Clinton wants to be cheapskate, Rutherford lawyers complain

LINDA SATTER
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE

President Clinton thinks his monetary sanctions for lying during his deposition in Paula Jones' sexual harassment case should be "as little as he can get away with," two lawyers charged Tuesday.
Lawyers John W. Whitehead and Steven H. Aden, both of Charlottesville, Va., made that assertion in a document filed Tuesday in federal court in Little Rock.
"The sanctions proposed by Mr. Clinton, if adopted by the Court, would do precious little to 'redress the misconduct of the President in this case,' " wrote the Rutherford Institute attorneys, citing an April 12 order of Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright.
In that order Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for giving "intentionally false" testimony, and said his punishment would be to pay legal expenses incurred as a result of that contempt.
Later the Rutherford Institute submitted bills totaling $58,533 in fees and expenses that purportedly grew out of the misleading testimony during the sworn January 1998 deposition.
Meanwhile, Jones' other former lawyers, the Dallas firm of Rader, Campbell, Fisher and Pyke, submitted bills for $437,825, bringing requested reimbursement-style sanctions to nearly $500,000.
In his May 21 response to those requests, Clinton attorney Robert S. Bennett called the amounts "grossly excessive."
As reimbursement to the Dallas firm, he suggested a much lower figure: $12,527.
But he said Clinton doesn't owe the Rutherford Institute a cent.
That attitude, the institute attorneys argued Tuesday, "is virtually guaranteed to multiply and complicate the issues and extend this dispute."
They said the amount Clinton thinks is reasonable won't deter others from disobeying court orders and won't cover costs that grew out of his contemptuous conduct.
Despite Bennett's assertion to the contrary, the attorneys wrote, "the contemptuous conduct of Mr. Clinton was a substantial factor in each of the events" for which the institute submitted bills it wants Clinton to pay.
Noting that Jones was up against "the most powerful man in the world and his large cadre of attorneys," the institute attorneys denounced Bennett's argument that Jones didn't need the institute's help.
Citing the actions of many lawyers on Clinton's behalf, the institute attorneys wrote: "Mr. Bennett seems to feel that against this vast array of legal firepower, Ms. Jones is entitled only to the assistance of six attorneys in a boutique litigation firm, and that anything beyond that is excessive. ... Clearly, Mr. Clinton's counsel has not taken to heart the lesson of Clinton v. Jones -- that no one, including the President of the United States, is entitled to 'more justice' than the average private citizen."
The Institute attorneys, who also took issue with other parts of Bennett's argument, said they kept accurate records of their services and didn't bill Clinton for time spent on news interviews.
The Dallas firm has not yet filed a response to Clinton's assertion that it seeks an amount "wildly disproportionate" to the sanctions' purpose.

This article was published on Wednesday, June 2, 1999

RETURN to Clinton Crisis