Produced by and

(CNN) -- Matthew Glavin, president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, joined Law Chat on Wednesday, May 31, to discuss the effort to disbar President Clinton. Law Chat is presented by FindLaw. CNN provided a typist for Glavin. The following is an edited transcript of the discussion.

Chat Moderator: Can you tell us a little about your organization, the Southeastern Legal Foundation?

Matthew Glavin: Southeastern Legal Foundation is a public interest law firm located in Atlanta, and founded on the principles enshrined in the Constitution

Question from JrTy__D: Has any lawyer previously ever been recommended for disbarment for grand jury testimony in a dismissed civil suit?

Matthew Glavin: Lawyers are recommended for disbarment for lying under oath in a variety of situations, whether it be in the courtroom, in a grand jury room, or in a deposition, or not in court at all. Truthfulness and honesty are not aspirational goals for lawyers. They are the bare minimal standards regardless of the situation.

Question from denise: Is it true that Bob Barr and Ken Starr made a joint appearance at your organization recently? Do you believe this lessens your credibility?

Matthew Glavin: It is true. It does not affect our credibility at all. They were both guest speakers at our annual dinner. What does this have to do with whether or not Bill Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice?

Question from tribe: How can this hearing be seen as ethical ...when it's a fact that nobody has ever been disbarred before for actions as a witness in a civil suit?

Matthew Glavin: That's not true, first of all. What's important to look at in Arkansas is the standard set by the Arkansas Supreme Court. That standard was set in 1998 in a case where a dentist lied to a dental tribunal. The Supreme Court said in that case: "There simply is no place in the law for a man or a woman who cannot or will not tell the truth, even where his or her own interests are involved." The court went on to say "the attributes of honesty and candor are absolute prerequisites." That is the standard set by the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas. The facts of the Clinton case are indeed unlike any other case in the history in the state of Arkansas, or anywhere else for that matter. Whether or not there are previous precedents is immaterial. The standard by the Arkansas Supreme Court is what is important. Does Mr. Clinton meet that standard?

Question from Guest10213: Isn't this just a disbarment issue that is only about right-wing extremism capitalists trying to slow number of wealthy people who would be competitors to them?

Matthew Glavin: Let's begin by rephrasing the question. I think the question essentially is: "Is this a right wing or partisan vendetta against the president?" The answer simply is no. First, the American Bar Association says that the purpose of lawyer discipline proceedings is to protect the public. Additionally, of the committee of six members of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, none of them were Republican. If this is a partisan vendetta, then it is the democrats doing it.

Question from etsuVol: Are you surprised at the lengths people go to to try and defend and dismiss the actions of Mr. Clinton?

Matthew Glavin: No, certainly Mr. Clinton himself, his attorneys, and his supporters all have the right to use whatever means available to them to defend the indefensible. I am surprised that rather than arguing the merits of the case, or maybe because they can't argue the merits of the case, they rely on personal attacks.

Question from Lawstu: Should the president be treated as any other lawyer or should he be held to a higher standard because of his position

Matthew Glavin: According to Arkansas law, "Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens." So the answer is no, he should not be held to the same standard. The law mandates that he be held to a higher standard. Mr. Clinton does not meet either standard.

Question from JrTy__D: The panel recommending disbarment was barely a quorum. Shouldn't more panelists have recused themselves?

Matthew Glavin: A full committee consists of seven people. Arkansas law allows for a quorum of four to make any decision. In this case, they were one short of the full committee and two more than what was required for a quorum, well within the rules. I would point out that there is an alternate committee also consisting of seven people. It was members of that alternate committee that were appointed to replace those who recused themselves from the main committee.

Question from Honisoit: How does disbarring the president in this case ... protect the public?

Matthew Glavin: A variety of ways. First, the American people must have faith in their judicial system. If the American people lose that faith because they see lawyers who lie under oath and obstruct justice continuing to practice law, then our judicial system collapses.

Disbarring the president, or any lawyer for that matter, sends a very loud message to all lawyers that if you violate the rules of professional conduct, you will be held accountable. It sends an even louder message to the American public that lawyers will indeed discipline their own, even if their own is president of the United States of America.

Finally, lawyers have a responsibility to the integrity of their profession. Lawyers already have a problem in terms of public perception regarding their profession. That's because in the past they haven't been aggressive in disciplining their own. That trend has been changing in the past decade.

Question from tribe: How many members of that committee are lawyers?

Matthew Glavin: Again there are seven committee members and seven alternate members. In each case the ratio is five attorneys and two non-attorneys.

Question from imagi: If the Independent Counsel finds that Hillary Rodham Clinton mischarged via Rose Law Firm billing records, could she be disbarred also?

Matthew Glavin: Certainly a complaint could be filed with the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct. Whether or not she is disbarred would be a decision made by the committee, essentially the same process the president has gone through.

Question from ML: Isn't it absolutely paramount to have the "chief law enforcement officer" in the land tell the truth in a court of law to keep the structure of the law in this land from being shaken?

Matthew Glavin: Indeed. That is exactly why elected officials are held to a higher standard. The president is fond of referring to the rule of law. I think the rule of law is going to come back and bite him.

Question from Pame5Ashe: Why is it of such importance for Pennsylvania billionaire Richard Scaife to "get Bill Clinton" at all costs?

Matthew Glavin: That's a ridiculous question. Again, what does that have to do with whether or not Mr. Clinton violated the rules of ethical conduct in the state of Arkansas? That's the only question this committee and now the court, will now decide. If this questioner is concerned about the difficult question the president finds himself facing, maybe she ought to question the President's behavior. Because it is his behavior that got him here.

Question from JrTy__D: If the American people have lost faith in the system, it's due to the relentless and expensive accusations by the right against President Clinton. To what extent is the Southwestern Legal Foundation a cause of that loss of faith?

Matthew Glavin: First of all, the premise of the question is wrong. People lose faith in their government and in the systems of government when government and government officials are not held accountable for their actions.

And regarding expense, there has been very little public expense related to disbarment. Any money that Southeastern Legal foundation has spent has been private money. Any costs of defending the president, the president must bear. The taxpayers are funding neither side of this battle. The taxpayers, indeed, are the beneficiaries.

Chat Moderator: Do you have any final thoughts for us on this issue today?

Matthew Glavin: The integrity of our judicial system is critical. The American Bar Association mandates that disbarment is appropriate when a lawyer with the intent to deceive the court makes a false statement, or improperly withholds information.

The Arkansas Supreme Court has said that the attributes of honesty and candor are absolute prerequisites, not sometimes, not for some people, but rather absolute prerequisites, even if you are the President of the United States of America.

So when you look at the standards set by the Supreme Court of Arkansas or the guidelines from the American Bar Association, the conclusion is the same, and that is disbarment. That is exactly why an Arkansas committee of six people, not one a republican, voted to disbar the president. This is not about politics. This is about something much more important.