A legal lightning rod bows out

For a lawyer once likened by one of his clients to St. Jude, the patron of hopeless causes, it was a fitting final case: defending a veterinarian accused of mistreating several dogs in his care, including one that died after it was allegedly denied food and water for five days.

Chester Darling has been a longtime champion of difficult, often unpopular causes. He fought for, and won, a unanimous Supreme Court ruling that banned gays and lesbians from marching in the South Boston St. Patrick's Day parade. He railed against buffer zones that protect abortion clinics from protesters. He successfully defended a Woburn minister's right to whip his son with a leather belt. He sued the town of Lexington for refusing to display a Nativity scene on its public green. He sought to overturn race-based school admissions policies.

In the process, Darling, 76, has become known to some as a courageous, reliable ally of conservative causes with meagre public support, and to others as a conservative zealot reversing social progress in the name of free speech. Now, the man who has played a historic role in some of the most significant constitutional issues in the state is exiting the legal profession.

Forced to stop taking cases because he has lost his eyesight to a degenerative disease, Darling last week made what he believes will be his final argument, before a single justice of the state's high court. It effectively marked the end of his nearly 40-year legal career. Proponents of some of the conservative causes he has backed said there is no obvious successor to fill the void his absence will create.

''There isn't going to be another Chester for the foreseeable future," said Brian Camenker, president of the Parents' Rights Coalition, a Waltham group that opposes what it calls the ''homosexual movement" in public schools. ''It's very sad, because this town is full of smart lawyers who want to do good things, but so many of them are cowards. When the door is closed they'll agree with us, but they won't do what Chester does. That defined Chester: He wasn't afraid."

Darling cites a strong aversion to government intrusion and bureaucracy, a deep belief in constitutional rights and freedom of expression, and a genuine concern for ''people who get squashed by the system." He is aware, he said, that ''people think that I'm a bigot and I hate black people . . . that I kept gays out of the parade."

But he insists he fights simply for equal rights for all, frequently accepting no money for his legal work. He notes, for example, that he also defended a gay and lesbian group's right to hold a gay pride parade in Lawrence after it was denied a permit by city officials. Taking the case was no aberration, he said. ''It was instinctual. There was no hesitation about that. The First Amendment was in jeopardy."

Darling's commitment to broad equality is questioned by some of his critics, who believe he advances particular political agendas.

''A lot of what Chester did is to defend the rights of white people and to keep race from being considered, and I think that's sadly an approach whose time has not come," said Sarah Wunsch, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. ''I don't think that moves us forward in dealing with race relations and equal rights."

Several national organizations have formed to protect the civil liberties of certain ethnic, racial and religious groups, including the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian group; the Liberty Counsel and Thomas More Law Center, which support religious freedom; and the American Center for Law & Justice, founded by televangelist Pat Robertson to protect ''constitutional freedoms."

But while there are numerous attorneys who represent groups like these, there are far fewer solo private practitioners like Darling who work as individuals to back a wide range of causes, said Harvey Silverglate, a Cambridge defense lawyer and civil libertarian.

''What makes those groups different than the school of thought of which Chester Darling has belonged during his whole career is that they are only interested in the First Amendment rights of their narrow constituent populations," Silverglate said. ''Chester would take a case even from somebody that he considered to be a scurrilous scoundrel."

In 1998, Darling established a nonprofit group, Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights Inc., which he envisioned as a conservative counterpoint to the ACLU. The group is now largely inactive, said Darling, a Melrose native and 1969 graduate of New England School of Law.

Darling's eyesight began failing three years ago. He realized he had a vision problem, he jokes, when ''I tried to brush my teeth with Preparation H."

In truth, the earliest symptom of his macular degeneration was difficulty seeing with his left eye. When he tried to read, individual letters, then whole words, began to disappear. His right eye followed six months later.

Now legally blind, Darling wears wide, dark, wraparound sunglasses and walks with a collapsible cane. He said he can see motion and forms, but no details. His loss of sight means he can no longer drive and relies on his wife of 43 years, Daphne, who is also his legal secretary, for transportation. He can read and type with the aid of adaptive equipment for the blind.

Now that he will no longer practice law full-time, Darling said he may work on a book, maybe a novel, perhaps a memoir.

''Good luck to you," the opposing counsel said to Darling as last week's argument in the John Adams Courthouse came to a close. And Darling, in a small parting flourish as he packed up his files, raised his water glass to the empty bench.

Sacha Pfeiffer can be reached at pfeiffer@globe.com.