Should lawyers who represent clients averse to the organization's mission be on the board?
Question: The primary mission of our nonprofit membership organization is to end domestic violence. We provide direct services to victims, but not legal representation. Several of our directors are family lawyers who occasionally represent offenders in domestic violence protection order cases and resulting criminal cases. Some of our members feel this is contrary to, and therefore a violation of, our mission. Some also feel it is a violation of the canons of ethics for the attorneys to represent offenders if they are committed to our mission. Is there any merit in either argument, and, if so, do we need to exclude family and criminal lawyers from our Board?
Answer: I admire the zealousness of your members, but what is the purpose of your board? Most organizations want a board that brings a broad and diverse set of backgrounds and experience that can help inform discussions of how the organization can best pursue its mission. Family lawyers who see both sides of the domestic abuse situation can bring a unique perspective to the discussions. To preclude them from the discussion may deprive you of insights that could substantially increase your ability to deal with your issues.
It would be a great mistake to assume that a lawyer who represents people accused of domestic violence (even if some of them are guilty) have a conflict with your mission. It is like saying that criminal defense lawyers have an ethical conflict with their clients unless they favor crime and oppose crime prevention activities. Everyone has a right to representation in our society, and we should not automatically ascribe the characteristics of clients to their lawyers. Some of the greatest American lawyers have, at great personal cost, represented unpopular clients and causes. Our system of justice demands it.
Obviously your members will get to vote on the directors and can make a judgment of whether a particular lawyer candidate is appropriate for the board. But to arbitrarily disqualify anyone who has represented a person on "the other side" of your issue (especially if their clients have been falsely accused) would, in my opinion, diminish your ability to do your job.