[Peace-discuss] driving away members

[C. G. Estabrook]

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Ricky Baldwin wrote:

> ...the lawyer we met was found to be unsuitable by almost everyone at
> the meetings, women and men, because of his documented bad judgment in
> past cases and his documented use of sexist language in official
> communications to other attorneys *as part of cases* he was working on
> -- and not just his own (at Kraft, for example).  This is not some
> thought-police action...

What I said at the meeting was that Marvin had used objectionable language
in letters to other attorneys and state officials, not in cases where he
was writing for a client, as he proposed to do for us. As I pointed out,
his suggestions for a letter for us were even more moderate than I (and
perhaps you) thought appropriate.

I'm surprised you find it necessary to defend our rejection of Marvin (in
which I concur) as "not some thought-police action."  Of course it is.
Although this lawyer agrees with our politics, will work cheap, and is
competent, we don't want him because he seems to think it appropriate to
use language that implies opinions we find sexist -- opinions that I think
he would reject, were we to ask him.

Here are some sections from the Tribune account from 2002:

Marvin Gerstein, 62, who handles worker's compensation claims and other
civil matters, contended that the 1st Amendment protects his right to lash
out in letters by labeling male lawyers and company officials "idiot" or
"boy" and the female opponents "sweetie pie," "babycakes" and "Mother
Superior"...

In one worker's compensation case, Gerstein sent back the letter of a
claims adjuster who had questioned his conduct torn into "bite size pieces
for your dining enjoyment"...

The other cases included one suit against a state agency represented by
the state attorney general's office...

In argument to the board, Gerstein's attorney, Robert Webber of Urbana,
said his client had cleaned up his act since 1991 in that he was no longer
using profanity in his tirades.

Webber said Monday that his client was considered to be a "colorful
character," but also a good lawyer. He said Gerstein did not step over the
line.

"When you're in litigation, to some degree attorneys are really doing the
dirty work for their clients, and it does become heated and emotional at
times," Webber said.

Webber said the only thing that made Gerstein's comments unusual was that
they were in writing.

"I think he still believed that the recipients of the letters had done
something inappropriate to him or his clients and that they deserved to be
called on it," Webber said...

The review board reprimanded Gerstein in 1978 for leaving a threatening
message on the telephone answering machine of a landlord whom he felt had
been unfair to his clients...

At a hearing last year, Dana Carluccio, a graduate student who teaches
business writing at the University of Illinois, testified on Gerstein's
behalf, saying his language served an attention-getting function.

Gerstein's resume includes service in the Peace Corps in Panama, various
pro bono cases, and time as an official of the Champaign County Bar
Association.

Longtime Champaign attorney Charles L. Palmer, now retired, was one of
several attorneys who testified on Gerstein's behalf. "He did have a
tendency to write letters that were a bit extreme, a little questionable,"
Palmer said Monday. "He's always marched to a different drummer. There's
nothing wrong with that"...

	***