The Law: An End to Kindness

Former Attorney General Richard Kleindienst, 51, is feisty, charming and —as Watergate defendants go—lucky. Although he apparently committed perjury before a Senate committee when he denied that presidential pressure was brought to bear on him in his handling of the ITT antitrust case (the White House tapes later revealed that Richard Nixon had told him to "stay the hell out of it ... leave the goddamned thing alone"), Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski permitted him to plead guilty to the lesser charge of refusing to testify. Then Federal Judge George L. Hart Jr. gave him a one-month suspended sentence because his offense "reflects a heart too loyal" to the President. Next the bar in his home state of Arizona voted merely to censure him, the mildest possible sanction. And a panel of three Washington, D.C., federal judges found no grounds for suspending him from practice in their courts. Said one Washington lawyer: "The legal profession in general had decided to give Kleindienst a 'pass.' "

Not quite. Two weeks ago, the disciplinary board of the Washington, D.C., bar recommended that Kleindienst be suspended for one year. Last week it released its confidential findings and conclusions. They shred Kleindienst's defense and condemn by implication the kid-glove kindness that was shown him.

Inexcusable Violation. "The failure to testify fully and accurately," said the board, "constituted an inexcusable violation of Respondent's professional and public responsibility... It is our firm conviction that Respondent knew that he was failing to tell the 'whole truth' and, indeed, that he deliberately misled the committee. If [parts of his testimony are to be] characterized as 'justifiable evasion,' it is difficult to perceive what Respondent would consider 'unjustifiable' evasion ... In our view, Respondent has engaged in reprehensible conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility by testifying dishonestly before a congressional committee. This is conduct which the bar would seriously condemn in the case of any of its members, but particularly so when that member holds a special position of trust with regard to the public and to the profession."

The sole dissenter from the bar's recommendation urged a harsher, three-year suspension, but one year was chosen because "we have taken into account the fact that anyone in his position would understandably try to avoid embarrassing the President who appointed him." Kleindienst, who is now in private practice, says he will continue to "fight this recommendation." Next stop: the local Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals, which must now review the bar's findings.