Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Mike Scarcella/ ALM)

Former deputy U.S. Solicitor General Lawrence Wallace, who died February 13 at age 88, is being remembered as a fearless civil servant who, like the Justice Department lawyers who recently resigned from the Roger Stone case, resisted pressure from higher-level officials.

Wallace retired from the solicitor's office in 2003 after arguing 157 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, a 20th century record.

In 1982, he included a memorable footnote in a brief signaling that he would not support the Reagan administration's position in Bob Jones University v. United States. At issue was the Internal Revenue Service policy that denied tax-exempt status to institutions that discriminated by race. The Reagan White House wanted to oppose that policy in the government's brief.

When Solicitor General Rex Lee recused, the task of signing the brief fell to Wallace. Wallace did so, but insisted on adding the footnote, which angered Reagan administration officials. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the policy.

The late Erwin Griswold, who served as the U.S. solicitor general from 1967 to 1973, told The Washington Post in 1982 that Wallace's action was "an attempt to preserve the credibility of the office."

Wallace remained in the office, but he was relieved of handling civil rights cases for the government, and a new position of a politically appointed deputy solicitor general was created.

Harvard Law School professor Richard Lazarus on Saturday called Wallace's legendary footnote "an act of extraordinary personal courage and professional integrity." Lazarus continued: "The more recent action of the career Justice Department attorneys in resigning from the Stone prosecution to make clear their disagreement with orders from the Attorney General to withdraw their sentencing recommendation is strikingly reminiscent of Wallace's action."

Others who worked with Wallace praised him as a mentor of dozens of government lawyers during his 35-year career in the solicitor general's office.

"Larry was a dear soul, a wonderful colleague, and a mentor to many, many government lawyers," said Seth Waxman, former solicitor general and co-chair of the appellate and Supreme Court litigation practice at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. "His professional life was entirely dedicated to the interests of the United States and to the traditions and excellence of the office of the solicitor general. Larry elevated the spirits and sights of those of us who had the privilege to work with him."

Michael Dreeben (center) speaking at an ABA event in San Francisco last week. (Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM)

Michael Dreeben, a longtime former deputy solicitor general who is now a partner at O'Melveny & Myers, remembered his job interview with Wallace.

"He served me coffee in a china cup, reminisced about the justices and gently pointed out that my writing sample had cited a Supreme Court plurality opinion as if it were the opinion of the court—all to let me know that the office had standards to live up to," Dreeben said. "He constantly reminded new attorneys that they had joined an institution with traditions to be upheld and standards to meet. His devotion to the office made him the living embodiment of its values: candor, accuracy and integrity."

As familiar as he was with the unwritten rules and etiquette of Supreme Court arguments, Wallace did not always acquiesce to the rapid-fire questioning of the justices.

Lawyers arguing before the court are schooled to drop everything and immediately respond to a justice's question, but Wallace sometimes bared his impatience and ignored that rule in favor of getting his own points across. He also had a somewhat haughty manner of speaking that did not always please the justices. In a post-retirement interview in 2003 with this reporter, Wallace said, "It's very hard to build anything with your argument when you are asked a question before you establish where you want to go."

Wallace also shrugged off the enduring practice of undergoing multiple moot courts before argument. He did not want to peak prematurely. "It's an idiosyncrasy of mine," he said in the 2003 interview. "Most advocates do benefit from them." Instead, he would take long walks in his Chevy Chase, Maryland, neighborhood to ponder the tough questions in the case: "You need to be very clear about how to formulate your key concepts. You can't be fumbling for words up there."

Wallace recounted a conversation with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. He said that a Justice Department official once told him, "The trouble with you is that you think you work for the Supreme Court, not the administration." Wallace said O'Connor looked at him and said, "Well, you just go right on thinking that way."

And Wallace did just that. "Of course, you advocate the government's position," he said. "But there are times when it is necessary to bring things to the attention of the court, whether it helps your case or not. And that is what I did."

Read more:

At Roger Stone's Sentencing, an Apology From the Justice Department

'A Loss to the Pursuit of Justice': Praise for Roger Stone Prosecutor Who Resigned

'Slammed': What Has Driven Departures From Trump's Justice Department

Sotomayor Confronts Noel Francisco About Switched Position in Ohio Voter Case

US Justice Department Has a Duty to Defend—Only When It Doesn't

Lessons From a Lifetime at the Lectern from Larry Wallace