Back to DogLogic
Lawyers defend pet causes in court
BOSTON - Lawyers Steven Wise and Debra Slater-Wise relive the same heart-wrenching moment with most of their new clients.
"Sooner or later they take out snapshots," Wise says. "They'll hold them out and tell us, 'He's like one of our kids.' "
The faces in the pictures aren't the usual suspects. They're family pets, dogs like Rowdy, Misty and Tucker. The charges against them: barking, biting and other canine crimes.
The Wises call them "death row dogs," and the label fits. In Massachusetts, as in most states, local officials can order a dog's execution if they deem it to be vicious or a nuisance.
In such cases, the Wises (law partners and spouses) are a dog's best hope. They've devoted their practice to defending accused pets and aggrieved pet owners.
Some critics argue most condemned dogs really are dangerous because they either have a history of offenses or made a particularly vicious attack. They say that the Wises' practice is putting public safety at risk.
Some also charge the couple wins simply because dog lovers are ready to outspend penny-conscious town governments. But making the case for man's best friend has made the Wises courtroom trendsetters, and more and more members of the bar are taking on cases involving injured animals, veterinary malpractice or alleged bad dogs.
For most it's still a sideline, but a growing number handle animal cases full-time. Though there are no hard numbers, there's plenty of evidence: Professional organizations are popping up across the country; half a dozen law schools, among them the Lewis Clark School of Law in Portland, Ore., Chicago's John Marshall Law School, and Rutgers University in Newark, N.J., now offer animal rights courses. State bar associations in New York, Texas and Michigan have committees to look into animal rights issues. And in Massachusetts, at least, communities are trying to figure out how to fight back.
What's behind all this?
Cynics might say lawyers have discovered a huge potential client base. They point out that a recent American Bar Association Journal article outlined new areas of practice for attorneys to consider and noted that 33.9 million American households own dogs and 28.3 million own cats. But others see something deeper.
"Society has come to view the bond between humans and companion animals as something that must be protected," says Rich Avanzino, a lawyer who heads the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
"Lose your looks, lose your job, and your dog still gives you 100% unconditional love. In a world that's too often fast-paced and impersonal, people are hungry for that kind of loyalty and devotion."
Tracking the trend
There is evidence of the trend around the nation:
California pet lawyer Michael Rotsten's efforts on behalf of dogs could have a surprising payoff: TV producers are calling to ask about his practice. Some of the animals he has saved are already celebrities.
"When I defended Boo, a bull mastiff in Orange County, there were at least three TV crews at the courthouse every day, and we made People magazine," he says.
New York City lawyer Darryl Vernon switched from real estate law to pet cases after representing tenants in rent-controlled apartments who were told to move because they owned dogs or cats. He boasts that he has saved hundreds of pet lovers from eviction.
"I hear other lawyers making barking noises when I walk in the courthouse," he says. "But no one ever snickers."
In Lansing, Mich., animal lawyer Ginny Makita is filing a negligence suit on behalf of a horse owner whose animal died at a boarding stable. If Makita wins, the suit will break new ground in the state. Because most courts view pets as property, not companions, aggrieved owners are seldom able to collect money for emotional distress. States that have allowed awards: New York, Louisiana, Hawaii, California and Florida.
The Wises may well be the country's best known animal lawyers.
Steven Wise, 46, is a lifelong animal lover, but he didn't start defending pets until after 1980, when he read philosopher Peter Singer's Animal Liberation.
At the time, he was working on personal injury suits and criminal cases. By the end of the 1980s, he was handling nothing but animal cases.
Debra Slater-Wise, 31, began marching in animal rights protests when she was in junior high school. She met Steven in 1992, when she signed up for an animal rights course he teaches at Vermont Law School. They married two years later.
Animals, not people, as plaintiffs
Their activism doesn't stop with defending pets. Steven Wise regularly takes on cases on behalf of wildlife and laboratory animals.
He filed suit against the U.S. Patent Office in an effort to stop the agency from issuing patents on genetically engineered animals.
And he sued to stop the New England Aquarium from giving Rainbow the dolphin to the U.S. Navy. Wise feared the animal would be used in military exercises.
Both cases were dismissed because Wise named animals - not people - as plaintiffs.
But the Wises' knack for rallying public opinion resulted in a victory in the dolphin case all the same: the aquarium decided to keep Rainbow.
"The way the law is now, an animal is regarded simply as a thing, just like a chair or a table or any other inanimate object," Wise says.
"We're saying there's no reason the most basic
rights - to liberty, to bodily integrity - should be
limited to human beings. Animals have emotions.
They have mental lives. They don't deserve to be enslaved or killed or
tormented."
Of all the animals the Wises represent, dogs draw the most public attention.
In court the Wises often argue that a single biting episode doesn't mean a dog is vicious. They often call on expert witnesses - veterinary specialists in animal behavior - who can determine whether a dog really is bad to the bone or just defending his turf.
Typically, a client will also promise to curb the pet's behavior, usually by building a fence around the yard or by putting the animal in a training program.
High-priced defense: In the thousands
But a doggie defense doesn't come cheap. The Wises say most clients pay $2,000 to $8,000, but some go much higher.
Nainan Ko, a businessman in Lincoln, Mass., paid $20,000 for the legal defense of his St. Bernards, Baubei and Shingan.
The dogs escaped from the yard and mauled a passer-by. Afterward, the town selectmen ordered both killed by lethal injection. Ko hired the Wises, and after eight months of unsuccessful pleas to town officials, the case ended up in district court.
Steven Wise pointed out that Shingan never bit the victim. And he argued that Baubei did not attack out of viciousness, but because he was having "a very difficult day." The judge spared both dogs.
"We see our pets as part of our family, and in such cases, money becomes irrelevant," Ko says.
The Wises' success has sparked a backlash in Massachusetts. The state's Town Counsel Association sponsored a seminar to teach municipal lawyers how to face the dog defenders in court. Town attorneys also are passing around copies of the Wises' legal briefs for study.
Critics accuse the Wises of using legal tactics to make cases too expensive for towns to pursue.
"The Wises will tell you right from the start they will make the case very expensive for the town," says Judith Pickett, a lawyer for the town of Littleton. "They go to the limit with each dog case."
Despite her criticism, Pickett now uses the expertise she developed battling the Wises in court to occasionally represent condemned dogs herself. "But only if it's a really good dog," she adds.
By John Larrabee, USA TODAY
Reprinted with permission
