The most visible champion of the Silveira case has been Angel Shamaya, through his usually wonderful web site, www.keepandbeararms.com. Recently, several items have appeared on that site relating to one Roy Lucas. This is the most informative one:
http://keepandbeararms.com/lucas/roy.asp
This doesn’t say outright, but seems to be implying (if I’m understanding it correctly, and perhaps I’m not), that Mr. Lucas has been chosen to present oral arguments in Silveira, if the case is accepted by the Supreme Court. In Mr. Lucas’s comments on another page, he says that he wrote the Silveira cert. petition “for” and “with” Mr. Gorski, the attorney of record.
I read this page Sunday (I think), never having heard of Mr. Lucas previously, and was favorably impressed by its description of him. My concerns began, however, when shortly thereafter I read Mr. Lucas’s reply to David Kopel’s 2-part critique of the Silveira case in NRO: http://keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/kopel.asp
and then his comments about Steven Halbrooks’s performance at oral arguments in the NRA-sponsored D.C. case: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/Halbrook.asp
More about these later, but for now I’ll just say that they struck me as incredibly self-serving and personal, rather than academic and argument-focused. It also seemed extremely strange to me that an apparent newcomer to the field of 2A studies and litigation would introduce himself to the world of those of us deeply interested in the subject by attacking two of the most respected researchers and writers in the field.
I then read his “Miller revisited” paper, reportedly now being reviewed for law journal publication. It, too, seemed to me far below the caliber I’d expect for an attorney of the experience his history describes—about the level of writing of a mediocre student comment in a law review. It’s disorganized, highly repetitive, shallow where it isn’t completely derivative, full of irrelevant meanderings, and embarrassingly self-congratulatory.
All of this made me deeply curious about what sort of person, scholar, and litigator is entering the fray. A Google search didn’t turn up much except many, many references to Mr. Lucas’s work on Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
Last night I sent Mr. Shamaya the following email:
Angel:
I'd appreciate it if you could do two things:
1) Post on your site Mr. Lucas's formal C.V. (including, of course, his current bar membership(s)).
2) Ask him to clarify this so-called "Madison Foundation-US" of which he claims to be president. Is it an actual organization, with a building, staff, etc.? A Google search turns up nothing about it. This document
http://www.asfog.com/Newsletter_Archive/Ix-3.doc
says that back in 1971 Mr. Lucas contacted the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology as a representative of the "James Madison Constitutional Law Institute"--of which he was the only member. Was *that* a real organization, with an actual building, staff, etc.? Is the "Madison Foundation-US," whatever it is, a continuation or reincarnation of the "James Madison Constitutional Law Institute"?
Thank you.
(I included the bar membership point because one web site claimed that he had surrendered his D.C. bar association membership. Another, however, gives his apparently current D.C. attorney registration number.)
I fully recognize that most of the information about Mr. Lucas is on pages sponsored by people and organizations that openly despise him for his work on abortion rights, and should be taken with a large grain of salt.
The newsletter linked to above tells an odd tale of how the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology got involved in the Roe/Doe cases—a tale which, if true, seems to me seriously unethical behavior on the part of Mr. Lucas.
Today I spent some time on Lexis. The following table (I don’t know how its formatting will come through; apologies if it’s hard to read) shows all of the appellate cases that have Mr. Lucas’s name as arguing the case, being on the brief, or authoring an amicus brief.
Case Cite Win/Loss/Other Vote Comments
- Simopoulos v. Virginia 462 U.W. 506 (1983) L 8-1
- Bellotti v. Baird 428 U.S. 132 (1976) L 9-0
- Doe v. Bolton 410 U.S. 179 (1973) L 7-2
- Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) O 7-2 Won appeal, lost cross-appeal
- Haskell v. Washington 891 F. 2d 132 (6th Cir. 1989) L 3-0
- Baird v. Bellotti 724 F. 2d 1032 (1st Cir. 1984) L 3-0
- Women’s Community v. Texas 685 F. 2d 974 (5th Cir. 1982) L 3-0
- Deerfield Medical v. Deerfield Beach 661 F. 2d 328 (5th Cir. 1981) W 3-0
- Simopoulos v. Virginia 644 F. 2d 321 (4th Cir. 1981) L 2-1
- Aware Clinic v. Cocoa Beach 629 F. 2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1980) W 3-0
- Hodgson v. Board 614 F. 2d 601 (8th Cir. 1980) L 2-1
- Baird v. Department 599 F. 2d 1098 (1st Cir. 1979) L 3-0
- Doe v. Kenley 584 F. 2d 1362 (4th Cir. 1978) W 3-0
- Abortion Coalition v. Michigan 586 F. 2d 843 (6th Cir. 1978) O Remanded without decision
- Abortion Coalition v. Michigan 582 F. 2d 1279 (6th Cir. 1978) O Question certified to state court
- Munson v. Janklow 563 F. 2d 933 (8th Cir. 1977) L 3-0
- Mucie v. Missouri 543 F. 2d 633 (8th Cir. 1976) W 3-0
- Hodgson v. Lawson 542 F. 2d 633 (8th Cir. 1976) W 3-0
- Hallmark v. North Carolina 519 F. 2d 1315 (4th Cir. 1975) L 3-0
- Vuitch v. Hardy 473 F. 2d 1370 (4th Cir. 1973) W 3-0
- People v. Barksdale 105 Cal. Rptr. 1 (Cal. 1972) W 4-3
- People v. Norton 507 P. 2d 862 (Colo. 1973) W ?
- Indiana Hospital v. Women’s Pavilion 486 N.E. 2d 1070 (Ind. App. 1985) L 3-0
- Indiana Hospital v. Women’s Pavilion 424 N.E. 2d 461 (Ind. App. 1981) O Won one motion, lost one motion
- Indiana Hospital v. Women’s Pavilion 420 N.E. 2d 1301 (Ind. App. 1981) W 3-0
- State v. Jamieson 480 P. 2d 87 (Kan. 1971) W ?
- State v. Ingel 308 A. 2d 223 (Md. App. 1973) W 3-0
- Baird v. Attorney General 360 N.E. 2d 288 (Mass. 1977) O 9 certified questions answered, mixed results for parties
- State v. Hodgson 204 N.W. 2d 199 (Minn. 1973) W 7-0
- Rogers v. Danforth 486 S.W. 2d 258 (Mo. 1972) L 6-1
- State v. Munson 206 N.W. 2d 434 (S.D. 1973) W 4-0
- State v. Munson 201 N.W. 2d 123 (S.D. 1972) L 4-0
- Ex Parte Tate 471 S.W. 2d 404 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971) O Remanded without decision
- Simopoulos v. Virginia 277 S.E. 2d 194 (Va. 1981) L 7-0
- Washington v. Wood 569 P. 2d 1148 (Wash. 1977) L 9-0
- Washington v. Koome 530 P. 2d 260 (Wash. 1975) W 5-4
Many disclaimers are in order:
An attorney’s win/loss record is not necessarily reflective of his skill. There are, after all, cases that just plain have bad facts that nobody could win, and some judges rule incorrectly even when the facts and the law are on your side.
I didn’t cull through the many published and unpublished trial-court cases, because it seems to me that what’s being depended on for the Silvieira case is appellate experience. However, my general sense was that he had a higher success rate at the trial level.
He could well have been involved in many more cases than Lexis reveals, and just not appeared personally or had his name added to the briefs.
I’ve counted equally the cases of relatively major import (e.g., Roe) and those of relatively minor import (e.g., cases seeking attorney’s fees after prevailing on the merits).
I’ve counted equally those in which he appeared, wrote all or part of the brief, or wrote all or part of an amicus brief. This isn’t necessarily fair, since he’s not solely in charge of cases where there are many hands, but this seemed the simplest way to tally things, and I have no way of assessing the impact he had on any case.
Some might quibble with my necessarily subjective calls on some cases as to whether to count a win, loss, or other, where it is not clean-cut. I tried to be fair, and I include here the cites so that others can check and decide for themselves.
All that said, I count 14 wins, 16 losses, and 6 “others.” Without doing any sort of statistical test for temporal trends, it also seems to me that in both the trial and appellate cases, his success rate was generally higher early in his career, and generally lower later.
In a few cases, he was listed as a partner in the “Lucas & Miller” law firm in D.C., but in the vast majority he is listed simply as “Roy Lucas, Esq.,” and a city (mostly D.C. or N.Y., no firm name.
The oddest thing was that the last case of any type showing up on Lexis was from 1989.
Mr. Shamaya makes two specific claims about Mr. Lucas that are not verified by a Lexis search:
“Most recently, Mr. Lucas wrote a major brief for the Screen Actor's Guild, Gavin de Becker, and a member of Congress on privacy in the case of Reno v Condon (US 2000, No. 98-1464). ...The Supreme Court unanimously accepted the arguments Mr. Lucas made, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist. Mr. Lucas succeeded in getting every justice’s vote – 9 to 0.”
“Mr. Lucas’ initial Supreme Court brief was for the First Amendment, successfully representing the AAUP and National Student Association in the black arm band speech case, Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District (US 1969).”
There is some more biographical information at these sites
http://www.forerunner.com/fyi/lucas0700.html http://www.forerunner.com/fyi/spurgeon.html
Nothing wrong with quitting mid-career to go visiting parks (assuming that that is correct information), and certainly fighting cancer will understandably take you out of a normal career track for a while.
This evening, I received a return email from Mr. Shamaya. He passed my requests on to Mr. Lucas. Mr. Lucas declines to give out a standard C.V. or discuss his bar membership, or anything else about himself. This is, I’m told, because of death threats from those who oppose his abortion work, as well as not wanting added stress as he continues to recover from his cancer.
Mr. Shamaya also accuses me of wanting to dig up dirt on Mr. Lucas. This isn’t so. I was prepared to eagerly welcome a new player onto the field, experienced in appellate strategy. All in all, though, there’s an awful lot of really odd things. Coming out of the blocks with attacks on those who should be seen as allies; the amateurish writing; the pervading sense that his writing is as much to promote himself as to discuss the subject matter at hand; what turns out to be a not very stellar appellate record, in spite of the adulatory career description he gives of himself; a 14-year apparent absence from litigation; a facially plausible—though unverified--account of what amounts to fraudulent representation of ACOG in the Roe/Doe cases; the unwillingness to release a simple C.V.; the unwillingness to tell me anything about the two “Madison” foundations, even though he describes the current one as “fledgling” and would, presumably, want it to be publicized.
Any one or two of these things probably wouldn’t get more than a shrug of the shoulders from me. But combined, they just aren’t compatible with the image of him that apparently both he and Mr. Shamaya want to convey. I think it’s safe to say that this collection of observations is not at all what one would expect to find when one hires an experienced appellate attorney.
I have no idea what to make of all this. Everything I’ve said may be either wrong or have a perfectly logical, innocent, plausible explanation. That’s why I’m throwing it all together here and asking for help making sense of it; to see if others have noticed any of the same peculiarities; to see if others think I’m making more of it than I should; to seek additional information that might lessen (or deepen) the mystery.
--
Bob Woolley
St. Paul, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"When I was just a baby, my momma told me, 'Son,
Always be a good boy, don't ever play with guns.'"
--Johnny Cash, "Folsom Prison Blues"
