December 23, 2000
Boston, Massachusetts

My friends:

Between 1991 and 1993, I represented Primarily Primates (PPI), a Texas
primate sanctuary for more than four hundred chimpanzees and monkeys. In
July, 1993, I made certain disclosures to the Texas Attorney General, which
regulates nonprofit corporations. Primarily Primate's president, Wallace
Swett, then filed a complaint for ethical violations with the Massachusetts
Bar Counsel. Last week, the Supreme Judicial Court said that I improperly
revealed client confidences and engaged in a conflict of interest. It
suspended me for 6 months from the practice of law, because it believed that
I acted primarily to collect outstanding legal fees due me from PPI. In doing
so, the court turned aside a unanimous decision (9-0) of the Massachusetts
Board of Bar Overseers not to suspend me.

I faced a complex and difficult ethical situation in July of 1993. The
court has ruled that the decision that I believed I had to make in the
interests of the primates violated the ethical rules governing lawyers. As a
member of the Massachusetts Bar, I respect the court's role as the final
arbiter in such matters and will abide by its decision. By responding here, I
mean no disrespect to the court. But my respect for the court should not be
taken to mean that I agree with its decision. Anyone interested may inquire
further and make his or her own decision based upon the facts.

I remain, however, severely constrained by ethical prohibitions from
freely explaining what happened. To help determine what I am allowed to share
with the public regarding the underlying circumstances, so that my
motivations could be plainly understood, I requested an emergency opinion
from the Massachusetts Bar Association's Committee on Professional Ethics. I
have now been advised that I may quote from the decisions of the Supreme
Judicial Court, the Board of Bar Overseers, and its hearing committee ,and
may also tell a little bit about what I did and why. But that is all.

In its opinion, the Court set out some background facts from which one
might glean some of what actually motivated my actions. In a July 5, 1993
telephone call, for the first time, "(Kay) Trevino (one of four directors of
PPI) .... told (Wise) ... that she intended to notify the Attorney General of
Texas that Swett (a second PPI director) and Tello (a third PPI director)
were misusing PPI funds, not caring properly for the animals, and engaging in
sexual harassment of employees .... Trevino expressed the intent to take PPI
financial records to substantiate her charges .... (Wise) asked her to delay
making a complaint, as he would inquire first to see if her concerns would be
something the Attorney General might pursue, and how best to present them."

The Board of Bar Overseer's opinion says that "Trevino .... expressed a
concern that Swett and Tello .... might take money from PPI after learning of
these accusations, since they alone had access to PPI's bank accounts. She,
and later, (Melissa) Karron (the fourth PPI director) requested that (Wise)
find out whether they could freeze the PPI's bank accounts pending resolution
of the corporate issues. In subsequent conversations Trevino and Karron
sought (Wise's) assistance in obtaining financial accountability, preserving
the assets of the corporation, and requiring Swett to surrender his complete
control over PPI ..... The next day (another attorney for PPI) filed suit on
behalf of PPI against (Wise), Trevino, and Karron .... (Several) days after
that, the attorney general intervened (against Swett, Tello, and PPI)
alleging misconduct as well as improper nonprofit corporate structure ....
Eventually a settlement was reached. PPI and the attorney general agreed that
PPI would discontinue all membership categories and create a seven-member
board of trustees. The action was dismissed as to Karron and Trevino. Summary
judgment was granted in (Wise's) favor. (Wise) later brought suit against PPI
in Massachusetts to recover his fees and costs; the action was settled when
PPI paid him..."

The Board of Bar Overseers opinion continues: "The hearing committee
found that PPI suffered no harm or detriment as a result of (Wise's) actions
.... The committee had an ample basis, from the evidence presented at the
hearing, to infer that the net impact of the challenge to Swett's one-man
governance of a public charity was not a detriment to PPI .... PPI appears to
have been in greater danger of civil and criminal penalties through the
actions of Swett than those of (Wise). In the end, PPI was restructured, a
seven-member board of trustees was installed, and Swett's sole control was
wrestled from him."

Commenting upon my motivation, the Board of Bar Overseers said that:
"(Wise) believed that he represented PPI in efforts to remedy the
mismanagement of an organization whose goals he fervently embraced. He never
sought to take deliberate advantage .... The improper disclosures he made to
the banks and the attorney general's office were made in the belief that they
were authorized. .... These were mistakes of zeal, not sharp practice."

The Board of Bar Overseers, however, found my "judgment was clouded both
by my pecuniary interest in getting his legal fees paid and by his devotion
to the cause of animal rights." I repeatedly testified that I acted solely to
protect the primates in the care of Primarily Primates and that I thought
that I was acting ethically. I was not believed. I respectfully disagree
with any finding that I acted out of any interest in getting my legal fees
paid. In fact, I delivered a letter to Swett and Tello stating that, under
the Primarily Primates by-laws, they lacked any power to pay my fees and that
I would accept nothing from them. I accepted nothing from them. When they
sent me money, I returned it. These facts were undisputed at the hearing. I
do not know why they were ignored.

If my judgment was clouded and I inadvertently violated any ethical
rules, it was because of my devotion to the cause of animal rights. My entire
life is affected by my devotion to the cause of animal rights. I have been an
animal protection lawyer for more than twenty years, a teacher of animal
rights law for more than ten years. I have lost many court cases in which I
fought hard for nonhuman animals. This one I lost for myself. While I
disagree with the decision of the court and its findings about my motivation,
I accept my punishment. Over the next six months I will continue to
concentrate on achieving basic legal rights for nonhuman animals through my
writing, speaking, and teaching.

Anyone who wants the complete story can get it from the Supreme Judicial
Court in Boston. That is where the decisions of the Bar Overseers rest, as
well as the transcripts of the hearings and the trial exhibits. The case is
Bar Counsel v. Steven M. Wise, docket number SJC Case 08254. One may also
contact Kay Trevino or John Vinson, the Texas Assistant Attorney General,
both of whom testified on my behalf at the hearing.

On behalf of Debi, Roma, and the twins, I thank the many people who
continue to send us their well-wishes in this difficult time.

All the best,

Steve Wise