I am proud to have spent many an evening teaching college students the law. I have met many interesting and promising young people over the years. It is my habit to begin each semester trying to understand where students perceive their future plans. I usually ask "why are you here?" There are a great many responses to that inquiry.
Many need a class for a particular major, while others have an interest in entrepreneurship and think a law class is foundational. There is usually someone that says they are pursuing a path to law school but is pursuing a broader agenda business degree. I often see myself in these young people, focused on their futures, and striving to achieve a significant life goal. In retrospect, I am not sure I could survive law school again. In fact, I am not sure that I did the first time.
I persistently and patiently remind students that law school is a major commitment, challenge, and goal. The path is not for the faint at heart. Achievement of the title "attorney" is not easy, cheap, or fast. I had a young man once tell me it was the longest three years of his life. I laughed, but he did not. It is disappointing when some attorney finds themselves disbarred in instances like Petition for Disciplinary Revocation (August 2022) or Then Arrested (August 2020). What a waste of talent and hard work.
I thought of my students pursuing this goal when I recently read of the final outcome for two lawyers who made national headlines in the spring of 2020. Their lives are intertwined now with the tragedy of George Floyd, and perhaps always will be. These two lawyers recently learned an expensive lesson in the world of civility and law. Colinford Mattis has an Ivy League education and practiced corporate law. Urooh Rahman was a Fordham Law School graduate and was a friend of Mattis. They were focused, according to reports, on helping those who are "marginalized."
The New York Post reported in November 2022 that Ms. Rahman, an immigrant, "led an exemplary life." Federal Judge Cogan reportedly told her she is "a remarkable person." Ms. Rahman told the judge at her sentencing hearing that she "lost my way in the emotion." The emotion led her to throw bottles, demonstrate, and more, in response to her emotions regarding the death of George Floyd half a continent away. She threw a Molotov cocktail at a police car. Judge Cogan sentenced her to 15 months in prison.
Mr. Mattis was in communication with Ms. Rahman on that fateful day. He later joined her to demonstrate. He too was convicted of "conspiracy to commit arson," according to the NY Times. He expressed sorrow and embarrassment regarding his participation in the property damage and rioting. Reviewing some of the text messages between himself and Ms. Rahman, he noted “I am more than horrified at the words I used.” Judge Cogan sentenced Mr. Mattis to 12 months in prison. The Times suggests that this outcome may also imperil Mr. Mattis' "guardianship and planned adoption of three foster children."
Judge Cogan reportedly told Mr. Mattis that he had taken a difficult path and "changed his station in life" by becoming an attorney. The judge told him "You’re not one of the oppressed . . . You’re one of the privileged.” And, that privilege came from hard work. Some of the audience, friends of Mr. Mattis', are quoted by the Times disagreeing with the judge's assessment of the "privilege" perception. Their explanation or support, if any, as to lawyers not being privileged was not included in the article.
That made me think of Bill Murray for some reason. He once said “It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's ___(darn) near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.” That may or may not apply here, but being a lawyer is undoubtedly a privilege. I would enjoy hearing the argument against this point. Lawyers enjoy some advantages in this country including prestige and respect, though some periodically do a credible job of destroying both. You've seen the advertisements, the disbarments, the behavior, and the disappointment.
Yahoo news reports that in 2020 there were "peaceful protests" regarding the death of Mr. Floyd in Minneapolis. In New York, those turned to "confrontations with police." Mr. Mattis reportedly was already out of sorts regarding his employment. Before meeting with Ms. Rahman, he reportedly "had been drinking throughout the day" and communicating with various friends about their feelings regarding the death and demonstrations. He met Ms. Rahman that night, they obtained supplies and joined the demonstrators in Brooklyn. In the early morning hours, Ms. Rahman threw the fateful Molotov cocktail after failing to "persuade a bystander to throw" it. There are those who would challenge you to effectively use "Molotov cocktail" and "peaceful" in a sentence.
Each of them is headed to jail. Each also lost their license to practice law. From any perspective that is an expensive outcome. They estimate that law school tuition alone will run you $88,830 to $159,102 for three years. In many communities, that is a house. Even if you are fortunate ("privileged") with scholarships or other support, that is a significant price tag. And, that does not include the cost of living, eating, etc. over that three years. This does not consider the three years of your life invested, the foregone opportunities and income, and more. Law school is an investment. Graduating from law school is an expensive proposition. Practicing law is a rare privilege. Write to me and explain the argument of lawyers not being privileged.
Additionally, there is the publicity. Will their future involve job applications that ask about criminal background? Will future employers look favorably upon throwing of an incendiary bomb? They could find their employment future limited to professorships the University of Illinois at Chicago. Will either former attorney ever escape from the legacy of being violent, that spring? Will the implications of their actions be pardoned away one day, or follow them? Did they accomplish anything positive with their violence in New York that fateful day? Was the destruction of public property positive in some manner? When is violence productive?
How many of the "marginalized" in America were helped by the firebomb in New York? How many lives were improved by the violence and the mayhem there or elsewhere? How many lives might two dedicated and able advocates have helped over a forty-plus year legal career? That moment was undoubtedly emotional, and emotions can be challenging. There were suggestions that alcohol played some role there, but consumption of alcohol is voluntary and often ill advised. In the end, two highly educated, privileged members of the bar elected to exalt violence and destruction in support of their anger, disappointment, or angst. The result is not likely what they envisioned. But should they have seen this coming?
According to the USA Today, almost 1,000 people have been criminally charged for their participation in the events of January 6, 2021. Many are listed here, and include threats, trespassing, and violence. It was wrong to breach the Capitol. Undoubtedly, there was some degree of property damage from those individuals. Reuters says it was about $1.5 million. This event led to "the largest police investigation in U.S. history, according to the BBC. This included former military, police, and others who might be as easily characterized as privileged. Those who participated in that may likely have been emotional and misguided.
The Associated Press said in 2021 that more than 300 federal cases were filed against those that protested following the death of George Floyd, and "dozens" were sent to prison. That appears to be from the over 13,000 arrests according to one source. Hundreds of state cases were dismissed in various jurisdictions such as Colorado. Some estimate that the damages to property were a bit higher in those riots, at least $1 billion and perhaps over $2 billion. The damage totals are interesting.
There are those who see disparate government reactions to the various riots, destruction, and challenges. Each is entitled to an opinion. The point, however, is that many people react to things that displease or upset them. There is impact to us all in the violence, destruction, and distraction. There is impact to us all in the expense and effort of the investigations that ensue. There is an appearance, to some at least, that some never face consequences. But, there are examples like Mr. Mattis and Ms. Rahman, and more. Perhaps the educated and privileged will think twice about their response to upset, their participation in riots, and their destruction of property? Perhaps some will be reminded that violence is not the answer.
