
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, May 10, 1995                   TAG: 9505100044
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

LEGAL ETHICS?

FOR NEARLY 60 years, Canon 35 of the American Bar Association's Code of Judicial Ethics forbade the broadcasting of court proceedings. At first, this meant radio; later, with technology's advance, it also meant television. Though not in itself a law, the recently repealed canon became in effect a nationwide ban, because of its influence on state legislation and judges' decisions barring microphones and cameras from courtrooms.

A revival of Canon 35, warns a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, could be inspired by the intense coverage of the O.J. Simpson murder trial. "The public reputation of American justice is at stake," writes Bernard J. Hibbitts, professor of legal history at Pitt's School of Law. "In reporting the Simpson trial, responsible television broadcasters would do well to exercise restraint, discretion and circumspection."

But if the legal priesthood uses the excesses of the Simpson trial as a pretense for restoring Canon 35's restrictions, it would be like wallpapering over a water stain instead of repairing the leak that's causing it. The problem isn't the presence of cameras and microphones at Simpson's trial. The threat to the reputation of American justice - and to the legal profession - lies in what the microphones and cameras are recording.

No question, the media have given the Simpson case extraordinary, excessive coverage. That was guaranteed by Simpson's prominence, the gravity of the charge against him, and the dramatic qualities of the case. But the judicial system has managed to emerge from other high-profile televised trials with its reputation intact.

From the Los Angeles courtroom, by contrast, the world sees flamboyant high-priced attorneys getting huge sums for tactics of delay and obfuscation, and resorts to racial appeals given a hint of credibility by the less than sterling reputation of the Los Angeles Police Department. Such tactics may be too effective in a society awash in irrationality and paranoia, where some could dismiss a trail of blood as part of an elaborate conspiracy to frame someone.

No question, celebrity can mess up criminal justice. But media scrutiny can also demystify lawyers' antics. Indeed, reimposing broadcast restrictions might have less to do with ethics than with image protection. The ABA could stand to revisit more genuine ethics questions raised by the Simpson trial, such as proper limits of lawyers' behavior and sharp inequities in access to justice.

by CNB