[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 15611-15613]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   REMEMBERING PROF. LAWRENCE P. KING

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JERROLD NADLER

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2001

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleagues 
Representative Conyers and Representative Watt, to fondly remember 
Prof. Lawrence P. King who passed away on April 1, after a long and 
courageous struggle with cancer.
  Prof. King was the most widely renowned bankruptcy scholar of our 
time, and had served as an invaluable advisor to Congress and the 
Courts regarding Bankruptcy Law. For years, Prof. King generously gave 
of his time through his involvement with the National Bankruptcy 
Conference, which has served as the leading non-partisan adviser on the 
nation's bankruptcy laws since the 1930's. Prof. King has frequently 
testified on the bankruptcy laws, and was particularly valuable in 
offering advice in connection with the seminal Bankruptcy Reform Act of 
1978. As a result of his tireless assistance, it is no understatement 
to say that Prof. King has had as significant an impact on our 
bankruptcy laws--which are the envy of the world--as any other 
individual.
  I first came into contact with Prof. King when I became the Ranking 
Democratic Member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 
Law. Prof. King's knowledge of the law, compassion for the common man, 
and extraordinary sense of humor continued to be a tremendous help to 
the work of the committee especially during the very challenging 
struggles over the past few years to maintain the integrity of the 
Code. He both lived and taught in the Eighth Congressional District of 
New York, a fact about which I remain especially proud. My colleague, 
the distinguished Ranking Member from Michigan, met Prof. King while 
still a student at Wayne State School of Law, and like many other 
lawyers, whether starting out or seasoned, was touched by Prof. King's 
personal and professional greatness.
  Time and space do not permit me to recite all of Prof. King's 
accomplishments, but a few highlights deserve notice. He taught at New 
York University School of Law from 1959 until his death. For the last 
22 years, he was the Charles Seligson Professor of Law. He also served 
as a member of the Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on 
Bankruptcy Rules; as a consultant to the Commission on Bankruptcy Laws 
of the United States, which produced what ultimately became the 1978 
Bankruptcy Code; as a Senior Advisor to the National Bankruptcy Review 
Commission, established by Congress as part of the Bankruptcy Act of 
1994; and, perhaps most importantly, as the editor-in-chief of the 
authoritative treatise ``Collier on Bankruptcy.'' In addition to 
serving as a member of the National Bankruptcy Conference, Prof. King 
has been honored as a fellow of the American College of Bankruptcy, and 
had received the College's Distinguished Service Award and the Law 
School's Alumni Achievement Award.
  He was the founder and driving force behind the NYU Workshop on 
Bankruptcy and Business Reorganization which, for 26 years, has trained 
attorneys in the field of bankruptcy and insolvency law, keeping 
experienced practitioners up to date with the latest developments in 
the
  Prof. King's remarkable professional achievements and intellect are 
only part of the story. He understood the ethical and moral 
underpinnings of the fresh start and the rehabilitation of debtors. 
Everything he did was infused with his personal compassion and ethical 
standards. In his final speech to the American College of Bankruptcy, 
just two days before his death, Prof. King made an impassioned plea for 
the preservation of the fresh

[[Page 15612]]

start and the coherence, fairness and balance of the current Code. The 
Code, a model of fairness, is in peril right now. Prof. King, who did 
so much to build the system we have now, who contributed so much to 
bankruptcy scholarship, articulated the many concerns with the pending 
legislation better than anyone. I can think of no more fitting tribute 
than to commend his final comments to the attention of my colleagues in 
the hope that they will help us to remember this great man and take 
heed and work for fair and balanced legislation.

  Remarks by Prof. Lawrence King to the American College of Bankruptcy

       I appreciate very much the honor of being asked to deliver 
     the keynote address at this induction ceremony, which itself 
     is a very auspicious occasion. It marks with emphasis the 
     regard in which each of your peers hold you all and you are 
     entitled to be very proud of this accomplishment. Of course, 
     as a member of the College, I agree with everything I just 
     said.
       In considering what the focus of my remarks should be, the 
     first thought was something having to do with the philosophy 
     of the bankruptcy law. But that would be too short of a 
     speech because, after all, that philosophy could be summed up 
     as granting a new financial life to a financially distressed 
     debtor and providing for an equitable distribution of the 
     debtor's nonexempt assets among the debtor's unsecured 
     creditors.
       At least that was the philosophy until the advent of the 
     105th, 106th and the current 107th Congresses. It seems that 
     today's philosophy is to damn the poor and struggling in 
     order to pay the rich, who will not get paid anyway. So it is 
     not worth heaping further ridicule on these past Congresses, 
     the members are beyond caring, having pocketed the largess 
     offered them and gone home to count what is in their campaign 
     coffers. So, on to another theme.
       Particularly as a member of the College, although not by 
     virtue of that fact alone, we all have responsibilities to 
     our profession and to our community, however that may be 
     defined. Over a number of years of long and hard work, we 
     have achieved a modicum of success and a time comes when some 
     of our efforts should be used to return some good to the 
     communities from which we come. Naturally, as all good 
     sayings go, that is easier to state than to accomplish. 
     Nevertheless, I want to plant some ideas by way of example.
       When I was in law school, I decided that my careers should 
     encompass three aspects. I wanted to practice law in order to 
     help people with their problems, people being defined to 
     include all legal entities. I wanted to teach law in order to 
     educate others on how to help people through the practice of 
     law as well as to help fashion the law by research and 
     writing. And, thirdly, I wanted to be a judge in order to 
     help make and interpret the law.
       Those were pretty lofty dreams, perhaps subject even to a 
     charge of naivete. Interestingly, as I reminisce, it seems to 
     me that I did accomplish two of those desires, that is, the 
     actual working at them. Whether or not it was of help to 
     others is not for me to say. I have found, however, that 
     within my work in whichever capacity, I have been able to 
     accomplish all of my goals. That has occurred because 
     throughout my career, I was involved in, let's say, 
     extracurricular activities, almost always for no recompense 
     whatsoever.
       As I was thinking about this part of my speech, I thought 
     of saying to you that there were two of such activities that 
     highlighted my career in the sense of the personal enjoyment 
     and satisfaction that I got out of them. But, as I thought of 
     that notion, I concluded that I could say the same thing with 
     regard to everything I have done and such joy and 
     satisfaction was not limited to a mere two or three 
     endeavors. But a brief review of two will serve my purpose 
     tonight.
       For about 22 years, in addition to full time teaching, part 
     time practicing as counsel to a firm, and serving as 
     associate dean of the law school, I was the first associate 
     reporter, then reporter, and then a member of the Advisory 
     Committee on Bankruptcy Rules of the Judicial Conference of 
     the U.S. This was not totally fun, but overall, it was quite 
     an interesting challenge.
       One incident, that one would think is unrelated to that 
     work, involved a partial shredding of both of my trousers' 
     legs, starting at the lower thigh, and appearing with cloth 
     flapping before a Congressional committee to testify. The 
     reason for the shredding was a mind bending state of 
     frustration in listening and having to accede to suggestions 
     to change the Chapter X Rules being made by members of the 
     Standing Committee on Practice and Procedure, that is, the 
     oversight committee which had no one on it who knew a whit 
     about bankruptcy, and Chapter X in particular. During the 
     discussion, my hands were under the table and basically, 
     subconsciously, were clutching my pants legs and, at one 
     point of extreme aggravation, they pulled back, tearing the 
     pants.
       Another extracurricular activity that took a great deal of 
     time, and, in looking back, I do not quite understand where 
     the time came from, was on the legislative front. I first got 
     involved in that through the legislation committee of the 
     National Bankruptcy Conference and the first excursion in 
     drafting legislation for congress and testifying with respect 
     to it was the 1970 Nondischargeability Amendments, which gave 
     the bankruptcy court jurisdiction to determine the effect of 
     a discharge.
       An interesting aspect of that task was working with the 
     National Association of Referees in Bankruptcy to come up 
     with a joint bill and, at each turn, having members of the 
     House subcommittee complain that the draft was not strong 
     enough to prohibit further abuses of the discharge system by 
     consumer credit companies. One of the most interesting days 
     was when I received a call from Senator Quentin Burdick of 
     North Dakota asking me to come to his office.
       I was there very quickly. He ushered me into his office, 
     told me to put my feet on the desk, offered me a shot of 
     bourbon (9 a.m.), and he started talking. He had gotten 
     interested in the bankruptcy jurisdiction of the referee in 
     bankruptcy and wondered out loud whether it made sense to 
     create a commission to study the bankruptcy laws with a view 
     to updating them. I, of course, was in 100 [percent] ecstatic 
     agreement, and, from that moment, the 1970 Commission was 
     born not without some problems, but that is a story for 
     another day.
       In the mid-1970s, I was called to the House subcommittee, 
     which was considering amending Chapter IX of the former 
     [Bankruptcy] Act, the municipality chapter, because of the 
     New York City financial crisis. At first, all I was asked to 
     conduct [was] an afternoon's seminar for the members of the 
     subcommittee and their staffs on the topic of executory 
     contracts under the Bankruptcy Act. This was becoming a big 
     issue in the legislation because of the power of the city's 
     labor unions and their bargaining agreements.
       But, at the conclusion, the chairman of the subcommittee, 
     Congressman Don Edwards, asked me to show up the next morning 
     at the start of the markup of the Chapter IX bill. Now, no 
     one can speak at a markup session except the members and 
     their staff, so I had to remain silent. At the markup, 
     Congressman Butler, the ranking minority member, had a list 
     of about 50 amendments to the proffered bill which were being 
     read, one by one, by his minority counsel, Ken Klee, and then 
     voted upon.
       As an amendment was read, Don Edwards looked in my 
     direction and I quickly realized he was seeking a reaction to 
     the amendment from me by way of a nod or shake of the head. 
     And I complied.
       After a while, Congressman Butler asked for a recess and he 
     came over to me, asking, ``Am I seeing right? Are you 
     reacting to my amendments as they are read without even 
     having seen them before?'' I replied in the affirmative, and 
     he then asked if I would study the remainder of them 
     overnight and meet with him the next morning to offer my 
     reaction.
       The next day I showed him the lists that I had made of the 
     amendments: in one group I placed the ones I agreed with; in 
     the next group I placed the ones I disagreed with; and in the 
     third group, I placed the ones I did not take a position on 
     because I believed them to be purely political, which was 
     within his expertise and not mine.
       At the markup session, Butler offered to Edwards the group 
     one amendments with the statement that they had passed muster 
     with the NYU law school. He did not offer group two, and the 
     discussion was limited to Group 3. The markup continued for 
     several days although it was serially announced that it would 
     conclude at the end of that days' session. That did not 
     happen. In the morning, I would check out of my hotel and, in 
     the evening, I would check back in.
       During the 1970s and '80s, I spent a fair amount of time 
     testifying before Congressional committees and subcommittees, 
     which was very time consuming and, also, fairly expensive. 
     Congress invites you to work for it, but it does not offer to 
     pay, even expenses.
       In addition, I did a fair amount of continuing education 
     work all over the country, on behalf of state and local bar 
     associations and other suppliers of such programs. I 
     considered appearing on these programs to be part of my job 
     as a teacher, whether I received any compensation (which I 
     did not) for the work.
       I now think appearing on such programs is more than a 
     teacher's job. I believe that it is incumbent on all of us, 
     practitioners and judges alike, to participate in these 
     programs, if we have something to offer. Judges are a bit 
     problematic because of their position and having to decide 
     issues but, with care as to the type of participation, they 
     can share their gathered wisdom with the bar and public 
     generally.
       Another area in which lawyers, particularly, can serve 
     beyond their everyday role is through their local bar 
     associations. Active membership should be considered a must. 
     There are many things the local bar can do in a very 
     constructive manner. Very important is its ability to present 
     its views to legislatures regarding bankruptcy and related 
     legislation.
       Either through bar association work or on an independent 
     basis, pro bono work is of utmost importance, particularly in 
     view of the new legislation. The costs to debtors filing for 
     bankruptcy go up and up and up and no one in Washington seems 
     to understand that the poor are being asked to support the 
     system.

[[Page 15613]]

       Help is needed all over the country. Go to your local 
     courts and volunteer to serve. Create formal programs in your 
     district to help the unfortunate. I know there are 
     established programs in some parts of the country. Get 
     involved in them. Give something back. That is the rallying 
     cry.
       Some have suggested programs to get lawyers and judges into 
     the classrooms around the country. I have not been enamored 
     of that idea. I do not believe you can pick someone out of 
     his or her office or from the bench and say, here, teach, 
     even if that individual has volunteered with enthusiasm to do 
     so. Not everyone can be an effective teacher. It takes a good 
     deal more than merely standing in front of a group and 
     talking. Again, that is a separate subject for a talk, and I 
     will not belabor it here.
       But there is a lot out there that can be done. Legislative 
     work is always timely. Keep in touch with your members of 
     Congress. If you are not known, find someone in your firm, or 
     roster of friends or clients who is. Include Representatives 
     and Senators. If you have a string to the White House, use it 
     and turn it into a rope. Plan in advance.
       Share your expertise by writing sensible articles. The key 
     word is sensible.
       Participate in bar association functions. Be active. 
     Volunteer to do work.
       Get involved in pro bono work. You will get a lot of 
     satisfaction in helping people.
       In whatever form you wish to express yourself, remember, 
     give something back.

     

                          ____________________