Interview with Terry Gilbert In Response to the Lynne Stewart Guilty Verdict
by elle ross
Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2005 at 8:40 PM
Complete Interview and More Information
Cleveland Indymedia Center interviews renowned Cleveland Attorney Terry Gilbert in response to the guilty verdict in the Lynne Stewart trial. The National Lawyers Guild condemns the message the government is sending to defense lawyers who choose to represent unpopular clients. After deliberating for 13 days, a jury convicted Lynne Stewart, veteran civil rights attorney.
Read Terry Gilbert Biography
Interview with Cleveland Attorney Terry Gilbert regarding the Lynne Stewart guilty verdict. 2/15/04
elle ross = ER
terry gilbert = TG
What are you initial thoughts with the guilty verdict in the Lynne Stewart Trial?
Well, I think it's disturbing because the relationship between a lawyer and a client should be held with great sacredness in our justice system. The fact that she might have echoed some positions to her lawyer that her client expressed certainly should not be accepted as providing material
support to terrorism. I think that the way it was spun was successfully done because of the prosecution because of the climate of fear that exists
in this country that anybody who could even be perceived to be helping
somebody who is a terrorist regardless of their role, in this case being a
lawyer, should not be considered to be afforded protection under our law.
I think that is scary and alarming.
The National Lawyers Guild has stated with the verdict of this case the
government is bent on intimidating attorneys from providing representation
to unpopular clients. That is similar to what you were just saying. Do you
agree with this?
yeah I think it does. I don't think that lawyers in general, even
criminal defense lawyers are breaking down doors to represent people who
are being investigated for terrorism-related crimes, but those few who
have been committed to the principal that everyone deserves a defense, a
vigorous defense, may think twice before they decide to represent somebody
knowing that every move you make, every discussion you have with your
client, every strategy decision you may develop could be under scrutiny by
the government. This is very intimidating. It is an ominous sign for the
In your career you have represented what is termed unpopular clients. Do
you think this effects you personally or how do you feel this may effect
attorneys in general?
I am pretty solid in my career, it is probably winding down at this point.
So I am not going to waiver in my principals at this point. I don't feel
intimated by the government. But I feel bad for the younger lawyers who
are starting out who need to uphold the principals of zealous advocacy. I
am wondering about those people who have young families, who are looking
toward building their careers in law may think it's not worth it to get
involved in this kind of dilemma. You know, we always are concerned about
the government snooping in regarding our relationship with our clients
particularly with respect to who is paying fees and that kind of thing.
You know, the mob lawyers were always being intimidated by the government
because of where money was coming from. So this is nothing new. But now
it's a whole different scope of scrutiny and monitoring. This war on
terrorism has so many tentacles of consequences, and now we have to worry
about the attorney client relationship. Now, maybe Lynne Stewart, who is a
firebrand lawyer, who I know by the way, and who has stood up against the
government for many years and is not afraid to put herself at risk, maybe
she did some things in this case that might have been done more discreetly
and not broadcast to the world, but I don't think that takes away from
what may be the insidious scope of the investigation against her. Had she
had just represented somebody else they probably wouldn't even have cared,
but because she was representing a high profile client they have made an
example out of her.
How do you think the Lynne Stewart case will effect a citizens 6th
amendment right to an attorney?
Well, I think it drives to wedge, in some sense, between the lawyer and
the client. Because if the lawyer wants to feel comfortable confiding in
a confidential manner with his or her lawyer, knowing that the government
may be watching what goes on between the lawyer and the client, what
communications take place, whether in the open area or in the prisons,
they may not be willing to put their trust in the lawyer. And that's a
What, if any options, do you think are available to attorneys and citizens
who are outraged at the Stewart decision? I work with
Independent Media Center, and many of us are covering this story based
from an independent news source because the corporate media is going
with...a particular view.
What options do you think are available for us?
I think that the civil rights community and legal organizations should
join forces to present a coherent alternative to the Patriot Act-type
impositions that we've been living under and get Congress to carve out
some protections and spell it out, in no uncertain terms, about the fact
that the client-attorney relationship has been violated. When you're
dealing with a regime in this country that felt that it was certainly
within human rights, to condone torture, to disallow any lawyers to see
people that are being held as enemy noncombatants, so from their
perspective, the people running the show, they don't feel there should be
any balancing here. That the ends justify the means. When talking about
terrorism all bets off regarding constitutional rights. The Civil Rights
community, legal associations, bar associations, need to step up and
demand a code of protections. Obviously there's certain things a lawyer
cannot do. A lawyer cannot combine with their clients to fabricate
evidence, to put out fraudulent strategy, get people to commit
perjury, and more, the traditional things we live under that create
professional responsibility and govern our conduct, but it seems to me
that in situations like this there should be some kind of bill of rights
somehow about how far the government can go in piercing the attorney
I want to thank you and to say that I agree with what you have said. Your
responses follow the guidelines of Cleveland Indymedia Center, which is
why we appreciate you taking the time to talk with us. Do you have any
final words you would like to add?
No, that's alright, I feel we covered everything.
National Lawyers Guild condemns verdict in Lynne Stewart Trial
In response to today’s guilty verdict in the Lynne Stewart trial, the
National Lawyers Guild condemns the message that the government is
sending to defense lawyers who choose to represent unpopular clients.
After deliberating for 13 days, a jury convicted veteran civil rights
attorney Stewart, a member of the Guild, on charges of conspiracy,
providing material support to terrorists and defrauding the U.S.
government. Sentencing is scheduled for July 15. The 65-year-old attorney
faces up to 20 years in prison.
Read NLG Statement
Day of Outrage! In Support of Lynne Stewart
The National Executive Committee of the NLG calls on all Guild chapters to
organize and to take part in local actions as part of a "National Day of
Outrage" in response to yesterday's Lynne Stewart verdict, which we see as
an attack not only on our cherished colleague and fellow NLG member but
also on all members of the legal community who represent unpopular clients
and causes. We are calling for this coordinated day of action to be held
Thursday, February 17 in your cities, towns, and, if you are a law
student, at your school.
Read The Call To Action
Democracy Now! Interview's Lynne Stewart
Convicted Attorney Lynne Stewart: "You Can't Lock Up the Lawyers"
Lynne Stewart and her attorney, Michael Tigar, join Democracy Now! in our
firehouse studio for their first extended national broadcast interview
following Thursday's jury decision to convict Stewart on all five counts
of conspiring to aid terrorists and lying to the government.
Read Full Content
Who is Lynne Stewart?
Visit her website