[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 109 (Wednesday, August 5, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1561-E1562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          MR. STARR DEPARTS HIS PRIVATE PRACTICE FAR TOO LATE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 5, 1998

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, Independent Counsel Kenneth 
Starr announced his decision to take an unpaid leave of absence from 
his partnership at the well known law firm of Kirkland & Ellis. This 
decision has been a long time in coming: Mr. Starr's work with his law 
firm was often a direct conflict of interest with his work as 
Independent Counsel.
  Mr. Starr had been earning up to one million per year and sometimes 
more for his services as a partner in the firm. Whether or not this 
steady source of income from private practice allowed him the luxury to 
drag on an investigation that is going into its fifth year and has cost 
American taxpayers more than forty million is a matter that is not 
entirely clear. In the meantime, Mr. Starr has taken on additional law 
clients and handled their legal matters notwithstanding criticism from 
some of his allies

[[Page E1562]]

and even a few within the law firm who felt it more appropriate that he 
spend his time on his government responsibilities as Independent 
Counsel. This does not take into account the additional time he has 
devoted to academic teaching and public speaking appearances unrelated 
to either his private law practice or his governmental duties.
  It has also been observed that some of Mr. Starr's private 
representation has been in conflict with his duties as independent 
counsel. For example, his firm has represented the Republican party. He 
has also represented tobacco companies, an industry that the Clinton 
Administration has exposed for misleading and fraudulent tactics, and 
other corporations that have been in opposition to the Clinton 
administration policies or have been under scrutiny by federal 
agencies. In another instance, one or more of Mr. Starr's law partners 
has worked with the lawyers of Paula Jones. Notwithstanding the 
appearance of a potential conflict of interest, the law firm of which 
the Independent Counsel was a member took no dispositive action to 
remedy the situation. Even the legal ethics advisor to the Independent 
Counsel, Mr. Sam Dash, said that Mr. Starr's representation of private 
clients ``had an odor to it.''
  Why would Mr. Starr leave his firm at this point in time as he moves 
into the fifth year of his prosecutorial responsibilities? Mr. Starr 
has explained that wrapping up the investigation will be a full-time 
job. This explanation may betray a failure on his part to understand 
that during the preceding four years, the investigation should always 
have been a full-time job. The beginning of his work should have been 
as important as the end of his work.
  It is certainly high time that Mr. Starr has resigned from private 
practice. It should have come much sooner. Perhaps now the 
investigation will proceed, and the American people will be able to put 
the controversies created by allegations of Mr. Starr's abuses and 
excesses behind them in the near future. Regardless of these 
reservations about Mr. Starr's belated departure from his private 
practice, we can assure him and our colleagues that whatever report he 
submits to Congress will be given a careful and non-political 
examination. The House Committee on the Judiciary is committed to 
discharging its responsibilities in a way that will satisfy every 
citizen of our seriousness and commitment to due process for both the 
President and the Independent Counsel.

                          ____________________