In Hunter Case, Blame Is Widespread
Dublin Core
Title
In Hunter Case, Blame Is Widespread
Subject
Legal reform
Disbarment of lawyers
Description
Michael Mello comments on the disbarment of fellow lawyer Will Hunter and the implications for the future of the legal profession in Vermont.
Creator
Mello, Michael
Source
Mello, Michael. "In Hunter Case, Blame is Widespread." Rutland Daily Herald, July 23, 1996, p.1.
Publisher
HIST 298, University of Mary Washington
Date
1996-07-23
Rights
The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.
Format
2 JPGs
300 DPI
Language
English
Coverage
Royalton, VT
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
[Title] In Hunter Case, Blame is Widespread
[Author] by Michael Mello
I teach legal ethics at Vermont Law School, and not infrequently I offer Mr. Hunter's practice to my students as an example of how it is possible for a person to be both a good lawyer and a good person.
Now that Mr. Hunter faces disbarment I will use his case to illustrate a point about law and power: that if you take on the hard cases and the un-popular clients, the establishment will come after you. Clarence Darrow was indicted for jury tampering; William Kunstler was held in contempt in Chicago.
In weighing Will Hunter's fitness to practice law in Vermont, it is important to remember that, in representing poor people and unpopular causes, Mr. Hunter was not only acting as a good person and a good citizen, he was acting as a good and ethical lawyer.
In living the bar's directive to serve the community and its injunction never to turn away a client because the client is unpopular, Mr. Hunter was acting in the finest and most noble traditions of the legal profession in America. "Obey the little laws and break the great ones. That's the preamble to their Constitution." Andre Lorde wrote. Mr. Hunter got it backwards, but that, I think, is to his credit.
I have never met Will Hunter, but I have met some of his former clients. The voices of the indigent people for whom Mr. Hunter was the "lawyer of last resort" have been conspicuously absent from the public conversation about whether Mr. Hunter is fit to continue practicing law.
Mr. Hunter's principal sin seems to have been overcommitment, an inability to say "no" to those in need of legal aid. But it seems to me that the very legal establishment that seeks to banish Hunter from its midst is partially responsible for the reality that no lawyer other than Will Hunter would accept these people as clients. The bar ought to be asking why Will Hunter has been the lawyer of last resort for so many indigent people in need of legal aid. Where were the Vermont lawyers? Where, indeed, were his prosecutor and judges?
And just when government is getting out of the business of providing legal aid for poor people, many private firms are becoming less and less willing or able to take on pro bono work. Now that paying clients are becoming harder to find, private practitioners are becoming less likely to work for free.
A few years ago, John Dooley and Alan Housman wrote that proposed budget cuts to the Legal Services Corp. would "not meet the legal needs of poor people; in fact they would deny poor people the full range of legal services available to those who can afford an attorney." Those words were published 13 years ago. The funding cuts feared by Dooley and Housman are now reality.
Mr. Hunter is not perfect- he's not a perfect lawyer, and he's not a perfect human being. None of us is- including Mr. Hunter's prosecutor and his judges. Give me an unlimited budget and the power to compel disclosure, and I'll find enough evidence to convince a gung-ho prosecutor that my target has acted "unethically." The ethical rules are by nature vague, and anyway complex human behavior doesn't lend itself to pigeonholing by codification. Look hard enough into any lawyer's practice, and you'll find at least some arguable improprieties.
At a time when legal services for the poor are being crippled by funding cuts, we need the few Will Hunters among us- we need them now more than ever. And it is fair to ask his prosecutor and his judges: With Will Hunter banished from the bar, who will do the important work he has been doing for such a long time? Will Mr. Hunter's prosecutor fulfill that role? Will his judges? Will the regular members of the Vermont bar?
Will Hunter performed an honorable role within the Vermont legal establishment. He took on the cases other attorneys wouldn't. Those other attorneys wouldn't say these poor people don't deserve any lawyer; they deserve some other lawyer. For years, Will Hunter was that "other" lawyer.
So, if Will Hunter is disbarred, those most in need of legal help- and least able to pay for it- will lose one tireless, brilliant, quirky advocate. He will be missed by his community and his clients, and
[end page one]
[start page two]
that's not a claim many attorneys can make.
Will Hunter has already paid a high price for taking seriously the bar's injunction to represent the poor and the unpopular. His home was ransacked by federal agents. His name and his reputation have been tarnished by the commissars of ethics. Now those same commissars want to disbar him.
Disbarring Mr. Hunter would be a "tragedy," as his prosecutor reportedly said. It would be a tragedy, but not for Mr. Hunter alone. It would be a tragedy for those in need of legal aid who will now have no lawyer at all. Most of all, it seems to me, disbarring Mr. Hunter would be a tragic and demeaning act for the Vermont bar. The bar should be better than this. The people of Vermont deserve better than this.
Every year I look for role models for my ethics students; good people who do good work as lawyers. My hope always is that perhaps a few of those students will work for those among us who need legal aid but can't afford to buy it. Then the Will Hunters of the world might be able to say "no" once in a while- knowing that the client turned away will be able to find another lawyer. In the meantime I'll send all such clients to Vermont's Professional Conduct Board.
Michael Mello of White River Junction is a professor of law at the Vermont Law School.
[end page two]
[Author] by Michael Mello
I teach legal ethics at Vermont Law School, and not infrequently I offer Mr. Hunter's practice to my students as an example of how it is possible for a person to be both a good lawyer and a good person.
Now that Mr. Hunter faces disbarment I will use his case to illustrate a point about law and power: that if you take on the hard cases and the un-popular clients, the establishment will come after you. Clarence Darrow was indicted for jury tampering; William Kunstler was held in contempt in Chicago.
In weighing Will Hunter's fitness to practice law in Vermont, it is important to remember that, in representing poor people and unpopular causes, Mr. Hunter was not only acting as a good person and a good citizen, he was acting as a good and ethical lawyer.
In living the bar's directive to serve the community and its injunction never to turn away a client because the client is unpopular, Mr. Hunter was acting in the finest and most noble traditions of the legal profession in America. "Obey the little laws and break the great ones. That's the preamble to their Constitution." Andre Lorde wrote. Mr. Hunter got it backwards, but that, I think, is to his credit.
I have never met Will Hunter, but I have met some of his former clients. The voices of the indigent people for whom Mr. Hunter was the "lawyer of last resort" have been conspicuously absent from the public conversation about whether Mr. Hunter is fit to continue practicing law.
Mr. Hunter's principal sin seems to have been overcommitment, an inability to say "no" to those in need of legal aid. But it seems to me that the very legal establishment that seeks to banish Hunter from its midst is partially responsible for the reality that no lawyer other than Will Hunter would accept these people as clients. The bar ought to be asking why Will Hunter has been the lawyer of last resort for so many indigent people in need of legal aid. Where were the Vermont lawyers? Where, indeed, were his prosecutor and judges?
And just when government is getting out of the business of providing legal aid for poor people, many private firms are becoming less and less willing or able to take on pro bono work. Now that paying clients are becoming harder to find, private practitioners are becoming less likely to work for free.
A few years ago, John Dooley and Alan Housman wrote that proposed budget cuts to the Legal Services Corp. would "not meet the legal needs of poor people; in fact they would deny poor people the full range of legal services available to those who can afford an attorney." Those words were published 13 years ago. The funding cuts feared by Dooley and Housman are now reality.
Mr. Hunter is not perfect- he's not a perfect lawyer, and he's not a perfect human being. None of us is- including Mr. Hunter's prosecutor and his judges. Give me an unlimited budget and the power to compel disclosure, and I'll find enough evidence to convince a gung-ho prosecutor that my target has acted "unethically." The ethical rules are by nature vague, and anyway complex human behavior doesn't lend itself to pigeonholing by codification. Look hard enough into any lawyer's practice, and you'll find at least some arguable improprieties.
At a time when legal services for the poor are being crippled by funding cuts, we need the few Will Hunters among us- we need them now more than ever. And it is fair to ask his prosecutor and his judges: With Will Hunter banished from the bar, who will do the important work he has been doing for such a long time? Will Mr. Hunter's prosecutor fulfill that role? Will his judges? Will the regular members of the Vermont bar?
Will Hunter performed an honorable role within the Vermont legal establishment. He took on the cases other attorneys wouldn't. Those other attorneys wouldn't say these poor people don't deserve any lawyer; they deserve some other lawyer. For years, Will Hunter was that "other" lawyer.
So, if Will Hunter is disbarred, those most in need of legal help- and least able to pay for it- will lose one tireless, brilliant, quirky advocate. He will be missed by his community and his clients, and
[end page one]
[start page two]
that's not a claim many attorneys can make.
Will Hunter has already paid a high price for taking seriously the bar's injunction to represent the poor and the unpopular. His home was ransacked by federal agents. His name and his reputation have been tarnished by the commissars of ethics. Now those same commissars want to disbar him.
Disbarring Mr. Hunter would be a "tragedy," as his prosecutor reportedly said. It would be a tragedy, but not for Mr. Hunter alone. It would be a tragedy for those in need of legal aid who will now have no lawyer at all. Most of all, it seems to me, disbarring Mr. Hunter would be a tragic and demeaning act for the Vermont bar. The bar should be better than this. The people of Vermont deserve better than this.
Every year I look for role models for my ethics students; good people who do good work as lawyers. My hope always is that perhaps a few of those students will work for those among us who need legal aid but can't afford to buy it. Then the Will Hunters of the world might be able to say "no" once in a while- knowing that the client turned away will be able to find another lawyer. In the meantime I'll send all such clients to Vermont's Professional Conduct Board.
Michael Mello of White River Junction is a professor of law at the Vermont Law School.
[end page two]
Original Format
Newspaper
Contributor of the Digital Item
Johnston, Spencer
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Dickinson, Terra
Files
Citation
Mello, Michael, “In Hunter Case, Blame Is Widespread,” HIST299, accessed July 12, 2026, https://hist299.umwhistory.org/items/show/261.