By ROBERT WARD JR.
Robert Ward Jr. is dean of
New England School of Law.
August 13, 2008 6:00 AM

"The actions of President Bush over the last seven-plus years have significantly damaged the image of the presidency. President George W. Bush has tarnished his office to the extent that many people want the 2008 election to be held as soon as possible, rather than focus their time, energy and money on the impeachment process.

Virtually everyone I know agrees that the president and his minions should be held accountable for their trampling of our Constitution. However, just saying the words "Bush" and "impeachment" in the same sentence sends some of them into a tailspin. I firmly believe that President Bush has committed a number of impeachable offenses, such as outing a covert CIA agent, condoning torture, fabricating evidence about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and spying on American citizens.

However, I respect the opinions of those who would prefer to turn the page of history via the 2008 election instead of impeaching President George Bush. They say, "What good can come from starting a process that can't be completed prior to the November election? Time will take care of this problem on its own."

I'll concede the point that beginning such a process now might be an exercise in futility. Nevertheless, the lawyers who aided the president in running roughshod over the law ought to be held accountable. And no election or presidential pardon can protect them from this. Attorneys Monica Gooding, Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers, professor John Yoo and Judge Jay Bybee can still be required to answer the questions: "What did you know and what did you do?"

When a person is granted a license to practice law, they take a solemn oath to uphold the United States Constitution and the rule of law. I readily admit that we lawyers, in rendering services, at times straddle the line between what is ethical and what is not. Frequently, there is a tension between the responsibility of providing zealous representation and canons of ethics. But there is a difference between straddling the line and crossing it.

In many cases, it seemed as though these attorneys attempted to erase the line altogether. Under no circumstances may a lawyer advise a client on how to violate the law. Given this basic tenet, at a minimum, Ms. Gooding, Mr. Gonzales and Ms. Miers, along with others, should have to explain to their respective state bar licensing agencies why they should not be disbarred.

We attorneys have a long and revered history of policing ourselves. All of us are taught that when in doubt about providing services and violating the canons, one should err on the side of being ethical. Many of the Bush lawyers appeared to have done just the opposite.

People will argue that the threat of disciplinary action will have a chilling affect on the relationship between the chief executive and his/her attorney. They fear that public-spirited, good lawyers will decline to go into government. I simply don't buy this argument. Your average first-year law student knows that you can't counsel a client to break the law. Thus, the Bush lawyers knew or should have known this, too.

For a variety of practical reasons, President Bush is not likely to be held accountable for his actions. That task is now left to history. But lawyers answer to a higher authority than the president of the United States.

One cornerstone of our great nation is that no person is above the law, not even those who work for the president. We need to reaffirm that principle. Ms. Gooding, Mr. Gonzales, et al, ought to be forced to explain why they are entitled to continue practicing the law that they apparently were so quick to ignore."