Court Opinion

ID: 9836803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:07.230015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:18.932859
License: Public Domain

COX, Senior Judge
(concurring):
I agree with the resolution of the granted and specified issues. However, I am disquieted by the idea that it is acceptable to allow counsel, military or civilian, to practice before courts-martial when they could not represent civilians in civilian courts. Intuitively, it is my belief that military defendants, as well as their family and friends, operate under the assumption that “JAGS” are lawyers who are duly authorized to practice law in one or more of the sovereign States of this country.
Furthermore, notwithstanding the cases relied upon in the majority opinion which have let convictions stand even though the lawyer was disqualified from active practice, I know of no federal or state judge who would willingly let a disbarred, suspended, or inactive lawyer practice in his or her court. We should accept no less for our military accused.
If I were writing the rules, I would require that counsel (military or civilian) be in an “officially” recognized status which makes clear that they may be appointed to represent parties in a criminal trial or that they may, for a fee from a client, go into a courtroom and represent that client. That status carries with it the simple recognition that the *279attorney is “legally competent” to represent clients. I would accept nothing less in order to meet the requirements of Article 27, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 827. To permit less seems to me to demean the noble profession of the law and to perpetrate a fraud upon the servicemembers, their families, and the public at large.