Twist of Fate Moves Lawyer Into Television Studio

When the FBI came swarming into the Vista Hotel in downtown Washington on Jan. 18, 1990, it was a terrible blow to the career of Mayor Marion Barry. It also had a profound effect on the career of another individual--this year's Harvard Law School Class Day speaker, Greta Van Susteren.

Before Barry's troubles, Van Susteren had been a courtroom attorney in Washington. She practiced a wide variety of both criminal and civil law and represented a wide-ranging set of individuals--from accused murderers to wives seeking a divorce.

Through these frequent appearances in court, she had became known to the Beltway's media. When these stations suddenly needed an analysis when Barry was arrested, they turned to Van Susteren.

"It was a total accident," Van Susteren says about becoming a television legal analyst.

Today, Van Susteren is one of the most prominent personalities on CNN.

Yet those that have interacted with her say that this stardom has not gone to Van Susteren's head.

"Her ratio of knowledge to pretentiousness is extremely high," says Tyler Professor of Constitution Law Laurence H. Tribe '62, who has been interviewed by Van Susteren on numerous occasions. "She has a much lower ego than her enormous success would justify."

She is the host of the evening news and analysis program "The Point" and the co-host of the afternoon legal show "Burden of Proof." She is also the person the network calls on when there is a legal story that needs to be covered or needs to be explained.

In such a role she has served as a contributor to CNN's coverage of the William Kennedy Smith rape trial, the criminal and civil trial of O.J. Simpson, the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton and, most recently, the court battles born out of the contested results of the 2000 presidential election in Florida, the topic she says she most enjoyed covering in her years at CNN.

She has interviewed some of the most powerful figures in the country--including an interview at the White House with then-President Clinton.

"Of the 'talking heads' coming out of the O.J. Simpson trial, she is the one who stands head and shoulders above the rest," Tribe says.

Covering such important events and people has been a great thrill for Van Susteren.

"It's a ringside seat for the most fascinating cases in the country," Van Susteren says.

With this high public profile, Van Susteren serves a very important role according to others in the legal field, even if she is not currently practicing.

"She can explain complex issues to the general public," says Frank S. Rossi, a member of this year's graduating law school class and a class marshal.

He says legal analysts such as Van Susteren remind the public that they have rights under the law. They also help to explain a legal system to the general public that at times that seems virtually incomprehensible.

"She helps guide people through the outrage [experienced after an unexpected decision] and explains why the outcome came out that way," Rossi says.

The general public does in fact have a basic legal education according to Van Susteren--a knowledge born out of the O.J. Simpson trial.

Van Susteren's legal roots run deep, as her father was a lawyer and later a circuit court judge in Wisconsin. Susteren stayed near home for her undergraduate education, graduating from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1976. She then earned a law degree from Georgetown Law Center in 1979, where she currently serves as an adjunct professor of law.

While at Georgetown, Van Susteren decided to not travel the path into corporate law followed by most drowning-in-debt law students, instead deciding to help needy clients through Georgetown's legal clinic. She served in one of Georgetown Law School's clinics for two years after graduation through the school's graduate fellow program.

Later, going into business with her husband, John P. Coaler, she entered private practice.

While in private practice, Van Susteren's firm did face one blemish--a disciplinary action pursued by West Virginia's Lawyer Disciplinary Board. The board alleged that the firm violated the state's laws against soliciting business from individuals who had had family members killed or injured through accidents.

While the state's supreme court dismissed the charges because they found that the rules only applied to firms "regularly" practicing in the state, they issued a strong written condemnation of the actions.

Although Van Susteren left private practice in the mid-1990s when she became a full-time contributor at CNN, Coaler remains an active lawyer, currently involved in litigation against the tobacco industry.

Van Susteren says she has loved her entry into journalism--although since CNN often calls on her for commentary and not straight news reporting she says she feels that she is not totally a journalist.

Van Susteren says one of the advantages of leaving private practice for the life of a television analyst is the greatly reduced level of stress.

"We sleep at night--we don't stay awake worrying about our clients going to the death chamber," she says.

Despite the lack of worries, Van Susteren says she misses being directly involved in legal proceedings.

"You can't beat practicing in the courtroom--there's no bigger thrill," she says.

Changing perspectives on the legal process has given Van Susteren new respect for the legal profession.

"There are no rules in journalism, which gives me profound respect for the law," Van Susteren says. She notes that while journalists are allowed to use anonymous sources in their reporting, such practices are prohibited in the legal profession.

Given her enjoyment of both practicing law and analyzing it on television, Van Susteren is not sure what the future holds for her--and says the she does not necessarily see herself in television for the rest of her career.

"There are a lot of things that I'd like to do in my life," she says.

And while various television critics, including those in the San Francisco Chronicle and USA Today, have noted that the current strategy of CNN seems to involve focusing on their relatively young personalities, including Van Susteren, she discounts the permanency of such plans.

"Television is a very fickle business," Van Susteren says. "Your star is bright one day and then out the next."

Nonetheless, Tribe says he believes that Van Susteren has just the right qualities for legal reporting.

"She's a tremendous reporter and a terrific interviewer," he says. "She has a no nonsense approach that makes her pleasant to watch on the tube."

--Staff writer Daniel P. Mosteller can be reached at dmostell@fas.harvard.edu.