Prepared remarks for City Attorney Dennis Herrera: commencement address to graduating law students of Golden Gate University School of Law, at the Nob Hill Masonic Center, 1111 California Street in San Francisco, California (May 13, 2005)

1. Friday, May 13, 2005
Prepared Remarks for
DENNIS HERRERA
City Attorney of San Francisco
Commencement Address to Graduating Law Students
Golden Gate University
School of Law Commencement
Nob Hill Masonic Center
1111 California Street
San Francisco, California

2. – 1 –
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for that very kind introduction.
I want to thank the students, administration
and trustees of Golden Gate University School
of Law for inviting me to be your speaker for
this 2005 commencement ceremony. I would
consider it an honor, of course, to deliver a
commencement address under any circumstance.
But I want you to know that I regard it as a
PARTICULAR honor to address a graduating class
from a law school…
• That has so elevated the caliber of public
service in San Francisco;
• That is such a vital a part of our city’s
legal and educational community;
• And that has contributed so much talent,
expertise and energy to my own office.
In fact, I’m proud to have several Golden Gate
University Law School graduates serving with me
in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office,
They include:

3. – 2 –
• Lori Giorgi, class of 1986, who as Chief of
my Public Integrity Unit handles many of the
most complex and important investigations and
civil suits my office has undertaken.
• Michael Weiss, class of 1993, one of the star
litigators on my award-winning Code
Enforcement and Neighborhood Protection team.
• David Serrano-Sewell, class of 2002, who
serves not only as a deputy city attorney at
the Port of San Francisco. But was also
recently appointed to the Independent
Citizens’ Oversight Committee of the
California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine. That’s the 29-member governing
board of the $3 billion Stem Cell Bond voters
passed last November — and it’s an extremely
prestigious appointment.

4. – 3 –
I’m also proud to work with a former dean of
Golden Gate University School of Law as a
CLIENT —someone who has a job I used to have
as a San Francisco Police Commissioner. As a
matter of fact, when I mentioned that this Law
School has elevated the caliber of public
service in San Francisco, I could think of no
better example than Peter Keane.
My office also benefits — as I’m sure the Law
School does —from the extra-curricular
activities of those deputy city attorneys who
teach at Golden Gate University, including
Yvonne Meré and Lisa Berkowitz. They stay
involved in education in a field that is itself
continually changing. And their efforts
contribute not only to a more engaged STUDY of
law, but to a more vibrant PRACTICE as well.
LAW SCHOOL COMMENCEMENT
You know, by rights, a commencement OUGHT to
mark a bright line between your studies and the
beginning of your careers. But we all know
that there’s something particularly deceiving
about the term for a LAW SCHOOL commencement.

5. – 4 –
In truth, your legal careers — for most of you
who’ll go on to practice, anyway — won’t begin
until after you’ve passed the bar exam and
joined the state bar. Your climactic moment
will be the Friday night you check the State
Bar Web site — with your heart in your throat,
and no one around to play “Pomp and
Circumstance.”
And if THAT thought isn’t terrifying enough,
the truth is your legal STUDIES aren’t over,
either. By now, you probably realize that
being a lawyer means being a lifelong law
student. Hopefully now, you’ll just get paid
to do it.
If I could offer a more optimistic perspective
from someone who’s been out of law school for
the last 16 years, however, it’s this: it is
exactly what has made law school so challenging
for these last three or four years that will
make BEING a lawyer so rewarding for the next
thirty or forty years.

6. – 5 –
Yes, the learning curve is never-ending. Yes,
you’ll have the obligation to stay abreast of
all the changes in the legal field —all the
case law, the new legislation. But you’ll also
be uniquely equipped to lead change yourself.
You will never know, when a client walks in the
door, if it may turn out to be a landmark case.
Certainly, when I decided to become a maritime
lawyer, I doubt any of my law school buddies
would have predicted I would one day sue to
strike down state marriage laws that
discriminate against gay and lesbian couples.
The field of law is uniquely unpredictable.
At the same time, the discipline we’ve chosen
faces new and difficult challenges on two
fronts.
• First, from an unprecedented level of
politicization that frankly undermines the
legitimacy of our entire legal system.
• And second, from progress that has been too
slow in enabling access to justice for low-
income and non-English-speaking people.

7. – 6 –
POLITICIZATION OF THE JUDICIARY
First, politics.
As you know, I’m someone who occupies DUAL
roles as both a politician AND a lawyer. So if
you detect any partisanship in my tone, well
—suffice it to say I probably can’t help it.
Still, while I’ll admit to being ANNOYED as a
Democrat, it is as a LAWYER that I’m truly
ALARMED by recent trends.
Over the last several years, we’ve seen the
judiciary emerge as an increasingly contentious
flashpoint in American politics. And while
there’s no denying that politics has ALWAYS
played a role in shaping our judiciary, what
we‘ve seen in Washington over the last few
weeks represents a new, decidedly more chilling
assault on the integrity of our justice system.
This week, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
continues to threaten a parliamentary maneuver
to ban filibusters against judicial nominees.
The unprecedented ploy to do away with the
filibuster is called “the Nuclear Option.” And
with good reason.

8. – 7 –
A filibuster requires 60-votes to invoke
cloture, and the device has stood since 1825 as
a check against a majority that would run
roughshod over the rights of the minority. In
the world’s greatest deliberative body, it
forces compromise and rewards moderation. And
the fact that it has been used to the great
irritation of both Democratic AND Republican
majorities over the years is probably testimony
to its abiding wisdom.
The “Nuclear Option” — like its Cold War
counterpart —assures mutual destruction. It
elevates conflict over compromise. It punishes
moderation. And it escalates the divisive
polarization that threatens far more damage to
our legal system.
And for what purpose?
During President Bush’s first term, Senate
Democrats filibustered ten nominees to federal
appeals courts —this out of 204 judges chosen
by the President who were confirmed by the
Senate. That percentage is virtually identical
to the Republicans’ obstruction of President
Clinton’s nominees.

9. – 8 –
But the truth is, the “Nuclear Option” is only
the most RECENT example of a broader, more
sustained effort by some to demonize the
judiciary for fulfilling its role as the
guardian of individual liberties.
Even beyond the EXPECTED targets —judges
who’ve ruled in favor of marriage equality for
gay and lesbian couples, for example —charges
of “judicial activism” have been leveled at
such unlikely targets as the U.S. Supreme Court
itself — seldom regarded as a hotbed of radical
liberalism.
Even with seven of its nine justices appointed
by Republican presidents, the high court has
been excoriated by extremists for their
activism on issues ranging from abortion rights
to affirmative action to antiquated sodomy
laws.

10. – 9 –
Former Judge Robert Bork has assailed this
Supreme Court for what he stridently called an
“almost frenzied hostility to religion.” He
even went so far as to call for a
constitutional amendment that would allow
Congress to override court decisions. If
adopted, such an amendment would destroy the
principle of judicial review that has stood for
two centuries. And, what’s more, it would
subordinate a coequal branch of government that
is intended to serve as a counterbalance to
majoritarian tyranny.
But such strident politicization ignores the
courts’’ well-established constitutional duty
in undertaking judicial review. Alexander
Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78, “The
interpretation of the laws is the proper and
peculiar province of the courts. A constitution
is, in fact, and must be regarded by the
judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore
belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as
well as the meaning of any particular act
proceeding from the legislative body.”

11. – 10 –
“If there should happen to be an irreconcilable
variance between the two, that which has the
superior obligation and validity ought, of
course, to be preferred; or, in other words,
the Constitution ought to be preferred to the
statute, the intention of the people to the
intention of their agents.”
Frankly, more recent examples of political
intrusion into the judicial sphere are even
more chilling.
Just last month, House Majority Leader Tom
DeLay — not to be outdone by Bill Frist, his
counterpart in the Senate — spoke to reporters
about his OWN ideas to reign in the judiciary.
He wants to use legislative tactics to withhold
funding from the courts.
“We set up the courts, We can UNSET the
courts,” DeLay boasted. “We have the power of
the purse.”
And if you’re wondering how such a tactic might
work in practice, you could ask James C.
Dobson, founder of “Focus on the Family.”

12. – 11 –
Dobson said recently, and I quote: “Very few
people know this, that the Congress can simply
disenfranchise a court. They don’t have to
fire anybody or impeach them or go through that
battle. All they have to do is say the 9th
Circuit doesn’t exist anymore, and it’s gone.”
At a time when one party enjoys complete
control over both the executive and legislative
branches of the federal government, I may not
LIKE seeing Republicans bully Democrats. But I
will be the first to concede: that’s politics.
As a lawyer and an officer of the court,
however, I am far more dismayed by the
sustained attacks on our court system, which
undermine the legitimacy of the Judiciary as a
coequal branch of government.
That ISN’T politics —that’s un-American. And
it deserves a forceful rebuke from our legal
profession —left and right, Republican and
Democrat.

13. – 12 –
If there’s a glimmer of hope, it came in a
speech last week by one prominent world leader.
“All free and successful countries have some
common characteristics,” he said, citing in
particular “the rule of law, and the limitation
of power through checks and balances.”
That world leader was President George W. Bush,
and he’s absolutely right. Unfortunately, he
was speaking to the Republic of Latvia. The
president needs to reiterate the same point to
extremists in this country.
Let’s be united in defending the integrity of
our independent judiciary and de-escalate the
politics.
PURSUE YOUR OBSOLESCENCE
Apart from the politicization of the judiciary,
the second challenge facing our legal community
is a regrettably familiar one: enabling access
to justice for low-income and non-English-
speaking people.

14. – 13 –
In March, the Judicial Council of California
issued its five-year report to the state
legislature on the Equal Access Fund, detailing
the progress made to improve delivery of legal
assistance to low-income and marginalized
Californians. That report acknowledged that
state government needs to do more to expand its
efforts, to truly fulfill the promise of equal
justice.
Because I don’t happen to be speaking to the
California legislature, I’m going to go the
Judicial Council one better, and say our
PROFESSION needs to do more.
“Equal justice is not a caption on the facade
of the Supreme Court building,” Former Supreme
Court Justice Lewis Powell said, “It is
perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our
society.”
As students, teachers and practitioners of the
law, the fulfillment of that ideal falls to us.
We are all the stewards of equal justice.

15. – 14 –
Now I suppose I could hold forth on various
LEGISLATIVE proposals to expand access to
justice at the POLICY level. But instead I’m
going to make a recommendation that — if
embraced by the broader legal community —would
go a long way toward solving the problem at a
PERSONAL level, by each and every one of us.
In a way, it’s career advice — one of those
pearls of wisdom you’ve probably come to EXPECT
from commencement speakers. And the wisdom I
would pass along to you, as new law school
graduates, comes down to three words: “pursue
your obsolescence.”
Simply endeavor to make what you’ve chosen to
do for a living irrelevant and unnecessary.
Now I’ll admit, that seems a COUNTER-INTUITIVE
point to make in a commencement address.
But if you think about it, you’ll realize that
the noblest, most successful endeavors ALWAYS
belong to those who pursue their obsolescence.

16. – 15 –
• If your collegiate experience was anything
like mine, you probably realize that the best
teachers you’ve ever had are the ones who
sparked your OWN curiosity. Those who
instill within their students a love of
learning — without teachers.
• The best doctors encourage their patients to
focus on maintaining and improving their
health, rather than simply treating their
ailments. They help people lead healthy
lives — without doctors.
• Likewise —for our profession —the best,
most successful lawyers work to create a
fairer, more just world — a world without the
need for lawyers.
For today’s attorneys, I can’t emphasize enough
the importance of serving the cause of a more
just world.
As stewards of what Justice Powell called our
society’s most inspiring ideal, we all have a
role to play in ensuring equal justice for all
— irrespective of income or language barriers.

17. – 16 –
In part, that means fulfilling your obligations
in terms of pro bono work, or in volunteering
your time for legal service programs.
At the City Attorney’s Office, I’m very proud
of my staff’s efforts on behalf of local non-
profits to meet the needs of underserved
populations throughout San Francisco.
• La Raza, BALIF, the AIDS Legal Referral
Panel, the Lawyers Club of San Francisco, the
Charles Houston Minority Bar Association are
just a sampling of the many organizations
that have benefited from the participation of
deputy city attorneys.
• Several of my deputies currently participate
in the Volunteer Legal Services Program of
the Bar Association of San Francisco, for
which I myself am a board member.
• My Chief Deputy, Terry Stewart, founded the
School-to-College Program, which has forged
partnerships with organizations ranging from
the Bar Association to the San Francisco
49ers to make going to college possible for
underserved youth who might never have
considered it a possibility.

18. – 17 –
• Monica Wiley, from my trial team, currently
leads the Wiley Manuel Law Foundation. Named
for the first African American Justice on the
California Supreme Court, it provides
scholarships and supports the needs of
African-American lawyers and lawyers-to-be,
• Julia Friedlander, head of my office’s
transportation team, saw an unmet need when
she became a parent, and founded a lesbian
and gay parents’ association that has since
become a respected statewide powerhouse.
In giving back, in meeting unmet needs
throughout the community, these public legal
professionals are working to create a more just
society —a society where lawyers and lawsuits
are perhaps a little less necessary.
But pursuing your obsolescence as lawyers goes
beyond simply volunteering. In fact, I think
there are a myriad of ways to serve the cause
of justice in your legal practice, throughout
your careers.

19. – 18 –
I’ll tell you what serving the cause of justice
means for us in the San Francisco City
Attorney’s Office:
• It means not simply DEFENDING Mayor Newsom in
his bold decision to issue same-sex marriage
licenses last year. For my office, it means
taking the initiative to CHALLENGE the
constitutionality of the discriminatory state
laws at the heart of the injustice.
• It means not simply standing by while
Washington infringes on the reproductive
rights of the poorest, most vulnerable women
served by our public hospital. For my
office, it means joining with Planned
Parenthood in a federal lawsuit that
successfully struck down the so-called
“Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.”
• It means not simply defending our public
schools from those who would defraud them.
For my office, it means filing a federal
whistleblower action that put fraudulent
vendors out of business, and working with the
U.S. Justice Department to help protect poor
school districts nationwide.

20. – 19 –
I’m proud of the efforts my office has made to
serve the cause of justice —to pursue our own
obsolescence.
CONCLUSION
Perhaps fortunately, I don’t expect teachers or
doctors or lawyers — or City Attorneys, for
that matter —to be obsolete anytime soon.
But I do know that in better students, in
healthier patients, and in a more just legal
system, our world is better for those who
fulfill their chosen roles with loftier
purpose.
For the work ahead of us to defend the
integrity of our profession; for our shared
stewardship of our most inspiring ideal of
equal justice; for our pursuit of obsolescence;
Golden Gate University Law School Graduates of
2005, I congratulate you on your achievement.
And I proudly welcome you to the practice of
law.
Thank you.