SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 6



continued from page 5

We will honor: Robert A. Bacine, Frank L. Caiola,
Stewart J. Greenleaf, Sr., Barry W. Kerchner,
Lawrence R. Lesser, J. Scott Maxwell, J. Edmund
Mullin, Michael O'Hara Peale, John G. Shea,
Bernard F. Siergiej, H. David Spirt, Donald Strumpf
and Richard E. Wells. s our Bar Foundation marks
its 30th year of service and support for justice-related
causes, we will also pay tribute to its founding
president and visionary: Stephen G. Yusem.
Judicial Elections
November 7 is Election Day and Montgomery
County elects two judges to our Court of Common
Pleas. There are three candidates, which include
Judge Joseph P. Walsh, of our Court of Common
Pleas, Wendy G. Rothstein, Esquire, and Jeffrey S.
Saltz, Esquire.
The MBA's Judiciary Committee rated these
judicial candidates as follows:
Highly Recommended
Jeffrey S. Saltz
Hon. Joseph P. Walsh
Wendy G. Rothstein
Election Day also holds a retention race for
our President Judge, the Honorable Thomas M.
Del Ricci. Remember, for retention races, each
candidate must be specifically selected when a vote
for retention is cast and a straight party vote does
not cast a retention vote. The Judiciary Committee
recommends the retention of President Judge Del
As a Bar Assocation, we are proud to support
all of our Judges and recognize the direct
correlation between an extraordinary Bench and
an extraordinary Bar. Thank you to the Judiciary
Committee for its steady hand in making a thorough
examination of judicial candidates and sound and
reliable judicial ratings.
As I look at the past 9 months, it is hard to
imagine that only three more months remain for
me to have the honor to serve as the President of
this Association. I plan to make the most it, and ask
all of you to attend our events, bring a colleague,
and encourage an associate to do so as well. Take
advantage of everything the MBA has to offer as your
one-stop to learn, network, give, teach and lead.


A Word About

his summer, the world was appalled by the events in
Charlottesville, Virginia, where hate, violence, and ignorance
collided over the continued and misdirected honoring of the
Confederacy. One side sought to uphold to very worst of the Old South's
inexcusable and inhumane past while hiding ignorantly under the banner
of "state's rights," while the other side sought to tear down any veneration
of those whom some determined were "heroes," now over a century ago, in
an America none of us, thankfully, would recognize. These two opposing
forces used "free speech" as a pretext to battle over the sad and pathetic
circumstances of this old and deep scar on our nation's past.
This drama, as it played out in various venues since August, marred
our summer, correctly brought disrepute to the Presidency, revealed to
the world again our nation's dysfunction, and put Robert E. Lee back
on the front page of newspapers for the first time, likely, since his death.
This drama, tinged with race and steeped in the self-serving history of the
Confederacy, is capable of unraveling the rule of law. It is dramas such as
this one, that played out this summer in Charlottesville, and elsewhere,
that must cause each of us who dwell among the law to think critically,
deeper than the headlines and talking heads of network news. The
conclusion I reached is that hate and violence should never be protected
speech. I also agree that we should not honor those who actively sought to
keep others in bondage and involuntary servitude, regardless of the times:
it is reprehensibly wrong, in any epoch.
However, somewhere in this mix lurks American culture and history,
and as we know history - yes, even American history - can be good, bad
and ugly. Examples of the bad and the ugly are plentiful, unfortunately,
and need no repeating. Do we stop at allowing mobs to desecrate public
statues? What about paintings of Confederate leaders and generals in
publicly funded museums? Or the Lee-Custis House? What about books
in public libraries favorable to Robert E. Lee, or Stonewall Jackson? Should
the paintings be destroyed, the Lee-Custis House taken down, favorable
books burned? Should judgment be left to mobs, and the remedies
dispensed as random acts of violence and destruction of public property?
Do we address the conduct of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and other
Presidents? Do we stop at racism? What about sexism?
The rule of law must transcend the judgment of history, and certainly
must never yield to the judgment of two competing, ill-informed, street
This summer we all asked, where, as Americans, do we stand on
Charlottesville? On racism? On our nation's history? As lawyers, we must
ask these questions, as uncomfortable as it is to do so, as unnatural as it
is to contemplate such a cutting examination of America and to confront
those things so often hidden. Our oath to defend the rule of law certainly
and necessarily extends beyond our own personal answers to these
It is this steadfast protection of the rule of law that creates the
unyielding foundation on which change can truly be sustained.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of SIDEBAR Fall 2017

SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 1
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 2
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 3
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 4
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 5
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 6
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 7
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 8
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 9
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 10
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 11
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 12
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 13
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 14
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 15
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 16
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 17
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 18
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 19
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 20
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 21
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 22
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 23
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 24
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 25
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 26
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 27
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 28
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 29
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 30
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 31
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 32
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 33
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 34
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 35
SIDEBAR Fall 2017 - 36