ld  About David Gibbs III

Attorney David C. Gibbs III is the President and General Counsel of the National Center for Life and Liberty, a ministry organization that defends life and liberty freedoms nationwide.  Mr. Gibbs speaks regularly to audiences in churches and conferences while also litigating cases as a trial attorney. He hosts the weekly radio program Law Talk Live on the Moody Radio Network and has authored five books including Fighting for Dear Life and Understanding the Constitution. 

Attorney Gibbs graduated from Duke Law School and manages the Gibbs Law Firm with offices in Dallas, Texas; St. Petersburg, Florida; and Washington, D.C.  He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court and numerous federal circuit and district courts nationwide.  He has also been admitted to the State Bars of Florida, Minnesota, Colorado, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Tennessee, Michigan, and the District of Columbia.

Attorney Gibbs was the lead attorney in the Terri Schiavo case representing the parents as they fought to save the life of their daughter.  This case went before the United States Supreme Court twice in ten days.  Mr. Gibbs is a frequent spokesperson on radio and television having appeared on many major news and talk programs. Attorney Gibbs believes “If it’s wrong, fight it.  If it’s right, fight for it.”  His life verse is Matthew 25:40, where Jesus said, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

What Was Law School Like For David Gibbs?

I actually went to two Christian colleges for two years and then I transferred.I actually had  surgery and fell a little behind. Actually, Dr. Falwell was offering for me to go to Oxford, so I got to go to Oxford, England. I got caught back up in my studies and completed a semester over there and then came back and graduated. My Dad was an attorney in the area, and I felt lead to go to law school and wanted to help serve churches. So I sent applications out, and Duke was gracious and they accepted me, but at the time it was very expensive. It was well over twenty-thousand dollars a year. For today’s audience, it’s at sixty, seventy thousand a year so it’s a very expensive proposition.

I was actually interviewed and Duke was gracious enough to give me a full scholarship, so Duke really did partner with me on my legal education. It was kind of neat. I went and interviewed with some of the board members when they were giving out the scholarship, and I was just absolutely convinced that here I was a Bible college graduate, and I was sure Bible students had never gone to Duke. Also the one professor didn’t believe in the Bible, and he didn’t believe in God. I just thought there’s no way they’re ever going to take a student like me, and a few weeks later they said, “We’re going to give you a fully paid scholarship.”

How Did David Gibbs Envision Using His Law Degree as a Believer?

Well my vision in that, was to help really churches, and pastors, and do it more as a ministry. I’m an attorney, a trial attorney. I think it’s a skill and a craft. I know many people do either business or things with it. Just the business side of law was a little unappealing to me. It requires personal service. You can make a lot of money, but you have to do the work. Whereas, people that run a radio station or people that invent things, they can let the things kind of pop out without all that personal effort involved, and so from a business side, that was not the draw. But what drew me, was this ability to help real people.

I probably have a little bit of a social work side in me, like helping people with real problems is what motivated me to law, and obviously I want to serve the Lord. I want to hear “well done.” But the concept of somebody saying, “Wow, thank you,” or “Wow, that helps me,” or “Wow, that burdens off my shoulders,” that’s probably just from my vantage point what gives the practice of law some appeal. It’s probably similar with other professions like doctors, there’s some professions that it’s a good way to earn a living, and there’s others that truly do enjoy that helping and ministering. I guess I have that ministering spirit.

They would say for example, “Alright, Mr. Gibbs, you are going to prosecute the bad guy.” So I’m ready, I’m all prepared, and got my stuff all ready to go. Then on the other side, an individual is going to defend the guy. Well as you would sit down at your table and get ready to go, the professor would say, “Ok, role reversal, Mr Gibbs, you now defend.” “Wait a minute, I’m prepared to  prosecute.” “ No, no, you’re now the defense attorney; the other side is going to prosecute and flip roles.” And the concept that they try to instill within you, and as a believer you have to battle against this, is that there is no ultimate right or wrong, it’s just purely argument and position and the process is what’s important.

How Can An Attorney Be a Christian?

There’s a dynamic, just from a regular lay person’s perspective, not every attorney, that many attorneys do make money off of people’s problems. Let’s say that you just got arrested and you’re getting dragged down to jail. You have a problem! Now someone says, “I’ll help you for a price,” or your spouse just walked in and said, “I’m going to take the kids and I want a divorce.”

All of a sudden, your marriage, your family, your world’s falling apart and some attorney says, “Well, I’ll fight for you, for a price.” Now, these people are upset anyway. I mean life is not going their way. It could be an accident, somebody’s lost a loved one, or they’re injured. There’s problems and there’s business disputes. The whole nature of law is adversarial as a general rule. I realize that somebody will say, “What about an estate plan?” Of course there are a few exceptions.

As a general rule, the public perception is you’re in trouble, or you got hurt and you need an attorney. I think there’s a natural side of it, where people begin to think, “Well is somebody taking advantage of my problem?” So there are some dynamics. But, number two, I think attorneys have hurt themselves, because instead of really focusing on problem solving, which is what I’ve tried to give my life to, a lot of attorneys will try to look at how do I maximize my economic gain from this person’s problem? It’s funny to me, but why do rich people have to spend three hundred thousand on their divorce and poor people spend twenty five hundred?

Well, because the attorney’s figured out, “guess what? They’re rich.They can afford it and we can drag this out.”  The reality is the process oftentimes is not that much more complicated, but it kind of falls into that vein where I think there are people that feel like, “Is the attorney really caring about me?” or “Is he taking advantage?” Now, I’ve tried to be more on the caring side, but most attorneys, you are a number or a file.

David Gibbs Provides Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:1-5

Michael, I think we have to remember it’s not that there wasn’t a dispute. Let’s even take a divorce, let’s take a defraudment, let’s pose someone, and this is an anonymous person, and they take advantage of me financially. I’ve been defrauded; I have a case; I can go assert my claim. But the concept there is not whether you’re really defrauded or not, or whether you really have a case; the concept is the cause of Christ, the name of Christ, the testimony of Christ is worthy of not letting your disputes be known in the public square. It’s not that David isn’t entitled to the money; the concept is the world which is already going to be anti-Jesus by nature, because that’s how it is.

We should be able to have some degree of resolution process that might be private or Christian. So, for example someone in your church defrauded me and if I were to go to you and say, “Pastor, would you help me at least sit down with this individual?” But if that person turns completely cold, completely adversarial, I think you then have to make the decision, “Am I going to honor the Scripture, or am I going to act in my own interest?” I believe that’s a high honor. I personally would hate to go through it and I hate to see people go through it, but better to suffer the loss, than to injure the name of Christ.

The Law and The Church

So it does add some complexity to the whole dynamic, and so I look at it in terms of what does my testimony for Christ look like when we’re going after another believer directly. But remembering the cause of Christ is paramount. I think with the verses you read, there’s no question that it’s better you suffer the loss, then you drag the name of Christ in it. Now one thing we have at our ministry at the National Center for Life and Liberty or the NCLL, is people want to sue their church. I mean they want to and you have to stop right there and say, “Can we find a more, injurious, you know,“I’m upset with how the pastors doing this” or “I’m upset with what the boards done here,” or “I’m upset.”

Please understand, I think churches should treat people well. I think you should follow your doctrine. I think it should a matter of testimony decently in order. But if something goes haywire at church that doesn’t give you the right to now turn around and become litigious. That is almost like saying, “If I don’t fight for me, nobody else will.” I think the Scripture talks about dying to self and  by this shall all men know that you are my disciples by how you love, and so the ultimate act of love is forgiveness. If you think about it, we’re filthy sinners, and God in His grace said, “I will love and I will forgive.” We have nothing to give Him, and that’s that grace.

How David Gibbs Views Serving at Any Cost

I think sometimes in our world, we can become quite the little legalist. Ok, so we’re going to hold on the law. The law says you must pay and you’ve done wrong.  Sometimes the greatest testimony is saying “You know what, I forgive. Yes, you did steal money and you think about the Prodigal. I mean what did he do? He defrauded his family. Well maybe he didn’t defraud them, but he certainly squandered his inheritance. His father said, “I forgive.” It’s kind of interesting that older brother concept was a little like, “Hey, I’ve been the good guy. Why are we celebrating?” And you know what? It’s that concept of grace and love and forgiveness.

Again, people will bristle sometimes. People feel like if you give grace, you’ll be taken advantage of and you know what?  Sometimes that’s what real Christianity is all about, it’s that vulnerability where you say, “You know what, I’m willing to let somebody walk on me.” I help people for free; I’ve been lied to; I’ve been taken advantage of; I’ve had people do things, and I’m sure you have too in your ministry as a pastor and a leader. That’s part of being willing to say yes, you’re free to hurt me; you’re free to take advantage of me. I’ve got to be a steward of my life and energy. But the reality is, I’m willing to let that happen. That really then does model what Christ did for us.

David Gibbs Tells The Story of Terry Schiavo

Terri Schiavo had a collapse, a temporary deprivation, of blood and oxygen to her brain at age twenty-six. Nobody quite knows what caused that, but they rushed her to the hospital and put her on life support. They thought she was going to die. Her parents were there with her. She was on a ventilator; she was on a heart machine; they took extraordinary measures to preserve her. They removed the ventilator; they removed the heart machine and waited for her to die. She didn’t die.She was alive. Her heart, lungs, and body worked.

They worked diligently and you see this in brain injured people. You can see a lot of recovery in the early stages and then it slows down. I didn’t know her at this point, but Terri was walking with the help of parallel bars and speaking small word sentences. Again, this is from her family, so she was a disabled woman. Her husband made the decision that he didn’t want her to live anymore. Her case really was kind of the perfect storm. She is alive and she’s not sick. Her life expectancy would have been seventy some years and she only needed food and water to stay alive.

She’s not on a ventilator. She ‘s not on a heart machine. She just needs eating assistance and you could feed her. But it was slow, you know, by mouth and it would take a long time. The courts had to ask whether you could take away food and water from someone who’s alive and not dying? There’s no disease in her body. It’s kind of interesting, because euthanasia, the deliberate killing of an individual is against the law. But can you just remove the food and water? Well what happens, they starve and dehydrate. In Terri’s case, she went thirteen days without food and water and ultimately died from dehydration and starvation.

How Terri’s Case Lives On

The case is still remembered for a couple reasons. Number one: It’s the first civil non criminal death order in American History. We’ve never ordered someone to die that was not a criminal. It’s always been capital cases, killers. Number two: It’s the only case in history to go to the supreme court and back twice in ten days. It really had a lot of urgency. I lived through it. The President and Congress became involved. There was a lot of political interplay between the governor.

The Governor of the State of Florida and the President were brothers at the time, the Bush family. World leaders were weighing in, the Pope from Rome is setting an example, issuing policy, trying to save Terri Schiavo. So it had a lot of international intrigue. Many people called it the number one news story in the world back in 2005. Terri Schiavo died on March 31, 2005, after going thirteen days without food and water. People often think of the religious right or the pro-life community. It clearly troubled them, but it was also heavily supported by the disability community. For example, it went through the Senate at that unanimously.

For example, our current President, Barack Obama, voted in favor of it. Hillary Clinton voted in favor of it, now deceased Ed Kennedy the architect of healthcare voted for it. We need to remember this wasn’t just a “right wing” issue, This was a disability life. It really did capture across the political spectrum because there was tremendous concern that as a nation what protections are in place for the disabled? When is it okay for either a family member, or doctor, or somebody else to come in and make these life ending decisions?

The Issue of Life Ending Decisions For The Disabled

In this case, the husband refused to cooperate and we’re not here to bash him. He had moved on with his life, and he was living with a woman and had a couple kids with her. I mean, he was kind of done with her. He did not want to deal with it. The easiest thing in the world for him would have been for him to walk away, or say, “Here let the parents take care of her.” By the way, I offered that and we battled for that.

I still  am sad, Michael. I remember being in there when Terri was dying with her mom there and you look at the sadness of all that. Bob Schindler died after all of this. He died of a broken heart. His health just collapsed and these dear people going through all of this loss, and they just wanted to take care of their girl.

We are seeing this interplay of government, healthcare, and individual decision making. One of the questions is, who gets to decide? I mean, you know you’re in the hospital and you have an issue, was that your wife’s decision, is it your children’s decision, is it the doctor’s decision, or is it the government worker, insurance company decision? Who gets to make these decisions? We’re losing the truth that if you don’t protect innocent life, you really don’t have any other liberty. I mean they came from the King in England who could say, “Off with your head.” Guess that is what that meant?

For more inContext interviews, click here.