Kenneth Standard, special counsel at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Manhattan, took office as president of the New York State Bar Association in June. He recently spoke with The New York Sun’s about legal topics the Bar Association is looking to tackle in the upcoming year.

What is the Bar Association’s stance on the Rockefeller drug laws?

We feel it’s time to revise those laws. They have not worked as expected. We do not believe there is evidence to show they’ve had any effect on reducing drug related crime or drug use. We think a more productive use of tax money is to focus on treating drug addiction, and try to divert drug addicts away from the criminal system and into treatment. That was one thing we were disappointed did not happen this year. Last year we got very close but this year we hoped to achieve our goal and we’re disappointed.

Do the laws unfairly target minorities?

I don’t know if they are doing that by design. I think the effect is that you have more minorities who are caught up in the sentences of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. I have no evidence that there are selective arrests or selective prosecution, but a disproportionate number [of arrests] are minorities.

In the midst of the war on terror, how do we balance civil liberties with our national security?

Because of the heightened terrorism alert that we have been experiencing recurrently, many people are frightened obviously because of 9/11, justifiably so, and some of the other incidents we have had. But I think we have to guard against hysteria when we get frightened and we’ve got to remember that the reason this country is what it is because of what our Constitution promises. And the reason this country became independent is because of the issues we laid out in the Declaration of Independence. We have to remember that individual civil liberties are essential. It’s not worth it in my view to live in safety if you live in safety without those individual civil liberties.

…We cannot make a trade-off in my view. …We cannot descend to the level of others; we have to maintain our traditions and our commitment to the rule of law.

Some doctors argue that frivolous malpractice lawsuits are burdening their profession. Do you agree?

Doctors say that their costs have been driven up to the point where some are retiring because they can’t afford to practice. Consumers are being left without protection. …I had to get some medical testing done today and I was outraged because the doctor who was supposed to be performing the test was having a telephone conversation at the same time he’s supposed to be looking at an EKG monitor and say how I’ve performed. … He was completely unaware of the impropriety of his behavior and I wonder how illustrative this is of other practices. Suppose I had some serious condition which he failed to detect because he felt this phone call was more important than my well-being. That kind of insensitivity toward your patients is what leads people to sue. And only 5 to 10% of patients do in fact bring suit. There is a lot of opportunity for the medical profession to clean itself up and police itself.

Tort reform is a controversial issue in the legal community. How does the state bar approach the debate?

In my view and the view of the association, it’s not really about tort reform – it’s about limiting the access of people who have been injured by wrongdoing to the court system, and it demonstrates a lack of faith in the jury system. The jury system is one of the important safeguards of our society. It’s particularly important in the current time, when we have people who are tried with the most heinous crimes, including terrorism, and we all know it’s a lot easier to make a charge than to prove it. Fortunately we do have burdens of proof … and we have juries to say whether the burden of proof has been met. In the civil area it’s equally important for people who have disputes to feel confident…that they’ve got a jury of six or more people who have no interest in the case and don’t know them and don’t know the lawyers and don’t know the judge who are going to decide the case.

The Bar Association has been critical of New York’s judicial election system. What reforms would you like to see enacted?

We’re in favor of merit selection. We do have an electoral process in New York and there seems to be a strong commitment to stay with that process. If we assume we’re going to stay with that process we’d like to see that process work more effectively. Often the electorate is unfamiliar with who’s running for judicial office. People don’t even, in fact, know that there is a judicial election going on and I think there tends to be a following of party lines. You pull the levers without having any knowledge of the qualities of the candidates for office. There are also issues about who selects candidates for the parties, because you don’t have a primary system that seems to be very effective so you have a narrow group of people who are making the choices for whoever’s going to run for office. That’s a system that needs some work and the Legislature didn’t do anything about it this year.