Uncategorized

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.

Dacier’s Take On. . .the Probate and Family Court

Published by on February 5, 2014

Knowing that the Probate and Family Court Department is one of the busiest, we wanted to gather more information about its challenges and characteristics. So we recently walked over to the John Adams Courthouse to spend an hour with Chief Justice Angela Ordoñez.

During the course of our meeting, she shared with us several observations:

She sees staff in a number of divisions of the Probate and Family Court struggling to keep up with their duties, despite a strong work ethic. When people fall behind in their responsibilities, one very immediate consequence is delay in the issuance of a summons – without which there can be no service of process.  There are also delays in docketing and scanning. For example, attorneys wanting to enter a complaint for modification or contempt cannot do so without a summons. Pro se litigants, of which this court sees many, need a summons to be served before they can get on the schedule to be heard. Delays in docketing may have an impact on the appeal process.

In a court whose judges are expected to do a lot of writing, law clerks are essential for getting decisions out in a timely fashion. Not having enough law clerks may impact timely rulings. Chief Justice Ordoñez also points to a rise in the number of litigants with limited English proficiency, and the difficulty of having interpreters available in the Probate and Family Court.

Because disputes among families can be fraught with emotion, security is a great concern.   She observes that she recently received an email from an attorney citing two violent encounters in waiting areas where there is no security. Given the fact that litigants may have children with them, this is particularly concerning.

In another instance, two warring families showed up at the court unexpectedly. Witnessing emotional outbursts, a court officer tried to separate the parties. The court officer suffered significant injuries in the resulting melee.

The ramifications of what happens in this court go beyond a dispute between two parents. In making its decisions, the court must take into consideration the impact of their rulings on children and how they grow up. Placing a child with an abusive parent, for example, puts the child at immediate risk, and may sow the seeds for an abusive young adult down the line.

Like other courts, Probate and Family court is affected by economic cycles, in its own unique way. The national economic crisis that began in 2008 sparked an uptick in court activity, accompanied by an increase in unrepresented litigants unable to afford legal representation. Chief Justice Ordoñez explains that research seems to indicate that people may hold off filing for divorce in a tough economy. In Massachusetts, the economic downturns seemed to lead to an increase in child support modification complaints and contempt complaints – where those already separated or divorced or never married parents initiate more court activity.

She speculates that when the economy is better, people already separated or divorced may come back for a modification seeking an increase in child support. She hopes a better economy means a reduction in contempt actions because more people have steady jobs, making it possible for them to keep current on child support obligations.

We left our meeting with the Chief Justice with a great appreciation for the specialized skills required of judges and their staff in this high volume court, and the importance of their work in a civilized society.

Dacier’s Take on. . . Martin Luther King Jr.

Published by on January 29, 2014

More than a week has passed since we commemorated the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., a civil rights leader who fought injustice without resorting to violence. A politically astute clergyman, he rose from relative obscurity to become a thought leader of world renown, and the father of two major pieces of civil rights legislation.

As lawyers continuing to reflect on Dr. King’s legacy, much of what he said during his tragically brief time here on earth has the quality of timelessness. But for us, nothing resonates more powerfully than “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, a statement intuitive to all of us.

He wrote that line in April 1963 in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail ” an explanation about why the time had come to organize non-violent demonstrations to ensure that African Americans be accorded certain rights under the United States Constitution, the same rights white people took for granted. He made clear that he was in this struggle for the long haul, willing to bear the consequences of his actions.

The Birmingham marches and sit-ins in public spaces – in violation of a court order Dr. King considered unjust – sought the desegregation of department store facilities as well as fair hiring. By May of that same year, television footage of police using dogs and fire hoses against demonstrators, including children, provoked a national outcry against segregationists.

Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech, delivered at The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in August 1963, seems embedded in the minds of any of us who lived through the ‘60’s, and of school children throughout the world today. The March helped build the momentum to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a major accomplishment for the civil rights movement and a milestone in helping to make real the promise of our Constitution.

The speech Dr. King delivered when he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, described as “an often ignored masterpiece,” is beautifully emblematic of his style:

“After contemplation, I conclude that this award . . . is a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political question of our time – the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression. Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts.”

By January of 1964, Dr. King turned his attention to seeking passage of a Voting Rights Act, signed into law on August 6, 1965. Again there was violence against protestors, but he encouraged them to exercise extreme self-restraint. He reasoned, correctly, that if the African-American vote continued to be unlawfully suppressed by those placing obstacles in the paths of those trying to register, nothing would change.

Dr. King was willing to risk his life to advance the cause of constitutional rights. Sadly, we lost this heroic advocate of non-violence to an assassin’s bullet in 1968, when he was just 39. We are deeply grateful for the changes he wrought, but we cannot help wonder what else he could have done had he been given the chance.