Although Williams denies, for example,nracial orchestration of the JimmynHoffa jury, the fact remains that hisnselections worked to impanel a heavilynblack jury. He also denies—despite hisnrepeated public profession of demandingn”total control” of any case he accepts—Shavingnasked Joe Louis to shownup in court, or of having Hof& (with thenjudge not yet present) put his armnaround the noted black boxer and chatnin view of the jury. Nor does he admit tonhaving prior knowledge that a blacknnewspaper depicting H0I& as the friendnof black unions would be sent to the jurynduring the trial, or to having sinisternmotives when he brought to the attentionnof the black jury the fact that thenstate’s chief witness against Hofl& had atnone time done some undercover investigationsnof the NAACP.nObviously, having seemingly destroyednthis witness’s reputation fornhonesty in still another courtroom ployndid not deter Williams, just three weeksnlater, from calling upon this same witnessnas part of Williams’s defense ofngangster Frank Costello against deportation.nAnd Williams saw no conflict ofnChtsetl Circuitn.lr. Vi’illkun KL-nncily. :i wrilt-r lavishlynluinon-il lasl yi-ar with both the I’lilit/rrnI’ri/rand the ^all<)l1al KookC.rilicsCirdcnAward, ri-tc-ntly wroti- an L-nthii.siaslicnri-vicw.piibllshL-il b the Vc//’) nrk IinwsnHook livricii: of a book by .lr. .Marion<‘,iiotno. the liberal govi-nior of Newn’lork.nI voiiil li)i’.Marl<)(‘.iii)nii)t)>i'(i(>em<>i'(irnNew ^Drk in ‘)ti2 heeaii.si-1 likeil whatnhe was .saviii); and heeaiise I ihoiijitit hisniip[‘Kinenl.U’\isI’MA-hniun. \asas(ieialnI tiildile and a niciral im^loilyle.nI was predisposed ID lillh him andnhis tiiMik siiue lie wnxe nie a Ian letternsayii i}> lied .Slav ed up all ni}>hi reading mynla.sl novel. Imiiweed.’nlOinChronicles of Cultureninterest when he, while serving asndefense counsel for Adam ClaytonnPowell, also appeared as counsel for thenstar prosecution witness against Powell.nThis little trick destroyed the state’snability to prepare the witness for trial, asnWilliams would have attended everynsuch session. The question in such casesnis, had the roles been reversed, hownmany such antics would Williams haventolerated without raising objection,nmoving for mistrial, or rurming to thenpress? Or is the only rule in court to getnaway with as much as opposing counselnwill allow?nAccording to Pack, Williams does notnconcern himself with his client’s moralitynor immorality, or even guilt orninnocence. His sole object seems littlenmore than to prevent conviction of hisnclient. One would be hard put to find anclearer case of concentration on formnover content. But some serious questionsnmay be raised against what isnadmittedly a widespread attitude on thenpart of lawyers.nWilliams justifies his defense of suchnnotorious characters by saying that thenSixth Amendment guarantees all ac-nLIBI:RAL CULTURE ]nHow neat and smooth! How could annauthor who so forcefully shaped andnvocally proclaimed such political convictionsnmiss a Pulitzer or tlie Critics Circlendistinction? Would those august bodiesnever refvise their highest recognition tonsuch a reliable thinker? CHnnncused persons the right to counsel.nIndeed it does. But Williams—^and he isnfer from alone here—seems to read intonthat amendment the right, if not thenobligation, to use any means at hisndisposal (short of perjury, bribery, ornrank dishonesty) to exonerate his client.nThis, I suggest, is inconsistent with thenlawyer’s responsibility as an officer of thencourt.nl^ourts of law were established tonadminister justice. To the extent thatnthey fail to do justice, they fail in theirnonly reason for existence. Likewise, tonthe extent that prosecution, defense,njudge, or jury fail to advance justice, theynfail in their responsibility to the courtsnand to society. This is not to say that thendefense should join in the prosecution ofnthe accused. The defense’s duty is tonrequire the state to prove its case againstnindividuals; but that is far different fromnsaying that the defense’s duty is tonprevent conviction of the client. Thenformer policy allows even the mostndespicable criminal the assistance of annable attorney; but the latter incitesnpublic anger against the courts, andnbrings contempt upon the legal profession.nYet, the problems which confrontnthe individual in the practice of law arendue in large part to the problems hamperingnthe courts themselves as theynsearch for purpose and direction in thefrndeliberations.nIn light of the liberal preoccupationnwith form, it should not surprise us thatnwhen Vincent Blasi sees the BurgernCourt strike down provisions in Federalnstatutes 24 times (as opposed to thenWarren Court striking down 19 provisions)nhe concludes that the BurgernCourt is necessarily an “activist” (read:npraiseworthy) Court. But the WarrennCourt was activist not because it struckndown Federal legislation per se, butnbecause it substituted its own politicalnpreferences for those of Congress. WhatnBlasi and most of his essayists overlook isnthe possibility that when the BurgernCourt strikes down a Federal provisionntoday, it might well be trying to reestabn