Rotary International’s Four-Way Test
-Service Above Self
Rotary International is an international service organization that began more than one-hundred years ago. Arguably, the core principle of Rotary International is its “Four-Way Test.” The test states -
“Of the things we think, say or do
1. Is it the TRUTH?
2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?
3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?”
Source: Rotary International
As an attorney, other Rotarians will ask me how the Four-Way Test interacts with the judicial system. I realize that the question arguably becomes more pertinent to someone who is running for office to serve on a Texas court of appeals. I answer the question as follows ...
“Is it the TRUTH?”
In discussions I am asked, “Is it possible to be truthful in an adversarial proceeding?” It strikes me that underlying this question is the assumption or speculation that some degree of falsehoods are necessary to properly represent a client. I never needed to misrepresent something to fairly represent my clients. Further, it is rare that I have been in a situation where I was confident that opposing counsel had intentionally misrepresented something.
Ethics prevent lawyers from intentionally misleading judges. Part of that charge is correctly presenting the facts to an appellate court. It is one thing to “shade” the facts in a manner that favors their client, but it is another thing to “stretch” the facts to the point that you no longer recognize the case.
As an appellate attorney I am also ethically charged with the duty to reveal any pertinent case law that directly stands in the way of the position I am arguing. It is my duty to fashion an argument that explains why that case will not apply to the case before the appellate court. The courts simply do not tolerate misrepresentations of the law.
As a potential court of appeals justice, I will be charged with carefully preparing any opinion I might be tasked to author. In an opinion, it is imperative to correctly present the facts of the underlying case before explaining how the law applies to those facts. To do otherwise causes anyone reading the opinion to reach incorrect conclusions.
I cannot control what others do, but I can make sure that I answer this question, “Yes.”
“Is it FAIR to all concerned?”
To me this is always a question of whether “due process” is satisfied in someone’s case. Whether in a criminal or civil proceeding, both the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution require the proceedings be conducted in a manner that does not violate a party’s due process rights. A proceeding that results in a party’s rights being violated is not fair. A proceeding can be fair even if a party loses a case.
From an appellant standpoint, the question on appeal is not whether there is error. Instead, it is whether there is reversible error. That is to say, the error rose to such a level as to cause an improper verdict or judgment. There are rules along the way that must be followed. Not following these procedural or substantive rules can cause a party to lose the right to complain on appeal about something that otherwise would rise to reversible error. I do believe it is fair to require complying with certain rules and procedures.
“Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?”
I wish I could say that I was always friendly with opposing counsel, but it was not always the case. Still, I continue to make it a point that I do not go out seeking to cause animosity. At times attorneys understandably become so intertwined with their case that it is difficult to remain civil to the other side. However, I learned about how lawyers, judges, and court personnel interact many decades ago when I worked at the courthouse and civility was much more routine. It is not an art. Instead, it is matter of manners.
Many times I came to be good friends with an attorney on the other side of an appeal. In other cases the ongoing dispute occasioned the opportunity to deepen an existing professional relationship. Certainly, some of my most hard-fought appellate cases were with attorneys I respected - neither side wanted to ease up.
Incidentally, I have never perceived civility to be a side of weakness. Civility does not mean that you answer, “Yes” to anything the other side wants. Instead, you say, “Yes” because it is beneficial to your client and the case, otherwise you say “No.”
“Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?”
In many respects this is the hardest question to answer. It is true that in most proceedings, either criminal or civil, the parties reach some type of resolution before there ever is a trial. A party may decide to dismiss the case, parties may agree on a resolution, or a party may concede the other party’s position. Attorneys often wonder why the client chose to settle the case in the manner they did, but an attorney I respect told me long ago, “If the settlement satisfies the client, it does not matter what you think.” These are words well spoken.
However, not all cases are ones where the parties resolve the case. In some cases there truly is a winning side. Of course, that means there is also a losing side. Some would question whether it is “beneficial” to the loser. To me the important phrase is “to all concerned.” That goes far beyond the parties in the case. It goes to all of us as part of society.
Our legal system allows us to resolve disputes, both criminal and civil. The process is in place and known. Except in specific, rare cases, trials are open to the public. We do not resort to force because we know the judicial safeguards are there for us and others. Our society’s reliance on the legal system’s safeguards is reinforced even when someone loses - it is beneficial to all concerned.