The Law: The Little American

"I'm a conservative Republican who hasn't approved of any conservative Republican in years because most conservative Republicans aren't conservative enough for me." So says John J. Wilson, 72, who knows his own mind and does not hesitate to speak it. The habit can get him into trouble, as it did last week when he intemperately referred to Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye as "that little Jap." When incredulous reporters double-checked the remark,* Wilson refused to retract it. "That's just the way I speak," he said. Then, as though Inouye's citizenship were somehow different from his own, he added: "I wouldn't mind being called a little American." Wilson's remarks were not all that surprising: in the past he has openly opposed both blacks and women joining the D.C. Bar Association. But his newest outburst prompted a deluge of protests, including a complaint to the D.C. bar disciplinary board.

The Inouye incident, however unseemly, threatened to overshadow a far more serious controversy that one Washington lawyer summed up in the question: "How the hell can Wilson represent two guys whose interests aren't the same?" Whether because of his conservative reputation, or his reputation as one of Washington's top trial lawyers, or both, Wilson got a telephone call one day last April from John Ehrlichman, whom he had never met before. That same day Wilson was also retained by H.R. Haldeman. Thus he appeared before the Ervin committee as counsel for both men—or, as he once let slip, for "John Haldeman."

The situation is not unprecedented, but Wilson "is in a dangerous area, and he appreciates that," says Fred Grabowsky, counsel to the D.C. bar's disciplinary board. No lawyer, Grabowsky adds, can give both clients full measure if it becomes necessary "to be an accuser against one to defend the other."

Mindful of the fact that Wilson has had at least two private meetings with President Nixon, some wonder if the attorney might not have, perhaps unofficially, a secret third client. One legal observer argues that "the only way Nixon can be sure his former aides will not implicate him is to have one lawyer coordinating their testimony, not two lawyers each battling for the interests of his client." Attorney Joseph L. Rauh, a former national chairman of Americans for Democratic Action, more bluntly charges Wilson with being "the go-between to keep their stories straight." Says Wilson himself: "I'm not coordinating anything." As for the ethical implications of having two clients, Wilson asserted that the two men's stories were almost exactly the same and that there was thus no potential conflict. "I say that," he added, "without qualification on the basis of more years of practice of law than anyone on that committee, including the chairman."