Charles Alan Wright |
It is pleasant to think that in a few weeks I will be sounding the gavel to call to order our 76th Annual Meeting. I look forward to every Annual Meeting, but it is especially nice that we will be in San Francisco. I think it is good for The Institute that every four years we abandon the familiar comforts of The Mayflower and go to some distant place. From past experience the registration will be smaller than we customarily attract in Washington, but past experience also shows that the numbers of persons present in the meeting room will be better than we usually have in Washington. Our agenda is less crowded than it has been in recent years. We will not have time to burn, but we should be less constrained by the clock than we have been.
The Officers’ Reception on Tuesday night should be particularly enjoyable. I have not seen the Ninth Circuit Courthouse since it was extensively renovated after the 1989 earthquake, but those who have all rave about it. It should be a spectacular venue for our Reception. And I look forward with pleasure to being at The Fairmont. In 1991, the only other time we have had an Annual Meeting west of the Mississippi, we were at the San Francisco Hilton. It is a fine hotel, and took good care of us. But The Fairmont is at the top of Nob Hill, in what I think of as the choicest location in San Francisco. In 1966 I taught summer school at Berkeley. My dear friend and later my Council colleague Ronan E. Degnan was on the Berkeley faculty. He took my wife, my family, and me into the city several times to explore its various pleasures. We often ended an afternoon, or began an evening, with cocktails at the Crown Restaurant on the highest floor of The Fairmont. Ron felt that the view from there was even more spectacular than from the more-publicized Top of the Mark. I recall his excitement one afternoon when he looked out and saw the Farallons. These are islands off the California coast that are ordinarily hidden by fog. Look for them while you are at the Annual Meeting.
The speaker at the Annual Dinner on Wednesday night will be our own Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. On Thursday afternoon, at whatever time the meeting adjourns, Geoff’s tenure as Director will end and Lance Liebman will succeed to that office.
There have been only four Directors in The Institute’s 76-year history: William Draper Lewis (1923-1947), Herbert F. Goodrich (1947-1962), Herbert Wechsler (1963-1984), and Geoff Hazard (1984-1999). The Director is the key to the success of ALI. Presidents and other officers have important rôles, but it is the Director who is the key. The rest of us see that The Institute runs smoothly, that its books balance, and that Institute meetings are orderly with every member given a fair chance to be heard. But the Director is responsible for the intellectual work of ALI, and that is our sole reason for existing.
My tenure as President has been made especially pleasant by the fact that Geoff is Director. We were friends, and had worked together on important matters, long before either of us became an officer of the Institute. I was a member from 1971 to 1977 of the ABA Commission on Standards of Judicial Administration. Geoff was the Reporter for the Commission. Geoff and I were both Advisers on Restatement Second of Judgments when work on that began in 1971. In 1973 Geoff became Reporter for that Restatement and carried it through to its triumphant completion in 1982. When Herbert Wechsler gave notice that he wanted to step down in 1984, I was on the committee to find a successor. The only question before the committee was whether Geoff Hazard would take the job. He was the obvious choice and we were thrilled when he said “Yes.” It has made things easy for me as President to have a Director who has been a friend for many years. In all the years Geoff and I have known each other, I do not recall either of us ever speaking harshly or critically to the other.
The Council Rules undertake to define the duties of the Officers. Council Rule 8.07 speaks of the Director.
The Director directs the work of the Institute; attends all meetings of the Institute, the Council, and the Executive Committee; and presides at these meetings in the absence of the President or a Vice-President. The Director also attends, if practicable, all conferences of reporters, advisers, and consultants respecting the work of the Institute. The Director, in consultation with the Treasurer, prepares an annual budget covering all proposed Institute expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year, subject to the Executive Committee’s approval.
In fact even the Council Rule does not give a full listing of the Director’s duties. He is a member of the Permanent Editorial Board for the Uniform Commercial Code and of its Executive Subcommittee. He is a member of the ALI-ABA Committee on Continuing Professional Education. In his spare time he does such things as organize a night at a Phillies game for the ALI and ALI-ABA staff.
Merely to list all that the Director does makes it sound like a job that would keep three people busy. But it is only a parttime job for Geoff. He continued to teach at the Yale Law School until 1994 and has held a professorship at the University of Pennsylvania Law School since that time. He is a splendid law teacher. One of his former students told me that he was “the only Professor Kingsfield in the laid-back atmosphere of the Yale Law School.” (Since my daughter Henny was one of Geoff’s students at Yale, I hasten to say that she is not the source for anything I say in this Letter.) I was told also that “Professor Hazard was mean, but he was not mean-spirited.” One day he walked in and a hush fell over the classroom as he sat down. Opening his notebook and peering down at his class list he called out: “Is Ms. Silver here?” A slight young woman sheepishly raised her hand. “Was the case we read for today originally filed in state court or federal court?” Ms. Silver answered tentatively: “Federal court?” Sternly Professor Hazard said: “Are you certain?” Ms. Silver was not. “Maybe it was filed in state court,” she said. Professor Hazard moved on: “And what happened next, Ms. Silver?” Another tentative response: “It could have been removed to federal court.” Professor Hazard continued: “Well, was it removed or not, Ms. Silver?” By this time Ms. Silver was visibly shaken and near tears. Professor Hazard looked down on her and said: “Would you like to start again, Ms. Silver?” She responded “Yes,” at which point Professor Hazard stood up and walked out of the classroom, closing the door behind him. The class was stunned. A moment later the door opened. Professor Hazard walked into the classroom just as he had done minutes earlier. He sat down, just as he had done before. He opened his class list and called out: “Is Ms. Silver here?” When she responded he proceeded to query Ms. Silver just as he had done before, but with the benefit of a dress rehearsal her responses were crisp, clear, and correct. She is now a partner at a major New York law firm.
Even two difficult jobs are not enough for Geoff. He is a prolific scholar. Within the last month I have received from him reprints of five articles he has recently had published in law reviews. One of them, An Historical Analysis of the Binding Effect of Class Suits, 146 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1849, is a 100-page examination of an important subject, and at the end Geoff and his two coauthors promise a subsequent article in the same journal on what is meant by “adequate representation.” Geoff also does a monthly column, “Ethics, Etc.” in the National Law Journal.
This is still not all. Geoff is much sought-after as an expert witness in cases dealing with the law of lawyering. A good friend of mine had to cross-examine Geoff in a case in which he had been retained by the other side. In a later case my friend was able to get Geoff as his own expert witness. My friend tells me and others that Geoff is the best expert witness he has ever seen and that he is “uniquely effective. Jurors have great confidence in what he says.”
Geoff has done a superb job in his 15 years as Director. He has been decisive. In his first appearance as Director before the Executive Committee he recommended, and the Committee agreed, that the person who was then Chief Reporter for the Corporate Governance project should be replaced. More recently he terminated a project when he became convinced that there was not enough substance in it to justify a Restatement. Under Council Rules 10.01 and 10.02 Reporters and Advisers are appointed by the Director, with the approval of Council or the Executive Committee. There is no instance in which an appointment proposed by Geoff has not been approved.
His mien at Annual Meetings and Council meetings can be deceiving. Often his eyes are closed, and even I, sitting next to him, cannot tell if he is sleeping. But suddenly he will lean forward, pull his microphone toward him, and make some remark that is exactly appropriate. Sometimes it will be to point out the fallacy in what a Reporter or a member has just said. At other times it will offer a solution to a problem that has been giving difficulty. As one of our members said to me, Geoff always understands the issues in any discussion as well as or often better than any other participant, including the Reporters.
Geoff is deeply involved at every stage of Institute work. He has to read all the Preliminary Drafts, Council Drafts, and Tentative Drafts before they are sent out. My colleague Bill Powers is one of our Reporters. He made a comment about Geoff to me one morning recently in our Faculty Lounge. It was so strong that I asked him to put it in writing, so that I can quote it here. He said that Geoff had recently sent him a detailed edit of Bill’s part of the Apportionment project. “It was far and away the best edit I have ever received on anything I have ever written. Geoff has an uncanny ability to simplify language without losing meaning. His edit was simply spectacular.”
It will seem strange to have someone other than Geoff Hazard sitting in the Director’s accustomed place. It will surely not mean saying goodbye to him. He will continue to serve, without compensation, as one of the Reporters on the Transnational Rules of Civil Procedure, an imaginative and challenging project that is very much the brainchild of Geoff and his friend Michele Taruffo, of the University of Pavia. I certainly hope that the Nominating Committee will nominate, and the members elect, Geoff to serve as a member of Council, beginning on the afternoon of May 20th when his Directorship ends.
Geoff took up golf only a few years ago. When he did so it was with the same energy and enthusiasm that he puts into everything. I hope that as Director Emeritus he and his splendid wife, Beth, will have more time for golf and other things. He has left his mark on The American Law Institute. We will always be grateful for the brilliant leadership he has given us for the last 15 years.
Charles Alan Wright
President