Helena Kobrin writes to the American Lawyer

In its July/August 1992 issue, _The American Lawyer_ magazine published
a long article by William Horne concerning Scientology's legal
representation, entitled "The Two Faces of Scientology".  This article
prompted numerous letters from Scientology-affiliated attorneys
througout the country, which the magazine published in its next two issues.

One of the letters was written by Helena Kobrin, and published
in its October, 1992 issue:

========

    I am writing in response to your article entitled "The Two Faces of
Scientology". I would be shocked that your magazine could print an
article which equates reputability with an attorney's religious
affiliation (or lack thereof). However, when I observe that Time Warner
is the owner of _The American Lawyer_, the motivation behind this
unconscionable attack falls into place.

    I am one of the unnamed partners of Bowles & Moxon to whom the
Horne article refers.  It is true that I am a member of the Scientology
religion.  It is also true that the four partners of Bowles & Moxon
have each been with the firm or represented various clients of the
firm longer than any other attorneys working for the firm, and are
naturally the partners.  The majority of the other attorneys employed
by the firm have been here less than two years, so it is hardly surprising
that they have not achieved that status.

   In addition to being a partner of Bowles & Moxon and a member of
the Scientology religion, I am also a Jew.  However, none of these
facts has any bearing on my competence or integrity, or the degree of
zeal with which I approach my work.

   I became an attorney before I became affiliated with the Scientology
religion.  In the work I did in my early years of legal practice,
I became disillusioned with the system and also with the fact that the
work I was doing largely had as its purpose helping rich people get
richer.  Don't get me wrong--I am not suggesting there is anything wrong
with being financially successful, or with representing those that are.
However, for myself, I decided I did not want to practice law if I could not
feel my work was contributing to the improvement of humanity.  This desire
was reinforced by the fact that my own father was a refugee from Germany
and my grandparents were killed by the Nazis.  As a result, my interest
in religious freedom and social reform has always been strong.

   I actually gave up my legal practice for a period of time in the
mid-1980s.  Then I was asked to become counsel for a Church of Scientology
located in Florida and took on the opportunity to devote my work to
defending and promoting religious freedom and social reform causes.  Legal
practice for me once again became desirable.

   Mr. Horne seems to feel there is something wrong with the work done
by Bowles & Moxon.  He comments negatively, for example, on the fact that
our firm has over 100 Freedom of Information Act cases.  I am hard put to
conceive what could possibly be wrong with any action that makes the government
more accountable to the people or prevents the government from maintaining
secret documents which show the intrusive and sometimes illegal actions its
agents are taking against American citizens.   Besides the information we
are gaining for our clients in these lawsuits, the work our firm is doing
in this area is generating significant precedent for use by every American
who has any interest in knowing what records the government is keeping on
him or her.

   Mr. Horne characterizes the attitude of our firm and our clients as
"paranoia".  One wonders if Mr. Horne has ever read the Bible, either Old
or New Testament, and heard of how the Jews were treated in Biblical history
or how Jesus was treated by the Romans.  Maybe he has never heard of the
Inquisition or of Adolf Hitler's persecution and killing of millions of
Jews and other religionists.  Paranoia had nothing to do with those
persecutions, and it does not here, either.

   The "facts" stated by Mr. Horne contain serious distortions.  Some are
blatant;  others are subtle.  One of the most ridiculous is the discussion of
Steven Fishman.  _Time_'s article omitted, and now _American Lawyer_ does
the same, the fact that Fishman is also serving time in federal prison for
obstruction of justice, to which he pleaded guilty.  The basis for that
charge was a fraudulent scheme in which he hired someone to threaten the
life of his psychiatrist, claiming it was the Church of Scientology.  The FBI
quickly found out it was not;  the perpetrator of the threats was Steven
Fishman himself.   Yet _Time_ and _American Lawyer_ both publish the same
absurd comments by Fishman, which earned him an obstruction of justice
conviction.

   I have worked to slight or large degree with every attorney representing
churches of Scientology who is mentioned in your article, including the
staff of our firm.  I have complete confidence in the integrity of every one
of those individuals and consider it a privilege to work with them.

   Your slurs are clearly intended to push the same lies generated by _Time_
at the behest of Eli Lilly, a drug company whose profits are threatened by
social reform activities of my clients aimed at exposing the legalized abuse
of drugs at the hands of certain drug companies and psychiatrists.  The article
is transparently an attempt to sully the reputation of those who represent
the Church of Scientology in the legal community, and especially those lawyers
of the Scientology faith.

   Lawyers and judges are trained to think and see through the holes in what is
presented to them.  I am confident they will know that your article is simply
the result of vested interests striking back at a group whose actions in support
of religious freedom, social reform, and government accountability have cut
through those vested interests.

Helena K. Kobrin
Bowles & Moxon
Hollywood, California