sarah
When Women’s Signatures Were Worthless
To the Editor:
The Women’s March on Saturday, March 8, has rekindled a memory as a little kid in 1947 in western Massachusetts.
Born in 1935 during the Great Depression, we kids were always hungry. I remember my brother and I standing in line with Ma at the district school for canned soup. I was sick a lot and suffered from asthma and malnutrition.
At 11 years old, Ma called the doctor, who told Ma to call an ambulance. Not having a phone or car, she ran over to the neighbor to call.
In the meantime, my father hid in our tiny bathroom because he had no money to pay the doctor. He told Ma to tell the doctor that he was not at home.
When the ambulance came, the doctor said he needed Dad’s signature to sign for the ambulance to take me to the hospital. Ma told the doctor Dad was not at home. Ma wanted to sign, but Massachusetts law at that time stipulated that only “the man of the house” was empowered to use his signature.
Evidently, a woman’s signature was considered worthless, mother or not.
I overheard the doctor talking in low tones to Ma far from my bed. I am sure he was telling her the gravity of my situation. So she went to the bathroom to get Dad’s signature.
My mother always said she felt so embarrassed by lying to the doctor, but I think the doctor knew we were poor because millions of us were poor during the Great Depression.
Once they carried me into the ambulance, as weak as I was, I asked Ma, “What did the doctor say?”
“Oh, the doctor said you have ‘acute pneumonia,’” she said.
With the ambulance speeding to the hospital, I asked her what does “acute” mean?
“Oh,” she said. “It means it ain’t serious.”
Tom Azarian, Calais
VBA’s Stated Respect for the Rule of Law
To the Editor:
The Vermont Bar Association’s March 5 press release stating it respects the rule of law is a laudable sentiment, yet the Bar has literally never (not once) enforced either of the two most important ethics rules governing its own (3.1 or 8.3).
Rule 3.1 prohibits lawyers from filing and prolonging litigation through statements that lack a good faith basis, and Rule 8.3 requires lawyers to report others who repeatedly break 3.1 and other rules. The Bar’s complete failure to enforce either rule has lasted for decades despite a 2023 VBA survey showing that 3.1 alone is violated over a thousand times every year.
These failures have increased Vermonters’ legal expenses and otherwise grossly undermined access to justice. Vermonters today support more than three times as many lawyers per capita as they did a generation ago, as disputes that would never have gone to court decades ago can now last for years, greatly disadvantageing those who lack the financial and other means to wait.
As for the VBA’s March 5 statement that it “respects diverse perspectives of our membership,” I’m a member and have submitted an article for publication in the VBA’s next journal that demonstrates these points. Let’s see.
Bar authorities’ decisions not to enforce are done in the dark. They are not appealable even to Vermont’s Supreme Court (the entity that writes the rules), nor are they revealed to the public. Some non-enforcement decisions are so obviously baseless as to themselves violate Rule 3.1. At a minimum and if only as a first step, the Bar’s failure to have ever enforced 3.1 or 8.3 must be explained.
Mike Hill, Middlesex
Letters to the editor represent the opinions of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of The Bridge. Submit your letter by email to editor@montpelierbridge.com. Preference is given to submissions by those who live in central Vermont, should not exceed 300 words in length, and may be edited for brevity and accuracy.
