By David Marion
Senior Counsel, White and Williams and former Chancellor
The adage that an issue or matter is so challenging that it requires the attention of an extraordinary, courageous and creative “Philadelphia lawyer” dates back to Colonial America. In 1735, when a Philadelphia lawyer named Andrew Hamilton was summoned to New York to defend a pamphlet publisher whose New York attorneys were disbarred by the colonial governor when they attempted to defend the publisher from prosecution for criminal libel.
I have tried to model my law career after that of Andrew Hamilton, and have handled a number of cases that required the kind of courage and creativity for which Andrew Hamilton was known. I have also represented the American Bar Association in defending a libel suit brought by Richard Sprague; and received the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s President’s Award “for successful representation of the ... “Association and all the lawyers of Pennsylvania” in challenging an insurance industry blacklisting of certain lawyers.
Although I have never represented the Philadelphia Bar Association as its lawyer, I was elected its Chancellor under unusual circumstances which I believe had never occurred before, or recurred since, that election.
In the early 1980s, I was approached by a “delegation” of lawyers from large and small firms with whom I had worked or opposed in various litigations, headed by Bill O’Brien. I had served as chair of the Junior Bar (later renamed the Young Lawyers Division), and of the Federal Courts Committee, but I had no desire to seek the Chancellorship because I was very busy handling cases I enjoyed, and my “mentor,” Harold E. Kohn (with whom I worked for 22 years first in the Dilworth firm and then in a boutique firm he organized with several of his “disciples”) thought it would be a waste of my time.
O’Brien and his group described a “corrupt” system of selecting future chancellors, controlled by one or more Common Pleas Court judges and several lawyers intensely disliked by that group. They sought my help in forming an alternative bar association as had been created in New York for similar reasons. My response was that we should try first to reform the Philadelphia Bar Association in light of its history and reputation, before thinking about an alternative association. Although I was informed that the Chancellor for 1985 had already been chosen as part of a “deal”, and that it would be an uphill battle to oppose him, they assured me they would make every effort to create support for my candidacy if I would run for vice chancellor in 1983 [and subsequently become Chancellor in 1985.]
When I reported my determination to run for Chancellor to Mr. Kohn, he responded, that, if I was going to run,” let’s make sure that we win.” He took me to meet some of the leading lawyers in town who were his friends, including some in my opponent’s firm, and suggested that I should try to meet with lawyers from as many firms as I could arrange, both large and small, to solicit their support – regardless of the effect of such a campaign on my “billable hours”.
I also arranged to meet with my opponent, because I had been friendly with him and his wife. I told him we would compete like in a tennis match, trying hard to win, but when the competition ended, regardless of who won, we’d shake hands and have a drink together. His response was hostile and threatening. He told me this was his life’s dream, and that he and his allies would do everything possible to defeat me and destroy me and my career in the process.
The meetings with Harold Kohn’s friends were disappointing. They basically insisted that I should just make a deal to be Chancellor in a future year and withdraw gracefully. In addition, friends of mine who had not been part of the “delegation,” warned me that I had no chance to win and should find a diplomatic way to step down and avoid embarrassment. Other disappointments followed. The Association’s nominating committee supported my opponent, as did every other constituent organization. However, at my many meetings with law firms, I was welcomed warmly, my ideas for restoring unity in our Bar Association and respect for lawyers generally in our community, were met with approval and there were sincere offers of strong support for my campaign. In the meantime, my lawyer-father, who had recently passed away, and my older brother, who had many friends among Philadelphia lawyers, wrote letters and made calls, which produced a split in the ranks of the various associations, and dozens of elderly lawyers paid dues so they could vote and came out to the Bellevue polling place with walkers and in wheelchairs to vote for “Lou’s boy” and Arthur’s kid brother.
I won the election, albeit with only a tiny margin, had a very successful chancellorship, many of the City’s finest lawyers were encouraged to run to succeed me, and I went on to have a proud and successful career as a Philadelphia lawyer!
With a combination of good luck, thinking “outside the box,” trying unusual tactics to persuade judges and juries of the rightness of my clients’ positions, I scored victories in the U.S. Supreme Court, four federal Courts of Appeal, courts in Kansas, Hawaii, Canada, Puerto Rico, London and Israel – always emphasizing my pride in being a Philadelphia lawyer!
