doar is a lawyer,Albert Jenner is a lawyer. So it's true thatsome of the culprits, some of the badguys, were lawyers, but a number of thegood guys were lawyers, too.Forum: Do you think that people, yourconstituents, expect too much from legis-lators? I mean do they expect legislatorsto do things that they themselves shoulddo? Do they pass the responsibility on totheir elected officials?Sarbanes: I think people are facing verytough problems nowadays, and to someextent they are angry and frustrated.They face problems of jobs, and infla-tion, and a fair tax system, and interestrates that are so high that young peoplecan't afford homes, and health careproblems, and the problems dealingwith government, and they come to uswith those problems. I've tried through-out my service in the Congress to re-spond, and to respond positively, and Ithink my constituents feel that I've donea good job in that regard. There are a lotof demands, but you respond to them byworking even harder and with a greatersense of commitment to the public trustthat you've assumed.Forum: I know that the members ofcongress work hard at their jobs. Do youthink that people expect Washington todo things in their own lives that theycould do themselves-to find me a job,for example. Is it a legislator's responsi-bility to find jobs for his constituents, or isit the constituent's responsibility?Sarbanes: I think it's the responsibility ofpolicy making to carry out policies thatwill result in a strong, vigorous economy.That's distinguished from finding eachindividual person a particular job.People have to embark on that searchthemselves. If they come to us with thatproblem, we try to be helpful. If there'sany way that we can legitimately be help-ful. (long pause)Forum: Did you want to say somethingelse?Sarbanes: I think that covers it.Forum: On the problem of congestion inthe courts, do you think the federal legis-lation now in effect-the Speedy TrialAct-is sufficient, or does there need tobe more federal action?Sarbanes: Well, the first thing we haveto do is implement the Speedy Trial Act,which means providing the resourceswhich its implementation requires: addi-tional court personnel and additionalcourt facilities. You need to make thelaws we have work and then see whatimpact that has on the situation. I sup-ported strongly the Speedy Trial Act andI support making the resources availablethat are needed in order to make it effec-tive. I think a speedy trial is an importantpart of ajust trial-both for the individualaccused and for the society.Forum: In the criminal justice area, doyou favor a mandatory death penalty?Sarbanes: I think you can use the deathpenalty, but I think it's preferable inthose limited situations when peoplehave already been given a mandatorylife sentence and are then involved in afurther killing in trying to escape from oravoid somehow the mandatory life sen-tence which has been imposed uponthem. It seems to me the most effectivedeterrent is a high likelihood that theperson committing a criminal offense willbe apprehended, speedily tried, con-victed and severely punished. We needto focus on that question of apprehen-sion, trial and conviction.Forum: Do you favor mandatory sen-tences?Sarbanes: In certain instances, yes. Ifavor mandatory minimum sentencesfor the commission of a crime with theuse of a gun, for example. I favor manda-tQry sentences for certain repeat offen-der situations. I would obviously favor acumpulsory life sentence with no oppor-tunity of returning to public life in the in-stance of very serious crimes. I think thepunishment has to, in a sense, be severewhere that's called for and merited.Forum: And, finally, what is your posi-tion regarding no-fault insurance.?Sarbanes: Well, I've indicated that Ithink we should consider that concept atthe federal level. It's a complicated mat-ter and any legislation would have to bevery carefully worked out in terms of anystandards it may involve. And we needalso, of course, to look at the state ex-periences and draw some lessons fromthose. Now some of those lessons, orsome of those experiences, have notlived up to the expectations that were ini-tially broadcast on their behalf. So I thinkwe need to take a careful look at whatthe state experiences have been and seewhat kind of sensible piece of legislationwould evolve from that.Forum: Okay?Sarbanes: Okay.F5J. GLENN BEALL: InterviewBy Barbara Solomon (August 30, 1976)photo by Tom BashamForum: Do you feel there is a need forfederal legislation with regard to legalethics or is there a sufficient amount ofself-policing within the profession?Beall: I don't, at the present time, seea need for federal legislation, but I havenot looked into the idea as deeply as Imight because it has never been beforeus or before the committees of which Iam a member. I have always felt that al-though the legal profession may beself-policing, it sometimes tends to beself-protective also; I would like to seethe legal fraternity be a little more ag-gressive in ferreting out those who donot live up to the code established by theprofession, so that we don't somedaycome to some sort of federal licensing orfederal control. They have the sameproblem in the medical profession, ex-cept in the medical profession it's worsebecause there doctors are receiving fed-eral funds for services they have de-livered.Forum: So you feel that while the legalprofession is doing its job, it is not doing itto as great a degree as you would like?Beall: My superficial impression is thatthe legal profession could be a lot moreaggressive in the job of policing itself.Forum: What effect has Watergate hadon the reputation of lawyers and legis-lators, and do you feel there has been anadverse effect on lawmaking ability?Beall: I don't think it has had an adverseeffect on lawmaking ability, but I thinkprobably Watergate has caused those ofus who were in the legislative business tochange some laws relating to campaignfinancing and to conflict of interest typesituations. Actually we have worked totry to establish the role for the JusticeDepartment to play in providing someoversight in making sure that there is aprosecutorial arm that can go aroundand investigate and dig up examples ofmisfeasance or malfeasance in public of-fice. I don't notice an adverse effect onthe legal profession. The lawyers in-volved were not acting in their profes-sional capacity; they were acting proba-bly in another capacity. This does notexcuse them as professionals or other-wise for their indiscretions, but I feel Wa-tergate reflects more on those in thepolitical arena than it does on lawyers.Forum: Do people expect too much oflegislators, especially with regard to legis-lators who also happen to be lawyers?Beall: No, I don't think so. As I am not alawyer, I can't say what lawyers feel, butI do not think people expect too much oftheir elected officials. I think they expectthem to devote their energies andabilities to the job for which they wereelected in a forthright and honest man-ner and that is certainly not expectingtoo much of anybody.Forum: Do the legal profession'sCanons of Ethics provide the lawyerlegislator with a greater responsibilitythan that imposed upon the laymanlegislator?I~Beall: I don't think so, but I was notaware that the Bar Association in itsCode had a section on legal ethics.Forum: Concerning the ever-increasingproblem of congestion within the judicialsystem, from the time of filing suit to thefinal disposition of the matter, do you be-lieve there is a need for federal legisla-tion?Beall: I voted for the Speedy Trial Act.One of the problems in our criminal jus-tice system relates to the lack of speedwith which the system operates, andtherefore we should try to establish sometimeframe within which cases are heard,without taking away any individual'srights. It seems to me, as a layman, thatin too many cases the law is being usedas a means to avoid getting a decision ona matter, rather than as a means to bringabout the expeditious treatment ofwhatever happens to be before thecourt.Forum: What is your stand on no-faultinsurance on the federal level?Beall: I have favored the concept of no-fault, but I believe it should be im-plemented on the state level, if im-plemented at all. First of all, I don't thinkwe have enough experience with no-fault yet to be able to tell the public thatthis single particular system is going towork, save money, and broaden a per-son's opportunities to obtain insurance.Over the last couple of years the stateshave been making some progress.About 25 states have various forms ofno-fault laws and this is an increase of 11or 12 states from a year and a half ago.Some states have had some rather badexperiences with no-fault. From Michi-gan we have received an indication thatthe price of insurance has increased andthat the availability of insurance hasbeen restricted somewhat; it has notworked the way people thought it wasgoing to work. So, under those kinds ofcircumstances, I am very reluctant to im-pose a federal system on the states, and Ialso have an aversion to federal control.It is all right for the federal government tothreaten to get the states to act, but oncethe states start acting, then it is no longernecessary to take any federal action.Forum: Is there a need for more laws re-lating to crime, or do you contend thelaws we have presently are just not strin-gently enough applied?Beall: Perhaps the laws are not strin-gently enough applied; I am led to be-lieve that perhaps we should have somemandatory sentences. I introduced acrime package last week, only applicableto federal law, in which I suggested thatwe ought to expand pre-trial detentionso that the judge could detain people innon-capital cases as he can in capitalcases at the present time. The only tool ajudge has now is to impose an exorbi-tantly high bail requirement, which initself is constitutionally questionable.Therefore, I think there should beanother means for a judge to detainsomeone if he considers that person topose a threat to an individual or to thecommunity. I also proposed that wehave specified penalties for specifiedcrimes-minimum sentences for thecrimes of burglary, robbery, racketeer-ing, dope trafficking and murder. Wewould also add a year to the sentence ofany of these crimes committed with afirearm. I also have called for reinstitu-tion of the death penalty for treason, es-pionage and murder. A bifurcated sys-tem would be used whereby there wouldfirst be a trial for the determination of theguilt or innocence of the person, andthen there would be a hearing to deter-mine whether the death penalty shouldbe imposed. There would have to be alist of aggravating and mitigating circum-stances, so as to hopefully meet theguidelines which the Supreme Court hasimposed.Forum: So your bill would provide forsome leeway in the case of crimespunishable by death, but no leeway withcertain other crimes.Beall: There would be some leewaywith crimes punishable by death butthere would be some mandatoryminimum sentences with certain othercrimes. In those crimes, the personwould be eligible for parole, but mitiga-ting circumstances would not entitlehim to a suspended sentence.University ofBaltimoreSBA PlacesFirst NationallyAs "MostOutstandingStudentBar Association"by Byron L. Warnken"Law Day U.S.A." ProgramAwarded National Champion-ship for Second ConsecutiveYearThe University of Baltimore School ofLaw has been named the recipient oftwo first place national awards at the an-nual convention of the American Bar As-sociation, convened in Atlanta, Georgia,August 5-12, 1976.A total of three awards were presentedto the University of Baltimore at theawards banquet of the Law Student Di-vision of the ABA. These honors recog-nized the University of Baltimore, incompetition among the 163 ABA ap-proved law schools, as: (1) the first placenational winner as "Most OutstandingStudent Bar Association" among lawschools with enrollment over 1,000 stu-dents, (2) the first place national winner,for the second consecutive year, for"Best Law Day U.S.A. Program"among law schools with over 1,000 stu-dents, and (3) the first place circuit win-ner, for the third consecutive year, for"Best Law Day U.S.A. Program"among all law schools in Maryland,Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Dela-ware.Accepting the awards on behalf of thelaw school were Paul G. Jemas, presi-dent of the day division of the StudentBar Association; Byron L. Wamken,president of the evening division of theSBA; Anthony R. Gallagher, 1976-77ABA/Law Student Division representa-tive and chairperson of the Law DayU.S.A. program; and John A. Currier,1977-78 ABA/LSD representative.BEST SBAThe "Most Outstanding Student BarAssociation" award was based upon a120 page document, which outlined indetail the successes and failures of thetwenty areas of activity within the SBA.These included, among others: partici-pation in ABA/LSD activities, Law DayU.S.A. program, weekly public affairsradio broadcasts entitled "You and theLaw", weekly speakers programs, orien-tation program, honor system (honorcode, honor court, board of preliminaryLeft to right: Byron L. Warnken, Paul G. Jemas, Anthony R. Gallagher.w7r

Sarbanes and Beall: Interviews with Maryland\u27s Senatorial Candidates

bepress Legal Repository

https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1084&context=lf

Sarbanes and Beall: Interviews with Maryland\u27s Senatorial Candidates

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Baltimore School of Law

bepress Legal Repository