Presidential Leadership and Legal Professionalism
The ties that bind—part two.
Written by Talmage Boston
Is there a relationship between best practices in presidential
leadership and legal professionalism? Though many may believe these
subjects are unrelated, in fact, as this article will demonstrate, they
align in synchronicity. As the author of a presidential history book and
as a full-time practicing lawyer for over 40 years, I encourage the
reader to go with the flow and recognize the clear parallels in these
two seemingly disparate areas.
History. Most lawyers enjoy history because so much of our business
depends on precedent. History is so appealing because it shows how much
things change and how much things stay the same. One way that
history shows how much things stay the same is that the traits that make
for a great presidential leader are the same in 2020 as they were in
1789 when George Washington got sworn in.
For my book Cross-Examining History: A Lawyer Gets Answers From
the Experts About Our Presidents, released in 2016 shortly before
the election, I identified the most important leadership traits based on
interviews with top presidential historians and Oval Office insiders and
decided to call them “the Ten Commandments of Presidential Leadership.”
Knowing that lawyers have historically been leaders—whether in their
communities, at their law firms, or in bar activities—these commandments
should be worthy of all lawyers’ attention, since they come from the
people who faced their eras’ greatest challenges and met them in ways
that set the standard for all in leadership positions.
When the stories of the presidents who epitomized these leadership
commandments are matched with the Texas Disciplinary Rules of
Professional Conduct and the Texas Lawyer’s Creed, it helps explain why
so many of our commanders in chief started their careers as lawyers and
went about their business with the same traits that later served them
well when they led the country.
Turning now to the Ten Commandments, the presidents who epitomized them,
and how they apply to lawyers, let’s finish with six through 10 (to read
one through five, see pages
378-382 of the June 2020 issue).
Sixth Commandment of Presidential Leadership: A great leader
shalt remain calm in a crisis.
The president who exemplified this commandment was John F. Kennedy. In
October 1962, at the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union delivered
nuclear missiles into Cuba. During the 13 days it took to resolve the
missile crisis, all of Kennedy’s top advisers met with him for a total
of 43 hours at meetings he and his attorney general brother Robert
Kennedy secretly taped. The tapes were finally made available to the
public in the 1990s and revealed that all his advisers kept telling JFK
during the 13 days that strong retaliation by the United States would be
necessary to get Russia to remove its missiles. Obviously, such extreme
proposed action could have triggered the start of World War III. The
tapes show that as his advisers got more riled up each day with
increasing bellicosity, Kennedy was the only guy in the room who stayed
calm, which allowed him to reach an agreement with the Russians whereby
they removed their missiles from Cuba without there being any military
incident.
How does the Sixth Commandment’s leadership trait about the need to stay
calm in a crisis apply to lawyers? Section III of the Texas Lawyer’s
Creed answers this question: “Ill feeling between clients shall not
influence a lawyer’s conduct, attitude, or demeanor toward opposing
counsel. A lawyer shall not engage in unprofessional conduct in
retaliation against other unprofessional conduct.” When tempers flare
between clients or lawyers, it often creates a crisis for the case. Will
an anger outburst cause those involved to go into a downward spiral
or will a cool head stay above the crisis and bring the players
into a mode of professional equilibrium? The lawyer’s job is to be that
cool head.
Seventh Commandment of Presidential Leadership: A great
leader shalt recognize the importance of good timing in pursuing
initiatives, and not force things when the time isn’t right, but seize
the moment when it is.
The philosopher Carlos Castaneda said, “Warriors/great leaders recognize
the cubic centimeter of chance that can make or break them. When it pops
up, they move on it with the necessary speed and prowess to capitalize
on the opportunity.” The president who epitomized this commandment was
Lyndon B. Johnson in the way he went about getting American history’s
most important civil rights legislation enacted.
In June 1963, after being in office two and a half years, Kennedy
finally offered Congress a strong civil rights bill though it promptly
got stuck in committee and JFK had no idea how to get it unstuck before
his assassination five months later. After Kennedy’s death, Johnson
seized the moment and proceeded to strong-arm Congress about the frozen
bill by telling them the best way to make a powerful statement to the
grieving American public and honor JFK’s memory in a meaningful way
would be to make him the martyr for legislation advancing civil rights.
Using that angle as his motivator, Johnson leaned on senators, got the
bill out of committee and onto the floor, fought through a filibuster,
and got it passed into law in July 1964.
The same thing happened a year later with the Voting Rights Act.
Frustrated over Congress’ unwillingness to pursue a voting rights law,
LBJ waited until the nation became horrified after watching Bloody
Sunday in Selma, Alabama, on television, as police troops bludgeoned the
non-violent African Americans attempting to march from Selma to
Montgomery in protest over Alabama’s refusal to give them voting rights.
Using the nation’s moral outrage in response to the televised beatings
as the wind in his sail, a week after Bloody Sunday, LBJ made his “We
shall overcome” speech to both houses of Congress and a national
television audience. Then, days after that electrifying speech, he
submitted his voting rights bill to Congress, which soon became the
Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The same thing happened three years later on the issue of fair housing
legislation. Housing bills were hopelessly stuck between the two houses
of Congress until Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on April 4,
1968. Again, Johnson seized on a tragic event and leaned on the House to
approve the Senate’s version of the bill, as a means of showing the
country how important it was to pay tribute to King in an impactful
way.
How does the Seventh Commandment’s leadership trait about the need to be
mindful of when to wait and be patient and when to seize the day apply
to lawyers? Section II, paragraph two of the Texas Lawyer’s Creed
addresses this where it says, “[A] lawyer will endeavor to achieve [his
or her] client’s lawful objectives in legal transactions and in
litigation as quickly and economically as possible.”
All seasoned lawyers know the importance of timing. In the litigation
arena, sometimes disputes are ripe for mediation early in a case, while
some lawsuits should be mediated only after discovery and summary
judgment skirmishing. There are centimeters of chance for achieving
resolution at junctures throughout the timeline of a case, and the
skilled lawyer knows when the time is right to wait and when it’s right
to strike quickly to expedite the litigation’s resolution.
Eighth Commandment of Presidential Leadership: A great leader
shalt be a great communicator and shalt not only speak well but shall
also follow through on what he or she says.
The president who hit the Eighth Commandment out of the park in the
modern era was Ronald Reagan. The conventional wisdom regarding why
Reagan’s word power skills were so extraordinary was the fact that he
had spent half his adult life as an actor, which trained him to look the
camera in the eye and deliver his message with full dramatic force. For
anyone who ever watched Reagan’s movies and television shows, however,
the truth is he was not a particularly good actor.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, what made Reagan such a great
communicator was his sunny disposition and cheerful countenance that
caused him to speak to the American people with a spirit of optimism and
inspired hope, allowing him to channel the people’s inner voice.
His chief of staff and secretary of the treasury, James Baker, believes
it was Reagan’s consistent confident message over time in communicating
his steadfast opposition to Soviet communism that built the momentum
that led to the Cold War’s end. In the modern era, presidents’ speeches
are written by speechwriters; for foreign policy speeches, the U.S.
Department of State and the National Security Council also provide
input. Obviously, though, the boss decides what’s in the final draft.
The most memorable line of Reagan’s presidency came as he attempted to
bring an end to the Cold War and said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this
wall!” The speech containing that line went through many drafts. The
State Department and National Security Council kept taking the line out.
They believed it was too inflammatory and would alienate the Soviet
Union. Reagan kept putting the line back in.
On June 12, 1987, the time was right, the place at West Berlin’s
Brandenburg Gate was right, and Reagan’s entire foreign policy message,
which he had been saying since his first political speech in 1964,
finally arrived. To heck with the State Department and the National
Security Council, he said the words that will forever give him a special
place in history: “Tear down this wall.” Four words—each one
syllable—simple, clear, passionate, and right on the mark. As important
as his words, Reagan then followed through on what he said by leading
the charge to tear down the wall and end the Cold War.
How does the Eighth Commandment’s leadership trait of being a great
communicator and following through on what is said apply to lawyers? The
answer: A person cannot be a great leader without being a great
communicator and a person cannot be a great lawyer without
being a great communicator. Once a lawyer communicates clearly to a
court, or another lawyer, or a client, per section I, paragraph one of
the Texas Lawyer’s Creed, his or her “word” had better be his or her
“bond”—meaning the lawyer had better follow through on what he or she
said, unless, of course, circumstances materially change that make
recalibration necessary.
Ninth Commandment of Presidential Leadership: A great leader
shalt put the country’s interest above his or her own personal political
interest.
The president in the modern era who tied his presidency to this
commandment was George H.W. Bush. At the 1988 Republican National
Convention, when Bush accepted his party’s nomination for president, he
said six important words to the national television audience: “Read my
lips: No new taxes.” The people at the convention cheered, and that
promise was a key to his winning the election. The tax issue was
politically huge at the time, but it was a two-edged sword. The Reagan
tax cuts had been popular throughout his presidency but had caused
substantial increases in the federal deficit.
After becoming president, Bush soon realized that although his “No New
Taxes” pledge had been based on the nation’s economic circumstances as
they existed in August 1988, these circumstances had materially changed
by 1990. Because the deficit had continued to grow to unprecedented
heights through the first part of Bush’s presidency, the rest of the
world had started reducing the amount of American treasury bills they
purchased in large part over their concerns about the health of the
American economy. When the time came in 1990 to get a budget deal done,
there was only one way to get an agreement with the
Democratic-controlled Congress on how to provide funding that would be
used to cut the deficit, given their refusal to agree to any spending
cuts. Federal funding to reduce the deficit could only come from
increased tax revenue—i.e., higher taxes.
In response to the budget and unexpected deficit crises, Bush made the
decision to break his convention pledge and agree to the tax increase
because of the changed circumstances that necessitated such action. His
doing so caused a Newt Gingrich-led revolt in the Republican Party,
which became a key factor in Bush’s losing the 1992 election. Could Bush
have kept his 1988 convention promise and refused to approve new taxes
in the 1990 budget talks? Of course, but it would have caused a budget
impasse with Congress, thereby triggering a government shutdown, which
would have caused the deficit to keep growing, further reducing the
world’s confidence in the American economy.
How does the Ninth Commandment’s leadership trait about the need to
always put the public interest above one’s own personal political
interest apply to lawyers? Section II of the Texas Lawyer’s Creed
answers that question: “A lawyer shall not be deterred by any real or
imagined fear of judicial disfavor or public unpopularity, nor be
influenced by mere self-interest.” This part of the creed means that the
person who the lawyer must put first is the client. Sometimes lawyers
have clients who are not esteemed in their communities or in certain
courts. To make a zealous stand on behalf of such a client is typically
not in a lawyer’s self-interest, though by making such a stand, the
lawyer thereby has the opportunity to follow in Atticus Finch’s
footsteps, in the way Atticus zealously represented Tom Robinson
.
Tenth and Final Commandment of Presidential Leadership: A
great leader shalt stay abreast of public sentiment and find ways to
shape it, so that it aligns with his or her vision.
The president who demonstrated this commandment better than anyone was
Abraham Lincoln, who once said, “Public sentiment is everything. Whoever
molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or
pronounces judicial decisions.”
Lincoln understood that in his era, the people who best knew the public
sentiment in their communities were those who ran the local newspapers.
Wherever he traveled on business, he always made it a point to meet with
the local newspaper publishers, and from them, he caught up on the talk
of their town. Once he knew the public sentiment, Lincoln then devised
strategies to change it to align with his thoughts. As president, he
shaped public opinion by writing newspaper editorials, giving eloquent
speeches, strategically leaking information to newspapers, and writing
letters to newspaper editors that he circulated to other newspapers
around the country.
Here’s an example of how Lincoln got out in front of an issue by knowing
the public’s feelings about it, and then succeeding in shaping public
opinion to align with his own viewpoint. On the divisive issue of
slavery during the Civil War, he managed to find a politically
acceptable way to issue the Emancipation Proclamation by declaring that
its passage was not because he wanted to abolish the evil institution of
slavery, but because emancipation was needed as a matter of “military
necessity.” Why did he say that? Because he knew how conflicted public
sentiment was on slavery in 1862—especially in the border states—when he
sat down to write the Emancipation Proclamation. Because of his
knowledge of the people’s mindset, Lincoln knew that if he said he was
emancipating Southern slaves because of an altruistic desire to achieve
equal rights for all people, regardless of race, and thereby wipe out
evil slavery, there would have been major pushback from the border
states, where many people still owned slaves. Because of Lincoln’s
awareness of the public sentiment, the proclamation did not free the
slaves in the border states.
Above all, when he wrote the proclamation in 1862, Lincoln knew that the
public sentiment in the North and the border states was to the effect
that the people desired more than anything else for the Civil War to end
with a Union victory as soon as possible. Thus, they wanted
everything done by their commander in chief to end the war. The
proclamation freed Southern slaves so they could run away from their
masters, join the Union army, and increase its manpower, producing
ultimate victory to the North sooner than if there were no additional
military troops available to support the Union war effort. His strategy
worked. After the proclamation was issued on January 1, 1863, it
received little pushback and was a key factor in turning the tide toward
a Union victory.
How does the Tenth Commandment’s trait to know and then mold public
sentiment apply to lawyers? Section II, paragraph three of the Texas
Lawyer’s Creed answers this when it says, a lawyer “will be loyal and
committed to [his or her] client’s lawful objectives, but [he or she]
will not permit that loyalty and commitment to interfere with [the
lawyer’s] duty to provide objective and independent advice.” Yes, a
lawyer had better know the sentiments of his or her clients, but he or
she also had better be in the business of coming up with sound
strategies to mold and guide clients’ sentiments toward his or her own
professional vision in order to achieve the best possible result for the
matter he or she has been hired to handle.
After now seeing how closely all of the Ten Commandments of
Presidential Leadership align with the Texas Disciplinary Rules of
Professional Conduct and the Texas Lawyer’s Creed, is it any wonder why
of the 44 men who have served as president of the United States (Grover
Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms), almost 60% have been
lawyers? Yes, the traits that make a presidential leader great are also
what make a lawyer become a consummate professional. Thus, it might be
useful for the lawyer who aspires to elevate his or her ethics to start
boning up on best practices in presidential history. TBJ
TALMAGE
BOSTON
is a partner in the Dallas office of Shackelford, Bowen, McKinley
& Norton and the author of four history books,
including Raising the Bar: The Crucial Role of the Lawyer
in Society (TexasBarBooks, 2012) and Cross-Examining History:
A Lawyer Gets Answers From the Experts About Our Presidents (Bright
Sky Press, 2016).
