Pennsylvania Diocese assistant chancellor [Drinker Biddle’s] Mary Kohart (Part II)

Last one on this for a while.

As I was saying yesterday, I sense that Diocese of Pennsylvania assistant chancellor Mary E. Kohart is engaged in a bit of fraud, going around saying that the Diocese has full power to govern the Diocese in disregard of national canons, and that no civil court has the right to hear cases involving any of their parishes.

Let me spell out why I am saying this is wrong, and very bad.

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court of Virginia, that state’s highest court, put out an opinion in the case of The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia v. Truro Church. Now, right away, if you look at the opinion you notice that the civil court did not dismiss the case out of hand. So right away, Mary Kohart is wrong.

But secondly, if you read the opinion, you come to these lines:

“The highest governing body of TEC is the triennial General Convention, which adopts TEC’s constitution and canons to which dioceses must give an ‘unqualified accession’.” (Unqualified accession is fancy language for saying that the dioceses must govern their affairs according to the national canons. They are not “optional”, to be followed if a diocese so chooses. They are the Rule.) “Each diocese is in turn governed by a Bishop and Annual Council that adopts the constitution and canons for the diocese. Each congregation within a diocese in turn is bound by the national and diocesan constitutions and canons.

I take “is bound by” to mean those are the rules that must be followed. This is not some optional thing that the Deference Rule of Watson v. Jones qualifies. Some sort of Super-Duper Deference that goes on top and cancels whatever the highest judicatory (the General Convention) has already decided are the rules for the denomination.

What Mary Kohart is doing is making one of these dog-chasing-its-tail arguments. She’s saying that even though the clear evidence is that if you want to know the rules of the denomination, you look at the little book from General Convention, for practical purposes, Super-Duper deference means that a local Diocese can ignore these rules and a civil court must just sit on its hands.

That’s nonsense. And obviously, lawyers don’t get to argue that in Virginia, which, last I checked, is one of the states of the United States.

If you’re sticking up for the rules of a denomination, I hardly see that as, ehem, “troublemaking”. The troublemakers sound like the people who won’t adhere to what had already been decided, and concoct fanciful legal doctrines, like Super-Duper Deference, that fly in the face of what the high courts throughout the land have already decided.

But then again, I’m not a partner of a law firm making money off denominational strife, so maybe you need to be to be seeing it some other way. To me, it just looks like fraud.

[Update: She is now Mary Kohart of Elliott Greenleaf, and Chancellor of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. No clear story on why she left Drinker.]


3 Replies to “Pennsylvania Diocese assistant chancellor [Drinker Biddle’s] Mary Kohart (Part II)”

  1. I have read with great contentment your post here about Mary Kohart. She is a fraud, but if you will allow me to take your comments a step further, she is also self-absorbed and unethical. I found out today that her path of venomous annihilation ended up biting her in the ass because she left Drinker Biddle and Reath in a firestorm of controversy. She ran up so many hours in foolish bullying tactics instead of trying to negotiate settlements that the firm is now left with over a million dollars in unpaid (and some believe uncollectable) bills. I have not been able to confirm if she was fired or if she left but I do know it was ugly and the aftermath of her recklessness was of her own doing.

    1. I will tell you, Jane, I get the occasional hit or e-mail about this particular post and that particular lawyer.

      You may be right that Kohart “is no longer with Drinker”, since the old link the firm had there is now blank.

      What Mary Kohart did to me, and perhaps to you, is maybe just typical of what is called BigLaw nowadays. I still feel a sense of dissatisfaction from that phone conversation. I shared brand-new, solid evidence with Ms. Kohart that I, and the court system, were defrauded by St. Clement’s vestry many, many years ago. (This is a parish within the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania, which itself is always in the newspaper for one controversy or another.) Ms. Kohart just kept ignoring everything I was saying, and would not dialogue at all. I expected her to tell me why the evidence (a statement from a church official in the national church in New York) was no good. Instead, she just kept denying that the parish had done anything wrong in comparison to another parish, Good Shepherd, in Rosemont, where Drinker and Kohart are representing the Diocese.

      It’s was just this wear-you-down-small-fry attitude. It just rolled off every syllable coming out of that cell phone. Man.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s