JAG EDGE: Proposed Changes for Military Lawyers Have Critics at AttentionAuthor(s): JILL SCHACHNER CHANENSource: ABA Journal, Vol. 89, No. 11 (NOVEMBER 2003), p. 26Published by: American Bar AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27842844 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 00:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Bar Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ABA Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:55:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ JAG EDGE

Proposed Changes for Military Lawyers Have Critics at Attention

JILL SCHACHNER CHANEN

IN A TIME OF MIDDLE EASTERN WARS AND MIL

itary shake-ups, the status of armed forces

lawyers may be the basis for another skirmish. In May, U.S. Army General Counsel Steven

Morello said he planned to cut the number of active-duty, uniformed Judge Advocate General Corps personnel to 500 from 1,500 and add staff to the civilian general counsel's office, now at around 100 lawyers, according to published reports. The remarks came on

the heels of a U.S. Air Force order to make its independ ent judge advocate general report to the politically ap pointed civilian general counsel, according to reports.

But while an Army spokesperson says Morello's remarks were premature, former military lawyers say the events

' ,

i

Michael Nardotti: Some complicated military missions rule out civilian lawyers.

call into question the future of the military's JAG Corps. "What we are seeing now is the office of the general

counsel wanting to intrude on those areas that the mili tary had been exclusively responsible for," says John D. Hutson, the Navy judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000, now dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center in New

Hampshire. The proposed cutbacks and structural changes come at

a crucial time, the former officers say. With the military involved in complicated missions around the world, the value of field JAG lawyers is immense.

"The expectations and demands are greater than they ever have been," says Michael Nardotti Jr., the Army JAG from 1993 to 1997. "You just can't ship civilians in." The size and structure of the military's legal system has

been scrutinized repeatedly over the years, says Univer

sity of Miami law professor Lee Schinasi, chair of the Mil

itary Lawyers Conference of the ABA Government and Public Sector Lawyers Division. But, says Schinasi, who spent 23 years in the Army JAG Corps, "The question is not how to make it smaller, it's how to make it better."

EMBEDDED ADVISERS EACH SERVICE BRANCH HAS BOTH A JAG CORPS OF UNI formed lawyers and a general counsel's office staffed with civilian lawyers. The Navy and Marines have around 1,100 JAG lawyers and 600 civilians; the Air Force has about 1,300 JAG lawyers and 300 civilians.

Each unit is supposed to provide independent legal ad vice to its service secretary. The uniformed military law yers also have exclusive responsibility for military justice and, increasingly, the field of operational law, which ex amines such issues as rules of engagement and humani tarian operations. JAG lawyers are often deployed to the battlefield to give instant advice to military commanders.

However, the two legal staffs overlap on issues such as

procurement, personnel and the environment, which makes the military's legal staff a prime spot for cutbacks.

Only the Army has announced plans to cut its JAG Corps. If the goal is to use military lawyers only where they

are needed, then shrinking the JAG Corps seems to make sense, says D.C. attorney Eugene Fidell, head of a mili tary law practice group. "I don't think you need uni formed lawyers to do labor law, to do environmental law and so on."

But former judge advocates general say replacing uni formed lawyers with civilians is a mistake.

Bill Moorman, the Air Force's judge advocate general from 1999 to 2000, says the new plans are impractical giv en the realities of how JAGs work.

"In today's environment you cannot have a single point of authority located in Washington, D.C, that presumes to give legal advice around the globe," says Moorman, an assistant secretary at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Nardotti, now a partner at Patton Boggs in Washington,

D.C, says significant cuts in uniformed lawyers also could

impair military operations. In times of conflict, military commanders have come to expect JAG lawyers at their side in the battlefield or on a ship or air base.

Representatives for each of the armed services did not answer questions sent to them.

Schinasi, for his part, worries that the change would eat

away the culture of the JAG Corps. "Most people do not understand how family-oriented the military and the JAG Corps are," he says. "The thing people really need to consider is the culture. It's what keeps good JAG officers on active duty."

0 U

N

^9 ABA JOURNAL November 2003

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:55:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions