What It Means to Be a Lawyer When the Rule of Law Is Under Attack

As constitutional crises multiply in Los Angeles, in courtrooms where government attorneys defy judges, and in the Oval Office where the president wields his pen, I’ve been thinking a lot about the “rule of law.”

On Law Day I stood in a crowded courtroom with my right hand raised as I recited the attorney’s oath—pledging allegiance to the Washington State and US Constitutions. It’d been 33 years since the first time I had said those words. I was joined by more than 1,300 Washington State lawyers, most of us were in county superior courts across our state.

Though I last practiced law 13 years ago, I’ve kept my CLEs current and ticket to practice intact… just in case… just in case I need to suit up for pro bono service, just in case my country needs me.

Even so, I never thought “rule of law” and the risk of losing it would be so animating in my lifetime. These days most Uber drivers know the term. Many middle schoolers do too. As we barrel toward the 250-year anniversary of arguably the world’s oldest democracy, more Americans sense the preciousness and fragility of American “rule of law.”

Like a delicate hand-blown sculpture, “rule of law” is valued for its artistry, but we now know it requires a high level of care and protection if we want it to survive.

We witness government officials unapologetically flouting our norms, laws, and judiciary. Undocumented persons, accused of no crime, are relegated to gulag conditions without due process. Universities, law firms, and the press are under unprecedented attack. Tourists fear entering the US as Germany, Canada, the UK, Denmark, Finland, France, and other countries issue travel advisories warning their citizens of risks inherent in coming to a country few outside our borders believe is what President Ronald Reagan called “a shining city on a hill.”

More than a generation ago, a young Army officer was interviewing at the Reagan White House for a job on the newly formed Iran-Contra Legal Task Force. For those too young to remember or not even born in 1986, Iran-Contra was shorthand for the biggest constitutional crisis since Watergate.

It started with a phone call. Vicki O’Meara and I had worked together in the Pentagon. We were both there fulfilling military commitments resulting from having been Army ROTC cadets, and Vicki now worked in the White House.

As was her style, she got straight to the point: “Hey Paula, the White House is creating an Iran-Contra Legal Task Force; and if interested, I’d love to recommend you for this team.”

Yes, Iran-Contra. Senior members of Reagan’s administration, through middlemen, sold arms to Iran in violation of a congressional embargo and used profits from those sales to fund the Contras, a Nicaraguan rebel group that, again, Congress had barred the White House from funding.

By the time I was talking to Vicki—in February 1987—there had been one full-blown White House investigation, Reagan had addressed the public twice, congressional investigations were moving into high gear, and independent counsel Lawrence Walsh had been appointed.

The call with Vicki led me to a 90-minute interview with William B. Lytton III, who had agreed to lead this White House task force. Bill had a probing style that nonetheless put me at ease. So much so, I mustered the courage to ask, “What happens if the interests of Ronald Reagan, the man, conflict with the interests of the Office of the President?” And without missing a beat Bill responded, “We represent the Office of the President.”

Almost 40 years later, Bill’s words, and the matter-of-fact way he spoke them, forever shape my view of what it means to be a lawyer, presidential power, its appropriate limits, and the rule of law in the context of a US president.

In some ways, 2025 has been our profession’s darkest hour and so the light shines when we raise our hands to recite our attorney oath.

The partner who raises her voice in protest or leaves a firm bending to anti “rule of law” mandates, the law student who chooses not to interview with firms who “took the deal,” the federal prosecutor who resigns rather than abide corruption, and the bar leader who takes a stand are all “profiles in courage,” honoring what John F. Kennedy wrote about more than a half century ago. These are individuals who, often against strong opposition or potential risks, stand up for their beliefs or principles in the public interest.

We lawyers can and must raise our right hand literally and figuratively for the “rule of law” cause. As Thomas Jefferson said 250 years ago, “a well-informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.” And, consistent with the preamble to many rules of professional conduct, we can and should find ways to:

“Further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority.”

That’s why I still write about diversity, equity, and inclusion on LinkedIn and as a Bloomberg Law contributor. You will have your own list of things you can do within your sphere of influence to “further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law.”

You may meet with a group of middle schoolers or seniors in a nursing home. You may take on an immigration pro bono case. You may gently but firmly correct a family member speaking untruths about immigrants, trans Americans, or the rights of those in need of reproductive care.

It’s less important what we do as lawyers, but do we must. As we approach the 250th birthday of America, its story is still being written and we lawyers wield pens. Let’s use them.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

US Army Airborne veteran Paula Boggs is now a musician, speaker, and writer after serving a decade as Starbucks Corporation’s chief legal officer.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines