I do not do subservient well. I can manage respectful. I can even do second-in-command. But I make a terrible �yes-woman� and I�ve always reserved my conscience to myself. As I have gotten older, I have developed some sense about when to appear to knuckle under and when to challenge but �appear� generally is the appropriate word. Sometimes I let something go and sometimes I bide my time but just accepting does not come naturally or easily.

When I first began my job, all of the public defenders had more independence than they do now. Back then, the powers-that-be seemed to understand and accept that a good public defender was constitutionally incapable of kowtowing and that demanding it made as much sense as requiring your research and development team to wear ties and never play with weird little toys. But we are more button-up now and getting more button-up all the time.

Several years ago, the powers-that-be decided that a supervisor should review each main brief (but not motions or reply briefs) that went out. Now, I could have gone along happily with a policy that required that a second pair of eyes look at a brief. I often used to exchange briefs for editing before they went out. It seemed a wise check on whether I had said what I thought I said or whether I had a barbaric typo (as opposed to an ordinary one.) But no, it had to be a supervisor even though, in the absence of my supervisor, I was often asked to review the briefs of others. For a while I protested and wrote �Mother, may I file this brief?� across the top before I handed it in. But even I eventually tire of childish games (although Day, who is tired of my pointing out Volkswagen Beetles would dispute that claim.)

More recently, a supervisor (not mine) took on someone from my office who dared to question whether an answer to a question that purported to address all situations really should address all situations. Basically, the questioner suggested that there should be an exception for an arguably exceptional situation. The public response (how easy it is to hit �all� these days) attacked her but claimed not to do it. He did NOT say that she was unethical and in violation of work rules. Of course, as Mark Antony pointed out, �Brutus is an honorable man.�

My supervisor was gone. So I supported my colleague as publicly as the attack. At first I supported her with pure logic, pointing out the defensibility of her position. That tactic brought a hot assertion that these things should not be discussed in public. Both �supervisory� e-mails went back and forth between asserting and disavowing that they were written from management personnel as management.

And then my public defender side asserted itself---and I don�t really need my public defender side to be assertive. I pointed out, publicly, that either the manager was speaking as a manager, in which case he should have gone through channels (our own supervisor) or he was not in which case disagreeing was just disagreeing with a position. As someone else said, you could hear those e-mails smoking.

Would I do it again? Yes, in a heartbeat. Button up? Me? Not on your life. I can�t even button my lip (or, more accurately, my typing fingers.) But then I�ve never really wanted to.

|