Erwin Griswold, the former dean of Harvard Law School and Solicitor General of the United States, has written a very modest account of his role in shaping American law

Le Boeuf, Bradley S.

English

The University of Akron

The University of AkronIdeaExchange@UAkronAkron Law Review Akron Law JournalsJuly 2015Book Review: Ould Fields, New Corne: ThePersonal Memoirs of a Twentieth Century LawyerBradley S. Le BoeufPlease take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will beimportant as we plan further development of our repository.Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreviewPart of the Law CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, theinstitutional repository of The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion inAkron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, pleasecontact mjon@uakron.edu, uapress@uakron.edu.Recommended CitationLe Boeuf, Bradley S. (1993) "Book Review: Ould Fields, New Corne: The Personal Memoirs of a TwentiethCentury Lawyer," Akron Law Review: Vol. 26 : Iss. 2 , Article 6.Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol26/iss2/6BOOK REVIEWOuLD FIELDS, NEW CoRNE: THE PERSONAL MEMOIRS OF A TWENTIETH CENTURYLAWYER. By ERWIN N. GRISWOLD.1 West Publishing. 1992.Illus. 444 pages. $27.95.Reviewed by Bradley S. Le BoeuflFormer Buckeye Erwin Griswold warns the reader early in hisautobiography about the dilemma of writing a book devoted to retelling his life. Inthe first page of OULD FIELDS, NEw CoRNE: THE PERSONAL MEMOIRS OF ATWENTIETH CENTURY LAWYER, he writes, "It is inherently egocentric," Althoughfirst person narratives are always self-centered, Griswold, the former dean ofHarvard Law School and Solicitor General of the United States, has written a verymodest account of his role in shaping American law.Despite OuLD FIELDS, NEW CoRNE being a book by a lawyer about lawyersand the legal community, it is not wholly intended just for a law-trained audience:The title, while seeming to be a book about hillbilly humor or pioneeringagricultural practices, alludes to a quote from Sir Edward Coke's 16th centuryCommentaries: "Out of ould fields must spring and grow the new Come." Theanecdotes about academia, world travels, Supreme Court practice and presidentialpolitics are spread among the tales of the legal world to relate an accessible storyby one of America's living legal legends.Griswold was born in 1904 in East Cleveland, Ohio. He lived in Ohiothroughout his youth and graduated from Oberlin College in 1925 with majors inpolitical science and mathematics. He considered pursuing a career inastrophysics, but opted instead to attend law school at Harvard. Griswold decided"that the chances of making a living in astrophysics were less than those of makinga living in law."Griswold's freshman year studying at Harvard Law School was a pivotalpoint in his life. After earning straight A grades for his first year of coursework,he ranked second in his class. "I could not foresee what a change this was going tomake in my life," he writes, unaware that his early success at Harvard wouldtransform him from a midwesterner to a major player in the eastern legalestablishment.1 Senior Counsel, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Washington, D.C.2 B.A., 1981, Indiana University (Bloomington); J.D., 1986 University of Toledo College of Law. Mr. LeBoeuf is an attorney residing in Arlington, Virginia.1Le Boeuf: Book ReviewPublished by IdeaExchange@UAkron, 1993AKRON LAW REVIEWAfter graduating from Harvard Law School in 1929, Griswold returned toCleveland to begin practicing law with his father's firm. (Griswold's father, JamesGriswold, graduated in 1901 with a L.L.B. degree from the Law School of CaseWestern Reserve University. The senior Griswold earned his way through lawschool "by tutoring, and also by making Saturday and Sunday addresses for theAnti-Saloon League.") The apprenticeship was short-lived. Within four months,Griswold accepted an invitation to join the staff of the Solicitor General's office inWashington, D.C. He soon found himself arguing tax law cases before the U.S.Supreme Court, although he had never enrolled in a tax class. In fact, no federaltax courses were offered at Harvard while he was a student there.Griswold worked at the Solicitor General's office for five years beforereturning to Harvard to join its law school faculty in 1934. After teaching for adozen years, Griswold was offered the position of Dean of Harvard Law School.He was reluctant to accept the job for fear of becoming too immersed inadministrative matters and thus being unable to devote enough time to teaching andlegal research. Griswold's apprehension was accurate. In addition to his usualteaching duties, he found himself haggling over cramped office space, negotiatingfaculty squabbles, and dealing with the constant demands of fundraising for theuniversity.One of the most significant accomplishments of Griswold's tenure as deanwas the admission of women to the law school. Harvard first admitted women tothe law school in 1950. Griswold favored admitting women to Harvard,commenting, "From my experience as a student in a co-educational college, I toldthe faculty that the women would be just as good and just as bad as men."Yet it is somewhat ironic that while Griswold was a major impetus behindthe admission of women at Harvard Law School, he became a member of BurningTree, an all-male golf club in suburban Washington, D.C. Griswold explains theinconsistency: "Perhaps it is because of my early experience at a boys' camp, but Ido not find invidious discrimination in a place where men can get together for mildphysical activity without the restraint which men feel, rightly or wrongly, in mixedcompany."In 1967, he received a phone call from the Attorney General asking if hewould accept President Lyndon Johnson's offer to become Solicitor General.Griswold took "fifteen agonizing seconds, and said yes."As Solicitor General, representing the government in Supreme Court cases,Griswold was faced with the perplexing responsibility of determining who exactlywas his client and which position he should advocate in federal court. Thisproblem was particularly evident when two or more governmental agencies helddiffering views about the same issue. As an advocate before the Supreme Court,[Vol. 26:22Akron Law Review, Vol. 26 [1993], Iss. 2, Art. 6http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol26/iss2/6BOOK REVIEWGriswold regarded "the United States" as his client and attempted to advance the"over-all interest of the Government."After the election in 1968 of Richard Nixon as President, Griswold expectedto be relieved of his duties as Solicitor General with the change to a Republicanadministration. Nixon, however, allowed Griswold to remain in office until 1973.As a holdover political appointee from the Johnson presidency, Griswoldacknowledges the pressure of reconciling positions taken before the SupremeCourt and fulfilling Republican administration policies. "From time to time Iadjusted my views, and, more frequently, my phraseology, to meet points madeby my superiors." Also lurking among his high court writings and arguments wasthe possibility of being fired: "If the President thinks that he is not sufficiently'political,' he can always be removed. That is the inevitable professional hazard ofthe Solicitor General."Griswold devotes the greatest details of his years as Solicitor General to adiscussion of the Pentagon Papers case. He regards the 1971 Supreme Courtopinion, which upheld the right of newspapers to publish the purloined PentagonPapers, as "Undoubtedly, the most spectacular case in which I appeared."Griswold was perplexed as to why the Department of Justice was so opposed topublishing the Pentagon Papers since the reported events occurred prior to theyears of the Nixon administration. Griswold believes that Nixon aide HenryKissinger was the impetus behind the opposition. He contends that Kissingerfeared that the publishing of the Pentagon Papers would reveal his influence inproposing U.S. policies during the Vietnam War as a consultant for the Kennedyand Johnson administrations.Shortly after the Supreme Court's decision in the Pentagon Papers case,Griswold was invited to a reception at the White House. While passing throughthe receiving line, Griswold said to Nixon,"Well, Mr. President, we did not do so well in the PentagonPapers case." The result left a vivid impression on me. The Presidentfroze, and seemed to glare, saying nothing. It was, to me, a whollyunnatural sort of reaction. I said nothing more, and quickly moved on.I had, of course, underestimated the importance of the case to thePresident, as he saw it.Griswold also occupies a unique place in Washington lore. Regarding J.Edgar Hoover, he writes, "In the early days after my return to the Department ofJustice, I became quite notable among the other officers because I was the only onewho called the Director of the F.B.I. by his middle name, 'Edgar."Fall.1992]3Le Boeuf: Book ReviewPublished by IdeaExchange@UAkron, 1993AKRON LAW REVIEWGriswold returned to private law practice after leaving the Solicitor General'soffice. He joined the firm of Jones, Day, Cockley & Reavis (currently known asJones, Day, Reavis & Pogue) as a partner, and is presently senior counsel with thefirm in its Washington, D.C. office. Since Griswold's arrival at Jones Day, thefirm has grown into one of the country's largest, with over 1,000 attorneys spreadamong twenty offices in ten countries.Nowhere though, does Griswold mention his role as a "rainmaker" withJones Day. He recognizes the ease of moving from the public sector to a positionas a partner without having to undergo the rigors of moving up through theassociate ranks, but does not directly address his financial impact on the firm.Despite the growth and success of Jones Day, Griswold has some harshwords for the "big" law firm concept. He admits the pressure on attorneys toproduce 2,000 billable hours a year sometimes creates "make-work" demands tomeet annual productivity goals. A "big" firm, he notes, can only afford to take on"big" cases. "[W]ith the tremendous overhead it has, the firm cannot afford to takea matter which involves less than say, $50,000, and even on such a case thelikelihood of a net loss to the firm is considerable."For a first-person narrative, Griswold has written an almost dispassionateaccount of retelling his life. Emotions are rarely, if ever, expressed. The profusionof footnotes (over 500 footnotes are spread among the thirteen chapters) adds tothe impression that the book deals with cold, hard, verifiable facts and notsubjective interpretations about certain personal events. Even the circumstance ofhis birth is reported in the context of an evidence rule: "I have no personalrecollection of the event, but I feel confident about both the time and the place.Indeed, one's date of birth is one of the oldest and most firmly fixed exceptions tothe hearsay rule."Overall, OuLDFELDs, NEW CORNE is an interesting book about a fascinatinglife. Rarely can we read a book by a living author who has written of events he haswitnessed occurring in every decade of a century. Unfortunately, another hundredmore years may have to pass before the opportunity arises again to read anotherpiece of Americana spanning each decade of a century.[Vol. 26:24Akron Law Review, Vol. 26 [1993], Iss. 2, Art. 6http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol26/iss2/6

Book Review: Ould Fields, New Corne: The Personal Memoirs of a Twentieth Century Lawyer

https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1558&amp;context=akronlawreview

Book Review: Ould Fields, New Corne: The Personal Memoirs of a Twentieth Century Lawyer

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

The University of Akron