Dacier’s Take on…Glenn Mangurian and the Court Management Advisory Board

Published by on April 24, 2014

Learning from outside perspectives is key to progress, growth, and improvement within the legal community. With this in mind, we invited Glenn Mangurian, the Chair of the Court Management Advisory Board (CMAB), to speak at the BBA’s monthly Council meeting. Mangurian brings a unique perspective to the CMAB: he made his career as a management consultant working with large corporations and high-profile leaders, and has no legal background. Now semi-retired, Mangurian joked that he only does things that he wants to do, and added more seriously that working with the courts is at the top of his list.

The CMAB works behind the scenes, so here’s some background on it: the CMAB was mandated by a statute in 2003 following the work of the Monan Commission. Its ten seats are appointed by the Supreme Judicial Court in three-year increments, although each member can be reappointed once. One particularly striking aspect of the CMAB is that it is diverse by practice area – and as Mangurian’s presence on the Board suggests, it is not even all attorneys.

The value this brings, however, is very evident. Mangurian spoke from his experience in management consulting about the emergence of cross-disciplinary teams, which bring a variety of perspectives to bear on solving a particular issue at hand. In the case of the CMAB, users of the court who interact with it in different ways come together in a team approach to fulfill the mission of the courts. Their only agenda is to improve the courts for personnel, attorneys, and litigants alike, and provide confidential, third-party advice to the Trial Court administration.

As Chair, Mangurian’s business background has lent him a keen third-person perspective on challenges the courts face and opportunities for change that may not be as readily apparent to attorneys. For example, he told us that he felt intimidated when called for jury duty. When asked why, he explained that – among other things – the formal letter he received caught him off-guard from the beginning, while concerns about wheelchair accessibility at the courthouse shortly followed. Interactions with the court staff and messaging did not ease his worries. Mangurian compared the courthouse to a hospital’s emergency room: “you are nervous and there in crisis, but for the workers, it is business as usual.”

We can see that under Mangurian’s guidance, the mission of the CMAB is being reenergized – especially because, as he pointed out, this is a great time of change for the Trial Court. In the coming months, we will see a total of six new Chief Justices in the Trial Court and a new Chief Justice and Associate Justice on the Supreme Judicial Court. Over 25 percent of the court system’s judges have been appointed to the bench within the last three years. The Trial Court recently adopted a new strategic plan under its new Chief Justice Paula Carey, which will be implemented with the help of Court Administrator Harry Spence, who is in his third year.

By all means, the climate is right for change and innovation. Going forward, the CMAB is focusing on three major areas:

  • Talent management, as it applies to succession planning and formal leadership development
  • The ‘visitor experience’ at the court – much like the ‘customer experience’ in the private sector
  • Data and the appropriate use of metrics to understand anomalies, while learning to ask the right questions to glean the most information and utility from the data

We think these focus areas are an excellent way to better connect the public to the courts and, by doing so, improve access to justice across the Commonwealth. The issues facing the courts – including insufficient funding and a heavy workload – have repercussions on the legal community as a whole. By addressing these concerns, the CMAB can bolster the structure of how justice is served. Mangurian’s business savvy, coupled with myriad legal perspectives from other Board members, could be the recipe for success to mobilize the courts into a more efficient and effective system, and help to reinforce a fact that is too often overlooked: that our judiciary is coequal branch of government.

Dacier’s Take On…New Lawyers

Published by on April 17, 2014

It is not an easy climate for young lawyers – that is indisputable. A recent report from the American Bar Association shows that within the Class of 2013, only 57 percent of graduates – a little over half – have been able to find long-term, full-time work nine months out of school. The unemployment rate has risen from 10.6 percent in the 2012 class to 11.2 percent. While there has been modest improvement in employment statistics across the board from 2012 to 2013, the numbers are not encouraging. Is there, as some suggest, a ‘crisis’ in the profession?

We would not make light of the difficulties new lawyers face; however, we would also not want to suggest that there are no options following law school. There are myriad opportunities for new lawyers to involve themselves in the profession more fully and a demonstrated need for their skills in the greater Boston community – the challenge is connecting the two. Early involvement in pro bono and legal services work, we have observed, is one of the most effective ways to start to bridge that gap in a way that offers training and continued learning for new lawyers, while assisting those in our community who are most in need.

We have previously mentioned that the rate of pro se litigants across the Trial Court can reach over 80 percent in some counties, a statistic that presents an enormous burden on the courts in terms of time and resources. These unrepresented litigants often do not understand the intricacies of court proceedings and may therefore encounter difficulties in presenting their case.

With the emergence of limited assistance representation (LAR), attorneys can assist these unrepresented litigants with certain parts of their case and help to ensure a more equitable and fair administration of justice. In return, newer attorneys who offer LAR will gain courtroom experience and earn at least part of a fee for the service they provide. The BBA provides general LAR training, as well as breakout sessions led by expert practitioners and judges focusing on how to practice LAR most effectively in the different courts. This is a hugely valuable advantage: you not only acquire a new skill, but you have the opportunity to learn what judges do and do not like to see in their courtrooms.

Similarly, the Lawyer for the Day program in Boston’s Housing Court – developed in a partnership between the BBA, Volunteer Lawyers Project of the Boston Bar Association, Greater Boston Legal Services, WilmerHale Legal Services Center, and the Boston Housing Court – connects attorneys with a demand: litigants who would otherwise appear in court unrepresented can visit the Lawyer for the Day table for advice, mediation, and in some cases assistance at eviction trials. In return, volunteer attorneys learn through direct contact with litigants, work alongside other experienced volunteers – who may be program representatives from large firms – and interact with court staff.

We have written before about the unique set of needs that our nation’s military veterans have and the difficulties they can face in the legal system. Assisting service members who are preparing for or returning from deployment is truly a noble cause. Volunteering at Yellow Ribbon events and working with military personnel directly can preempt any legal issues that could otherwise result in a visit to court.

Getting involved in programs that facilitate introductions to more experienced members of the legal community can present opportunities for growth and mentorship. In addition, it can offer new perspectives on how to navigate the current environment and what options may exist. The BBA is able to provide different forums to learn more about pro bono work and give young lawyers a broader sense of the legal community that might be difficult for them to find on their own. We have held trainings on representing artists and cultural institutions, immigration cases, and pro bono nonprofit clients – to name a few. We encourage new lawyers to explore their options in the legal profession.

To be sure, there are challenges for new lawyers, and while prospects may not always look fruitful, one should not be discouraged. New lawyers need to be creative and constantly pursue their goals, while never forgetting why they chose to enter the profession in the first place. Practicing law means pursuing the calling to protect our Constitution and equal access to justice – and there is always a need for that.

Dacier’s Take on…the Boston Marathon, One Year Later

Published by on April 10, 2014

As we approach the 2014 Boston Marathon, we cannot help but reflect on the tragic events that occurred at last year’s race. Certain individuals turned what was meant to be a celebration of strength and endurance into a nightmare. Their goal to frighten us and render us helpless was not realized, however, for their act only served to illustrate the true foundational strength of the city.

In times of crisis, it is natural to want to help, and Boston’s citizens went above and beyond the call of duty to do so. Footage from the bombing scene showed spectators running toward the bombing wreckage instead of away; we heard stories of runners who crossed the finish line only to keep running all the way to the hospital to donate blood.

For the legal community, offering assistance took on a different form, but one that we were equally eager to provide. We are proud that the Boston Bar Association was able to mobilize so quickly and work with the City of Boston to determine how its membership could help. Within just three days of the Marathon Monday events, the BBA had coordinated with the Mayor’s office and put out a call for volunteers to take cases on behalf of Back Bay businesses affected by the bombing on a pro bono basis. In less than one week, more than 100 individuals, 20 full law firms, and 2 law schools had responded pledging to help affected businesses with business interruption, loss of revenue, and loss of business claims. Ultimately, as calls from individual victims struggling to file One Fund claims, deal with internet privacy, or return to school or work began to surface as well, nearly 200 individual volunteers, 26 law firms, and 3 law schools came forward to offer their assistance, and still stand ready to do so.

This readiness to serve the community is a true fulfillment of the sworn duty inherent in our profession as lawyers. Being an attorney is about ensuring access to justice for all; this is both the mission of the Boston Bar Association and an integral aspect of the tenets laid out in our state and federal Constitutions. It is not only a privilege to help victims navigate the unprecedented landscape that emerged in the wake of the Marathon bombings – it is our responsibility.

Nor is the struggle over. The second round of applications for the One Fund will be due soon, and we expect to receive more inquiries for help filling them out. We also expect to be able to respond to these additional requests for assistance, as we were able to do for the first wave of calls seeking legal advice, due to the continued outpouring of volunteer help from our members and the legal community at large.

We cannot and should not ever forget what happened on Patriots’ Day in April 2013; but we must remember the brave actions of onlookers and first responders, as well as the subsequent flood of generosity and steadfast determination to set the city back on its feet. The individuals who set out to damage our community and its way of life only illustrated that they can never do so – because our way of life is to fight through adversity, support each other, and, most of all, remain Boston Strong.

 

Dacier’s Take on…What to Expect from ABA Day

Published by on April 3, 2014

There’s no doubt about it: 2014 started busy and has remained so throughout the start of the spring. In particular, our advocacy efforts have not abated. Ever since Walk to the Hill at the end of January, we have continued to meet with members of the legislature to discuss our concerns about insufficient funding for legal services in Massachusetts.

Now we take those concerns to Washington, D.C. for ABA Day. If you have not heard of this event, it is an annual “lobby day” held every year in D.C. where bar leaders from across the country converge on Capitol Hill and lobby Congress on issues of direct importance to the legal profession.

As you can imagine, federal funding for legal services is one of the highest priorities. We are advocating for Congress to fund the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), the largest single provider of funding to civil legal aid programs across the country, at $430 million for Fiscal Year 2015. This will translate to about $5.6 million in funding for the four LSC grantees in Massachusetts.

For Massachusetts, this has a singular impact that we cannot forget. As the need for legal services continues to grow, our four LSC grantee organizations within Massachusetts are struggling to keep pace. Increased funding would allow the Massachusetts Justice Project, Merrimack Valley Legal Services, South Coastal Counties Legal Services, and Volunteer Lawyers Project of the BBA to better assist those citizens who rely on these legal aid organizations to fight injustices such as predatory lending and wrongful foreclosure on their home. In these trying times, it is more important than ever that adequate LSC funding is available for these organizations and the vulnerable citizens they protect.

This year, we have something else to bring to the Massachusetts Congressional delegation’s attention: we are concerned about a draft of tax reform legislation currently on the table that would require professional service businesses and many law firms to pay taxes using the accrual method of accounting, rather than the typical cash accounting method. In more practical terms, this means that lawyers would have to pay taxes on funds that they had not yet collected, and as is sometimes the case, they are never able to collect. The proposal would complicate tax payments for the profession, increasing the costs of doing business and the risks of non-compliance. Furthermore, it could lead to a stifling of growing firms that are incentivized to limit their earnings to remain under the gross receipts threshold included in the bill.

We recently sent letters to the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation as well as House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp and Ranking Member Sander Levin voicing our opposition to their proposal. A number of our representatives and senators have expressed that they look forward to discussing the issue further at our ABA Day meetings, as we look forward to representing the best interests of the profession.

As you can see, such an agenda is more than enough reason to take some time away from Massachusetts and lend a voice to the delegation of bar leaders in our nation’s capital. We have been lucky to have strong allies in the Massachusetts Congressional delegation who have historically joined us in the fight to close the justice gap in America, and we are hopeful that reiterating the importance of these issues once again on ABA Day will encourage the progress we seek. Justice should not be available to only those who can afford it.

Dacier’s Take on…the Practical Benefits of Providing Summer Jobs for Teens

Published by on March 27, 2014

If you are an avid Boston Globe reader, you may have noticed an article that appeared earlier this week called “Walsh makes push to get struggling teens summer jobs.” A major priority for the new Mayor, providing summer jobs for teens represents an investment in the welfare of the city itself. As the article points out, many teens need money to buy necessities and even to support their families with household expenses. The distinct disadvantage to the scarcity of jobs for teens is that, according to a study by the Brookings Institution, the persistent lack of a paying job can lead to prolonged joblessness.

Employers provide students not only with a meaningful summer job experience and a headstart to their professional careers, but also an increased ability to make purchases with their earnings. Let’s take a look at the numbers from last year’s BBA Summer Jobs program, which employed 58 diverse Boston youth. Each student earned $9 per hour and worked for 35 hours each week over 8 weeks; that’s $2,250 earned for the summer per student, and overall a $146,160 investment in educating and shaping the future workforce of Boston. This in turn drives money back into the Massachusetts economy and, in many cases, provides for those household expenses for the students’ families. There is a very real economic benefit to providing summer jobs that comes from a relatively small investment by employers.

We learned about other practical benefits to employing Boston’s youth at an event hosted by the Private Industry Council last week. The evening program brought together an excellent turnout of business leaders, prospective employers, and City officials, including Mayor Walsh, to address one common theme: ‘how do we help our youth find gainful summer employment?’ The materials provided alerted us to high unemployment rate for teens in Massachusetts – 33 percent – and also offered some insight about the social benefits of summer jobs. Holding gainful summer employment has shown to improve behaviors that are otherwise correlated with youth violence, including ‘risky behavior’ and ‘violent or delinquent behavior.’ Teens with summer jobs were less likely to use alcohol, sell or use illegal drugs, and ignore figures of authority. It stands to reason that if we can employ more teens in the summer months, when they have the most free time and the greatest risk of using that free time unwisely, we can possibly decrease the likelihood of teen delinquency.

We also had the chance to meet students and observe firsthand what profound potential they have to become valuable members of the city’s workforce. When one young man found out we were from the Boston Bar Association, he couldn’t stop talking about how much he would love to be a lawyer. We told him about the BBA’s Summer Jobs Program, and he was enthusiastic at the prospect of being able to work in a firm or legal department. This young man has big plans and the drive to achieve them, but without the financial and professional support of a summer job, he may have difficulty following through.

Hearing the statistics on teen unemployment and the struggle to combat it made us even more proud of the BBA’s Summer Jobs program, which is already set to offer 59 Boston public high school students the chance to work in a law firm or legal department throughout the summer. Like many other employers around the city, we are enthusiastic about the prospects of Boston’s youth and are committed to helping with teen unemployment. If you can expose kids to education and on-the-job training early on, chances are they’ll do very well in life. It is up to the employers of the City of Boston to provide an introduction to the professional world and give these teens their chance.

Dacier’s Take on. . .the State of the Massachusetts Economy

Published by on March 20, 2014

To better understand the funding of our justice system, we invited Michael Widmer, the President of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, to our monthly Council meeting to educate us on topics like post-recession recovery, Massachusetts state revenue stats, and what it all means when it comes to the Massachusetts economy and our state budget.

Here’s a quick look at just some of what we learned…

  • A major concern is the stability of state revenues. The bulk of the Massachusetts revenue base, which right now stands at $22 billion, comes from personal income tax – in other words, the number of people employed in Massachusetts drives our revenue. As the increased reliance on technology to perform jobs previously held by people and an aging work force shrink the job market and slow its growth, the state revenues will decrease, making it more difficult to provide funding for all aspects of state government.
  • Sixty percent of the state budget goes towards non-discretionary items like healthcare, education, local aid, and debt service.  The remaining forty percent of the budget gets allocated towards discretionary items, including the judiciary, education, public safety, and other areas that improve our quality of life.
  • The bottom line is that we will see tighter budgeting in the upcoming years, as well as a slower growth in jobs. There will be some revenue and job growth, but it will not be a restoration to the way the economy was before.

It seems that the economy – both nationally and in Massachusetts – is still struggling, and this is likely to be “the new normal” for quite some time. A recent report titled “MTF Forecast: Modest Growth in Tax Revenues in 2014 and 2015” by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation sheds even more light on what to expect in the upcoming year.

You can imagine that Mr. Widmer’s comments got our attention. We then asked a few questions, such as: Why is Massachusetts one of the most expensive states in the nation? Part of the answer is positive, as Mr. Widmer explained. Massachusetts is a high wage state with higher incomes than most; but this high income gives Massachusetts the highest level of income disparity. Also, Massachusetts has the richest unemployment benefit structure in the US, and this is very burdensome to businesses. There are also higher energy and housing costs tied in as well.

What does this all mean for court funding, which is what we have been thinking about all year? It looks like it still won’t be clear sailing as the state strives to make up ground and stabilize its revenues and spending. Mr. Widmer had some advice for us as we continue to advocate for funding for our justice system: “stay the course.” In this kind of permanent budget squeeze, spending pressures are immense, so those who are persistent, visible, and patient – demonstrating an understanding of the budget process –are more likely to succeed. He urged us to be thankful for any amount of additional funding given the strict budget constraints.

It is true that these are difficult times for everybody, but we cannot lose hope, and we cannot stop advocating for increased funding for the courts and our entire justice system. We may not reach 100 percent in our requests, but we should celebrate what we do receive – every little bit counts.

Dacier’s Take on. . .Suffolk County’s Veterans Treatment Court

Published by on March 13, 2014

Our support for specialty courts is well-documented (as previously discussed here and here), so we were pleased when Chief Justice Paula Carey invited us to attend the launch of Suffolk County’s first Veterans Treatment Court, to be housed in the Boston Municipal Court (BMC), last week. Designed to assist combat veterans through rehabilitation programs and the criminal justice system, the Veterans Treatment Court drove home for us the unique set of needs this population has that cannot simply be shuffled into other court sessions. A veteran’s transition to civil life after service can be complicated and require a more holistic approach — which is exactly what Boston’s Veterans Treatment Court seeks to achieve.

Massachusetts opened its first Veterans Treatment Court in Dedham in 2012, but the BMC’s Veterans Treatment Court is the first of its kind in Boston. There was an overwhelming turnout for the launch of the session. What’s more, the crowd represented myriad areas of the government and legal system. The conference speakers alone included Chief Justice Paula Carey, Veterans Treatment Court Presiding Judge Eleanor Sinnott, Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh, and Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley. It was encouraging to see so many come out to support those who have served our country and now need our support.

During the brief conference for the official launch, we learned a number of startling and alarming facts. For instance, did you know that one out of ten veterans are homeless, and that 33% of the entire homeless population are veterans? Veterans also have a greater risk of suicide and untreated mental illnesses. Perhaps most telling: many service members do not have a criminal history prior to their deployment. The stresses inherent in military service can cause residual psychological trauma, which can cause mental health or substance abuse issues and, in turn, criminal infractions such as assault or operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In other words, while the crimes they commit may be the direct result of mental illness or substance abuse, the underlying cause is far more serious. As the pre-session conference outlined, the goal of the court is to get straight to the root and ameliorate those underlying causes.

We had the chance to see firsthand how the court session would work. Presiding Judge Sinnott was compassionate and supportive, focusing on understanding each participant’s individual situation and making treatment recommendations based on their statements. The participants stayed through the end of the session so that they could have the chance to meet with those offering rehabilitative services.

While the Veterans Treatment Court embraces empathy, it sets high standards and does not excuse unacceptable behavior. Session participants will come to court once a week to report on their progress in the various treatment options, and there are repercussions for those unwilling to comply with the session’s expectations – including expulsion from the program.

The combination of personal care and intense probation is one we applaud. Instead of being tough on crime, Boston’s Veterans Treatment Court works to be smart on crime. As Chief Justice Carey explained, this court could be the difference between a new life and incarceration for life. Less than one percent of our nation’s population has shouldered the burden for all; we must do our part to make sure they don’t fall through the cracks in the justice system.

Dacier’s Take on…Sentencing Reform and Re-entry

Published by on February 26, 2014

We attended  MassINC’s “Reform, Re-entry and Results: Change and Progress in the Massachusetts Criminal Justice System” at UMass Boston last week, and we were delighted to run into Trial Court Chief Justice Paula Carey and Court Administrator Harry Spence, along with dozens of criminal justice experts we have worked with in the past. We have long believed that mandatory minimum sentences serve to place an undue burden on our courts. We also know that sending an offender to prison when an alternative sentence would be more appropriate will increase the likelihood that the person will reoffend rather than becoming a self-sustaining member of our community.

Here’s what gave us reason for optimism going forward. A survey conducted by the MassINC Polling Group yielded 6 key findings:

  1. Massachusetts residents want the criminal justice system to focus on prevention and rehabilitation – two areas where the current system is not seen as effective;
  2. Two-thirds want reforms that result in fewer people sent to prison, reversing previous high levels of support for new prisons;
  3. Residents show little support for mandatory minimum sentencing;
  4. The public sees drug use as a health problem rather than a crime, and seeks an increased focus on rehabilitation rather than incarceration;
  5. Concerns about supervision cloud pictures of public support ;
  6. In areas where more inmates are released, residents agree with the broad, pro-reform sentiment of the rest of the state.

As you may know, we have recently written about the Mental Health Court in Plymouth and the Homeless Court at Pine Street, and will in the future be writing about the Drug Court, all initiatives focused on addressing the underlying cause of the offender’s behavior. The goal is to prevent these people from becoming regulars in the criminal justice system. And we applaud the Massachusetts Trial Court for making such specialty courts a priority in its strategic plan.

Criminal justice reform has long been at the heart of the Boston Bar Association’s mission. In 1991, we and the group now known as Community Resources for Justice issued a report saying that “Public safety is not enhanced by speeches to ‘get tough on crime’. . . The superficial appeal of ‘mandatory sentences’ must be resisted in favor of more rational, safe and cost-effective policy-making.”  If at times we felt we were swimming against the tide of popular opinion, we have never relented in our efforts to undo what we believe was flawed public policy.

At the same time, we have worked to facilitate re-entry, amid a keen awareness that 97 per cent of incarcerated people will ultimately return to the community. In the public policy space, we released a study on parole practices and community re-integration in 2002, arguing that Massachusetts needs a system of presumptive parole. And we have long advocated for Criminal Offender Record Information reform.

It is from that perspective that we applaud the work of MassINC and look forward to working with others to follow up on their survey with sound public policy reforms.

Dacier’s Take on. . . Gun Violence

Published by on February 19, 2014

The ink had barely dried on “Strategies for Reducing Gun Violence in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” a report commissioned by House Speaker Robert DeLeo in the wake of the mass shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, when we heard about Boston’s 10th homicide victim, a 9 year old named Jan Marcos Pena. According to news reports, his 14 year old brother was charged with involuntary manslaughter and illegal gun possession.

Based on what we read in the report, Massachusetts already has some of the strongest gun laws in the nation. Of all the states, only Hawaii has a lower rate of gun death than Massachusetts.  While some 13 per cent of Massachusetts households report having a gun, compare that to other parts of the country, where 1/3 of households have guns. While the gun death rate nationwide is over 3 times higher than it is in Massachusetts, more than 2,000 people in the Bay State died as the result of gunfire during the most recent decade.

We think that’s way too many, as does the report commissioned by Speaker DeLeo.  The report concludes that we need to do more to prevent gun violence, and includes numerous recommendations about what Massachusetts can do, with an eye toward legislation. The report is an excellent resource for anybody who cares about this very serious issue.

Here in the City of Boston, the Boston Globe reports that the death toll from shootings in January was higher than any time in the last several years. Just over a year ago, WBUR did a segment about Massachusetts gun crimes rising despite strict laws. During the course of an interview with Professor James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology, law and public policy at Northeastern University, he cited two compelling facts: (1) Guns recovered from Massachusetts crimes were not purchased in Massachusetts, but in states with far more lenient gun laws; and (2) Over half the guns recovered in crimes can be linked to fewer than 1% of gun dealers.

We read that mass shootings – such as the 20 children and 6 adults massacred at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, the 7 co-workers shot at Edgewater Technology by a disgruntled employee using a variety of firearms, or the 12 students and 1 teacher killed at Columbine – are a statistically small portion of shootings overall. But that’s not much comfort to those of us who have lived through these events.

We live in a nation where the sale of so many goods –including barbeque grills, cribs, gasoline, swimming pools, pharmaceuticals and all-terrain vehicles come under tight regulation. Even with the protections afforded by our Constitution under the Second Amendment, it seems to us guns need to be regulated more effectively.

Dacier’s Take on. . .Abraham Lincoln and James B. Conroy’s New Book

Published by on February 12, 2014

We just read a fascinating book on the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, Our One Common Country. Written by James B. Conroy, a partner at Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar, the book focuses on the Hampton Roads Peace Conference of 1865.

If you’re not a Civil War buff, the Hampton Roads Conference was a negotiation with Southern peace envoys convened secretly by President  Lincoln, to begin the process of healing our country, and ending the war by agreement rather than by conquest.

“Abraham Lincoln is the only American president in history to meet face to face with the enemy in the midst of a shooting war,” says Conroy.  “Lincoln did not set out to vanquish his opponents but to get the parties to a reasonable resolution of their differences as quickly as possible.”

We asked Conroy many questions concerning Lincoln’s unique qualities. We also discussed President Lincoln’s willingness to reach across the aisle to deal with political adversaries for the good of the Union.

Here are some additional tidbits Conroy shared with us about President Lincoln:

-          He had a great understanding of the human character and a great empathy for his adversaries as well as his friends, which in turn prevented him from demonizing the enemy and made it possible for him to reach out to them;

-          His core principles were the preservation of the Union and the notion of equal opportunity and equality under the law, within the context of his times;

-          He was true to those core principles while leading the country through the worst crisis of its history, but willing to make compromises and form alliances with people with whom he shared very little;

-          He was incredibly generous and magnanimous to his enemies, political as well as military.

The peace envoys were President Lincoln and William H. Seward for the Union and Alexander Stephens, John A. Campbell and Robert M.T. Hunter for the Confederacy. Ironically, all were seasoned trial attorneys who knew each other well.  Conroy says that even though the peace envoys failed to achieve consensus, the lesson to be learned is this: “You have to offer an adverse party a face-saving way out of a dispute – coupled with some tangible gain that is of minor consequence or at least reasonably tolerable to the party that holds the better hand. A negotiated resolution is almost always preferable to a war.”

The political courage that President Lincoln demonstrated should serve as an example for our leaders today. Imagine how much more efficient our society would be if more compromises were made in the interest of the Constitution and our country.

We look forward to hearing Jim Conroy speak at the BBA to discuss his book in the near future.