"On The Need For Diverse Viewpoints In Biglaw," by David Lat

An excerpt from David Lat's Original Jurisdiction newsletter (and also earlier published by him in the Boston Globe), though the whole thing is much worth reading:

On the morning of June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. You might have expected the lawyers who won the case, celebrated Supreme Court litigators Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, to receive congratulations within their firm for such a major victory.

Instead, they received walking papers. That afternoon, Clement and Murphy announced in the Wall Street Journal that they were leaving Kirkland & Ellis, the nation's highest-grossing law firm. Why? Because Kirkland presented them with an ultimatum: withdraw from representing clients in Second Amendment cases, including existing clients in ongoing representations, or withdraw from the firm.

"We couldn't abandon our clients simply because their positions are unpopular in some circles," the lawyers wrote. So they left Kirkland to start their own litigation firm.

It's not just representing unpopular clients; even articulating an unpopular opinion might be a fireable offense today in the world of large law firms (aka "Big Law"). Take support for the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and sent abortion back to the states. At least two antiabortion women partners allege — one in the Wall Street Journal and one in Original Jurisdiction, my newsletter about the legal profession — that their support for Dobbs played a major role in their being forced out of their firms….

Of course, it's not a recent development that large law firms are overwhelmingly liberal (as reflected in, for example, their lopsided contributions to political campaigns). What's different today is not only the partisan intensity but the possibility that you might lose your job for holding the wrong views. Simply put, Big Law — the nation's largest, most prestigious, most profitable law firms, which in many ways set the norms for the rest of the legal profession — is currently seized by ideological intolerance and groupthink. (There are some exceptions — most notably Jones Day, which gained notoriety for its work on behalf of Trump.) …

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

If the various bar associations actually believed in what they preached, they would disbar the Big Law partners who do this stuff.

[David Nieporent]

For what?

[Longtobefree]

Felony assholeness.

[SRG]

This cannot be a good thing.

However, the libertarian solution is surely for lawyers who don't toe the line to do what Clement and Murphy did - set up their own firms and compete.

[Tallman]

They’ll have to stay small. In practice, Big Law firms need institutional clients, which are overwhelmingly left-leaning (or even Woke) in 2023.

[SRG]

If indeed that's true, then from a free market perspective, the law firms are doing the right thing by catering to their clients.

I am not sure how true that is, however.

[Rossami]

On the one hand, this is self-correcting. Entities that get trapped into groupthink don't stay "most profitable" for long (though they can stay big for a while). On the other hand, the creative destruction that fixes this kind of problem is painful for those caught in it. Learning from your mistakes is generally better.

[NM-Steve]

The fact that pro bono work is often 'cherry picked', not just by big law but also by smaller firms (and even individual practitioners) is not very new or surprising. Tensions have always existed between "do the right thing" and "don't upset our clients," and "don't upset our clients" usually prevails. It just usually not so public.

A related issue is law school clinics often being prohibited/'strongly discouraged' (whether explicitly or implicitly) from taking on cases. Here is one ten year old story from the NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/us/04lawschool.html
"...survey he conducted that found that more than a third of faculty members at legal clinics expressed fears about university or state reaction to their casework and that a sixth said they had turned down unpopular clients because of these concerns."

There both 'left' and 'right' examples of this, and lots of case where the divisions don't fall cleanly under those categories. Lawyers in smaller towns/cities are keenly aware how local biases can cost them business if they represent the 'wrong' party. In theory, we'd like to believe that all people deserve representation and that lawyers are "non judgmental" professionals who provide a service, not 'pick a side.' Most of the world does not believe that for a minute, and lawyers have to adapt to that reality.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And this is why I believe that anyone ought to be able to take the bar so as to provide counsel for everyone.

[Dave_A]

This is what you get when the ‘right’ abandons any and all policy points that might appeal to a person with above-median income, save for the occasional tax cut.

You can either be the party of the supposedly ‘forgotten’ (Really, slackers/fall-outs who failed to keep up with economic change)… Or you can be a party with power and influence among private-sector institutions.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No, it's because the Right isn't compassionate toward the poor and the oppressed, so people with social consciences don't want to associate with the Right. I presume that's what you meant to say.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is what we got when, after the '94 election, left wingers stopped rolling their eyes at right-wing colleagues, and started viewing them as dangerous: They weren't amusing eccentrics, they could actually win!

What followed was a purge in every institution where the left had more than a minor numerical advantage. Conquest's second law went into overdrive.

You can see this in the partisan composition of 'elite' universities: In the late '90's they almost completely stopped hiring anybody they thought might be a conservative.

Now their graduates are rolling the purge out throughout society. Half the political spectrum is being removed from positions of influence.

It's only going to get worse.

[EscherEnigma]

Half the political spectrum is being removed from positions of influence.

This reminds me of conservatives on Fox News --the #1 cable news channel by viewership (and not by a small margin)-- complaining that conservatives have no spot in the "Mainstream Media".

It also reminds me of how much y'all gloated over Trump's 2016 victory, dominance in governorship, Ginsburg's death, and so-on.

Which is to say... sure as people complain about "kids these days", conservatives complain about "being removed from positions of influence".

What kids these days are like, and how many conservatives are actually in positions of influence, are both immaterial to the never-ending complaints.

[Brett Bellmore]

"This reminds me of conservatives on Fox News –the #1 cable news channel by viewership (and not by a small margin)– complaining that conservatives have no spot in the “Mainstream Media”."

It should; Fox was very much a plurality winner in that competition, and only because they were going after an audience that was half the population, and the other outlets hated too much to serve.

Fox wasn't a solidly conservative outlet, it was created by a guy who wasn't a conservative, but didn't disdain their money, and knew an underserved market when he saw one. His kids do disdain that money, having been comfortably well off all their lives, so Fox isn't nearly so focused on serving that market anymore.

[EscherEnigma]

Oh cool, Bellmore complaining that Fox is too liberal. You are a parody and you don't even know it.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're confusing conservative and "not relentlessly liberal. Fox actually lives up to their claim to air both sides, that makes them look "conservative" to somebody who expects the media to be totally one sided.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL

[bernard11]

Fucking joke.

[Toranth]

Um.
Brett, there have been many years of studies about media bias. The same studies that show the clear Left bias of places like CNN, NBC, NYT, etc, also show a clear Right bias by Fox. It isn't minor, and not much less than the worst of the Lefty outlets.

Read some of the papers by Groseclose and Milyo, Gentzkow and Shapiro, or Groeling. You can see how clear bias is.

[David Nieporent]

Not only does Fox not live up to that claim, but they barely even live up to the claim of being a news station. They're just GOP talking points 24/7, running the gamut from right wing to MAGA.

[Randal]

Oh I almost missed the howler of the week by dear old Brett!

+1 lol

[Leo Marvin]

This is what we got when, after the ’94 election, left wingers stopped rolling their eyes at right-wing colleagues, and started viewing them as dangerous: They weren’t amusing eccentrics, they could actually win! What followed was a purge in every institution where the left had more than a minor numerical advantage.

I must be one hell of an anachronism, because you wouldn't believe how my eyes are rolling.

[bernard11]

You are seriously deranged.

[Darth Buckeye]

I remember quitting the ABA after the Bork hearings. A few years later I happened to see an issue of the ABA Journal and it was so left wing it could have been a parody.

[bernard11]

You limiting the First Amendment speech protection to political speech only? You think the Constitution is limited that way?

[Bruce Hayden]

You call defunding the police compassionate? What about the victims of those who weren’t prosecuted for violent crimes, or who were let early? After all, those who are most affected by the lessened policing and incarcerations are the community members (typically poor minorities) that the criminals victimized. How about BLM? How compassionate is it that many of the stores burned out were never rebuilt, the small businesses destroyed never recovered, and the communities where this happened often turned into food and pharmaceutical deserts? How about transsexuals? Are the rapes in formerly safe female places compassionate? Etc.

I will suggest that just about every example where you believe that conservatives were uncompassionate turn out to be cases where your supposed compassionate solutions turn out, in reality, to be counterproductive.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's possible you were replying to my sarcastic comment, although the threading would be wrong.

I was mocking Dave_A for dropping the pretense of "social justice" and avowing that these wealthy institutions are biased in favor of that faction which supports the wealthy.

The part of the left supported by the rich is the part which endorses *cultural,* not economic radicalism.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Of course, it’s not a recent development that large law firms are overwhelmingly liberal

Lawyers at large firms tend to be well-educated persons residing in modern, successful, educate communities. They tend to emphasize reason. They are likely to be more modern and less intolerant than average. They tend not to be disaffected, gullible, or delusional. They probably do not resent well-educated, economically adequate, diverse members of society.

That they are more likely to be liberal-libertarian mainstreamers rather than movement conservatives (and Democrats rather than Republicans) seems natural, obvious, even unavoidable . . . and desirable.

(I recall plenty of conservatives along big-firm hallways. Not likely Trump supporters, though.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"modern, successful, educate communities"

And they spel good, too.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Same thing was true in 1928. And then the market crashed, and then the banks did too. It's gonna happen again -- the market is priced way above value because it (and housing) was the only place to get a reasonable return during the past 30 years.

So what happens when the aging boomers have to cash out?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Representing the gun lobby, and the pro-life lobby, is very lucrative. These lawyers will not lack work.

[Kazinski]

You're just mindlessly posturing, a miniscule percentage of legal work is gun rights or right to life.

I'm sure it absolutely insignificant in terms of other idealogical law such as environmental or civil rights law. The big cases make big news, but they don't even have any payouts, and there just aren't that many of them.

[F.D. Wolf]

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law -- men like Malsherbes, who, at the cost of his own life and the lives of his family, sprang unafraid to the defense of Louis XVI against the fanatical leaders of the Revolutionary government of France -- men like Charles Evans Hughes, Sr., later Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, who stood up for the constitutional rights of socialists to be socialists and public officials despite the threats and clamorous protests of self-proclaimed superpatriots -- men like Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., and John W. Davis, who, while against everything for which the Communists stood, strongly advised the Congress in 1948 that it would be unconstitutional to pass the law then proposed to outlaw the Communist Party - men like Lord Erskine, James Otis, Clarence Darrow, and the multitude of others who have dared to speak in defense of causes and clients without regard to personal danger to themselves. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.

In re Anastaplo, 366 U.S. 82, 114-16 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting) (footnotes omitted)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Bravo, but I think it’s “Malesherbes.” He tried to reform the royal government from within, lost power for his trouble, defended the King when the latter was on trial, and both client and lawyer ended up losing their heads. They also seemed to have killed many of his family.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Chretien-Guillaume-de-Lamoignon-de-Malesherbes

[F.D. Wolf]

EDIT: This is what I get for not wearing my reading glasses.

[EscherEnigma]

The entire time I've been on Reason.com, folks have always told me that if an employer wants to fire me for being queer, that is 100% their right, and in many cases folks have also said it is right for them to do so.

So I have to beg pardon, but why should I care (even if I assume this is a real problem, which is unsubstantiated)? Is this a "I never expected the leopards to eat my face!" thing?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think *political* discrimination is legal in most U. S. jurisdictions. The post is making a (futile in my view) appeal for political diversity among big law firms, not threatening lawsuits.

For whatever reason, sexual orientation is a protected class and political orientation generally isn't (with exceptions, of course).

[EscherEnigma]

The post is making a (futile in my view) appeal for political diversity among big law firms, not threatening lawsuits.

I think the last 16 words of my first line adequately addresses this attempt at a rebuttal.

[Dr. JSH]

"For whatever reason, sexual orientation is a protected class."

"For whatever reason"?
Are you serious?
Have not gays long been a marginalized group, officially banned from federal and state government (and their contractors') employment for decades?
Banned until 2011 from military service?
Banned from entry into the United States, even as a visitor, with green card holders later deported after being outed?
During the Trump administration, gays disappeared from the State Department's annual report on human rights. Even after the Supreme Court agreed with what gays had been saying for decades -- discrimination based on sexual orientation is obviously discrimination because of sex -- in Bostock in 2020, Trump's Health and Human Services obliterated all all protections against discrimination for gays in health care. Now states are pushing bills that criminalize drag shows (sorry, Dame Edna) and other stupidities because bigots believe, "No one can take away our right to take away gays' rights!"
This is why sexual orientation must be a protected status like race, religion, and national origin.

[the questing vole]

Whatever else might said about what these law firms are doing, it is not liberal, in either the classical or modern sense. Contrary to what the cretinous Ms. Kirkland (and others who suffer from the same sort of historical ignorance) says, firing attorneys for defending unpopular clients is what one would expect from totalitarian leftists (and rightists).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Quit whining, clinger.

Or not.

Your betters will continue stomping your stale, ugly preferences into irrelevance in the culture war either way.

[the questing vole]

The pederast Kirkland has taken some time off from castrating young boys to copy and paste the same irrelevant reply that he offers to anyone to the right of Chairman Mao.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If claiming that the entire liberal-libertarian mainstream consists of pedophiles is how right-wingers like the questing vole want to spend the time they have left for replacement, have at it, clingers. I guess it takes your mind off observing and acknowledging that your stale, ugly conservative thinking has been rejected and defeated by better Americans for a half-century and more, and that your country will continue to improve against your wishes for so long as anyone alive today can expect to see.

Carry on, bitter, useless clingers. See you on election days!

[apedad]

Historical ignorance?

Do you know which direction our nation has been moving towards for the past 250+ years?

(Hint: It's in the OPPOSITE direction from what you would like.)

13th Amendment abolished slavery
14th Amendment gave citizenship to all people born in the US
15th Amendment gave Black Americans the right to vote
19th Amendment gave women the right to vote
Brown v. Board of Education
Civil Rights Act
Environmental Protection Agency
OSHA
Title IX

[the questing vole]

I certainly hope that your problem with literacy is curable, but, from reading your reply, it appears that you are currently incapable of understanding written English. My comment was not controversial and it does not convey a political commitment of any sort. I make a factual assertion that law firms who refuse to defend unpopular clients are not acting in a politically 'liberal' way.

[Ed Grinberg]

You draw a distinction between "liberal, in...the...modern sense" and "totalitarian leftists." I see these two categories as coextensive.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Until Mayer Brown declines to associate with a law professor who runs a blog that caters to bigots and gun nuts; endorses an un-American jerk like John Eastman; and publicly launches vile racial slurs more often than George Santos lies or Marjorie Taylor Greene hallucinates, this blog should quit whining about whether the modern world is hospitable enough to its vestigial clingers and start focusing on personal improvement.

[Ed Grinberg]

As for the rule of law, here’s what Clement and Murphy wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “Our adversarial system of justice depends on the representation of controversial clients.... This is particularly true in constitutional cases. Many of our fundamental constitutional guarantees are designed to be counter majoritarian, and many have been vindicated by litigants who are deeply unpopular.”

"Liberals" don't want a constitutional republic. They don't want the (disfavored) minority to have any "constitutional guarantees." They want the government to have the power to do anything to you. We're back in the mindset of the leaders of the French revolution (Robespierre & Co.), the Russian revolution (Lenin & Co.), the German "revolution" (Hitler & Co.). God help us...

[QuantumBoxCat]

If law offices in antebellum Washington, D.C. refused to hire lawyers who represented slave-holders in court (in cases related to their slaves), would those law offices be guilty of "ideological intolerance" and "groupthink"?

[the questing vole]

'Yes' to ideological intolerance, especially since slavery was legal at the time, and 'no' to groupthink because most Americans (and most lawyers) at the time weren't abolitionists.

[EscherEnigma]

That sounds like an admission that "ideological intolerance" is sometimes moral and right.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's nothing of the sort, unless you start from the presumption that "bad people shouldn't get representation in court".

[QuantumBoxCat]

Can't a lawyer be of the opinion that people accused of X, or seeking relief Y, are entitled to legal representation, while also viewing the specific conduct as so immoral that they choose not to provide said representation?

I've spoken to criminal defense lawyers that hold this view about people accused of sexually based crimes against minors. While those lawyers choose not to represent said individuals, the accused is still able to obtain representation in the broader marketplace of criminal defense lawyers.

[damikesc]

Sure.

As long as said defendants are then never, ever punished due to not receiving a legal defense.

And, do not worry, such thoughts would never bleed over to things you agree with.

[the questing vole]

I would agree that ideological intolerance is sometimes moral and right. I wouldn't agree that it would have necessarily been right in QBC's example. In fact, I would suggest that, generally speaking, law firms which refuse to hire or insist on firing attorneys who represent unpopular defendents, causes, etc. have a fundamental misunderstanding of Anglo-American legal tradition. Further, the example offered by QBC isn't really relevant to the current question because slavery was legal in DC and not unpopular. So, a better example would have been, would it have been acceptable for a law firm in DC to refuse to hire or insist on firing attorneys who refuse to represent slave owners?

[QuantumBoxCat]

I appreciate your point on the example I used. I was trying to construct a simple hypothetical using slavery because the practice is now widely viewed as morally repugnant. I wanted to juxtapose the value of ideological diversity in legal practice against an issue that was morally reprehensible. The hypothetical is meant to question whether ideological tolerance in law always outweighs the issue in question.

Perhaps a more accurate example would involve law offices in a free state that refused to hire or retain lawyers who represented slaveholders seeking to reclaim a run away slave. The lawyers who run the offices recognize that the slaveholder has legal rights, but they view slavery as morally wrong and do not want their office being associated with slaveholders. In response, a Southern Democrat lawyer in Virginia writes an op-ed arguing that the law office (and those like it) is seized by ideological intolerance and groupthink. Where would my (your) sympathies lie in such a situation: with the free state law offices or with the southern lawyer's op-ed?

Perhaps a modern example would involve a criminal defense office that refuses to represent individuals charged with sexually assaulting children. The lawyers agree that these defendants are entitled to legal representation, but they choose not to have their office associated with defending those accused of such crimes. From the perspective of the law office, there are other firms that will take such cases, so the accused can still obtain representation. Is that law office justified in it's decision?

[zztop8970]

If you start with the presumption that those accused of sexually assaulting children are actually innocent unless proven guilty, as you should if you understand how the legal system works, of course that law firm is not justified.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I was trying to construct a simple hypothetical using slavery because the practice is now widely viewed as morally repugnant."

Doesn't this exactly go to the problem in the OP? That law firm didn't kick out some of their star lawyers, who'd just won a big case at the Supreme court, because they'd won a case for NAMBLA. Which actually IS widely viewed as morally repugnant, and that's not likely to change.

They won for the cause of gun rights, which are broadly popular, and no particular reason outside the wishcasting of gun controllers to expect that to change.

Essentially, these firms have been captured by a minority viewpoint, and are purging partners who don't share it, resulting in majority views being widely shunned in Big law.

It's as though a law firm located in some Northern state like Michigan had fired one of their lawyers for representing a slave and winning in court.

The ideological capture of lots of big institutions by what are decidedly minority viewpoints, which then proceed to act against the majority with moral fervor, is one of the defining aspects of our present era.

[EscherEnigma]

You're trying to make this about principles.

But what you just said is that if a law firm is anti-slavery in a place where that's not illegal, then they're the real bad guys.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"If law offices in antebellum Washington, D.C. refused to hire lawyers who represented slave-holders in court (in cases related to their slaves), would those law offices be guilty of “ideological intolerance” and “groupthink”?"

That strikes me as a very hypothetical type of hypohetical. Slaveowners (or putative slaveowners) never lacked for representation in places like Washington, D. C.

Heck, they didn't even lack for representation in *Boston.*

On the other hand, a conventional type of lawyer could take a case in the South on behalf of someone claimed as a slave, so long as they didn't make abolitionist speeches in court but confined itself to the particular injustice done to that particular alleged slave.

The big law firms weren't really as much of a phenonmenon as today, though there were certainly partnerships of high-powered or medium-range lawyers.

In any case, the anti-gun-rights position was defended by the slavers, not the antislavery people, as shown by Taney's so-called "parade of horribles," where he said that black citizenship would lead to legal black gun ownership.

[ragebot]

Anyone in Florida knows the name Morgan and Morgan; and I suspect a lot of peeps nationally know it. I live in a condo with an HOA and recently was discussing some legal issues with a HOA member and a HOA board member. While Morgan and Morgan bills itself as a defender of the small guy (and heavily contributes to dems state wide) they will not do any HOA work for residents, only for the board. They are not alone in this position, it is almost impossible to find a law firm/lawyer that will represent an HOA member. In great part this is because of laws favoring the HOA.

Point is this is a classic example of rent seeking; and not just the only one. Stuff like green initiatives, EV subsidies, lots of civil rights suits, and environmental movements all seek to get funds from the public to advance their agendas. As others have noted gun rights are a tiny fraction of legal activities while suits in the areas I mention account for lots of billable hours; in great part due to the success of rent seekers.

[EscherEnigma]

That was a classic example of lawyers not wanting to take cases they know they'll lose.

Trying to connect it to anything more then that was silly.

[Dr. JSH]

The dearth of diversity among Federalist Society judges and justices -- especially the six packed onto the Supreme Court -- poses a grave threat to liberty and the rule of law in the United States.
Scoff all you want, but it's true.

[Dr. JSH]

The dearth of diversity among Federalist Society judges and justices -- especially the six packed onto the Supreme Court -- poses a grave threat to liberty and the rule of law in the United States.

[Hal Davis]

A response to the Lat commentary from Jay Willis:
Excerpts:

Clement & Murphy. Today, they are finally free to argue that the Constitution’s original meaning requires arming every third-grader in America

...

Kirkland’s ultimatum was motivated not by principle, but by profit: The firm “started getting a lot of pressure post-Uvalde, hearing from several big-dollar clients that they were uncomfortable,” The Wall Street Journal reported at the time. “Several partners agreed that they should drop that representation.”

...

in the weeks after a gunman murdered 19 children and two teachers in a Texas elementary school classroom, some of Kirkland’s corporate clients were skittish about the optics of having their legal work handled by a firm cashing checks that were spiritually signed in blood.

...

Kirkland—the richest- or second-richest firm in the country, depending on your preferred metric—figured out that the cost of retaining Paul Clement exceeded the benefits of keeping him around. And the agreed-upon solution seems to have treated everyone just fine: Kirkland got to keep its deep-pocketed clients. The NRA got to keep its preferred lawyers, and those lawyers got to keep the NRA.

...

As always, those bleating the loudest about the perils of cancel culture sure are adept at turning a profit from it.

...

pro bono is for people who cannot afford a lawyer, which disqualifies lots of would-be clients who want to push the law to the right.

https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/biglaw-cancel-culture-david-lat-lol/

Balls & Strikes

Big Law’s Cancel Culture, and Other Obviously Fake Things That Do Not Exist

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"in the weeks after a gunman murdered 19 children and two teachers in a Texas elementary school classroom, some of Kirkland’s corporate clients were skittish about the optics of having their legal work handled by a firm cashing checks that were spiritually signed in blood."

They were representing the gunman? Or maybe the Uvalde police department?

[Hugh]

On the one hand, everyone deserves representation. On the other hand, maybe Mr. Clement's colleagues were undoubtedly troubled that the blood of thousands of gun death victims were indirectly on their hands, due to the crazed elevation of the second amendment to God-like status. I wonder if the campus and law school administrations hosting professors promoting this murderous viewpoint are similarly troubled.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It seems Clement helped win the Bruen case, saying New York was too restrictive in its gun laws, limiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against these gun crimes you're concerned about.

I wonder if these big law firms rely on armed security guards. If so, would that be firearm-worshipping gun culture?

[MatthewSlyfield]

Institutional clients = corporations, unions, non-profit organizations…

I make no express or implied opinion on the degree to which such clients are left leaning.

[Bubba Jones]

My pharma employer is not going to use a law firm that's known for conservative cases.

[CCP]

There's actually much more specificity to this dynamic, and it works as follows:

For years, big institutional clients would never, ever, have a woman CEO, CFO or similar exec. So, to make themselves look presentable they would fill senior HR and GC positions with women. Often, women who, for the better part of their careers at this particular point in the history of our profession, had been shat upon by men. So now, these fully empowered women use their power in preferred law firm selection panel processes to add all sorts of bells and whistles associated with DEI or other non-professional matters to their firms. And, as they say, shit rolls downhill once it gets to the law firm.

[Tallman]

>What are “institutional clients”

Good grief, you're commenting at a lawblog.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's why I said Conquest's 2nd law "went into overdrive"; It wasn't something new, it was something old being kicked up several notches.

[F.D. Wolf]

Even assuming those statements are accurate and in context, which would be unusual for the New York Times, so what? Progressives are better people, or so they incessantly tell us. What it is your point? "We progressives are just being as unprincipled as conservatives"?

[bernard11]

Not to mention that during Jackson's SCOTUS confirmation hearing Republicans were critical of her work as a public defender.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’m curious why sexual orientation is protected while political orientation usually isn’t.

[Brett Bellmore]

The left-wing resent that anyone dares to disagree with them, sure.

[Brett Bellmore]

Good question. It was because sexual orientation was an 'immutable characteristic'. Whereas you could just send somebody to reeducation camp to change their politics, I guess.

[apedad]

Or.....get convicted and sent to federal prison for participating in 1/6.

A LOT of those guys have seriously repented and openly stated how STUPID they were.

"In his sentencing memo, Seefried (convict) said that he was raised to believe that the Confederate flag — which was adopted by pro-slavery forces in the Civil War — was simply a 'symbol of an idealized view of southern life and southern heritage,' and that he lacked 'even average intellectual capacity' to understand what it actually means."

https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-riot/rioter-who-carried-confederate-flag-while-chasing-black-police-officer-inside-u-s-capitol-on-jan-6-gets-years-in-prison/

[apedad]

I don't think 'resent' (to dislike or be angry at something or someone because you have been hurt or not treated fairly), is the right word.

As a white, WASPish, American, male, I certainly haven't been hurt or treated unfairly (and I'll assume the Queens, Sacrastros, CaptCrisises, and Revs are the same).

But we do and will disagree with many righties on how we feel our nation should be heading and will (politically) fight at all levels - and BTW are winning the fight.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I understand it, the public defenders were basically telling them, "Do this or you're screwed."

[damikesc]

Forced confessions are frequently held up as sincerely held beliefs of the people forced to make them.

[apedad]

So, they're lying to the court(s), and don't really feel remorse and shame?

GTFO

[bernard11]

Whence your "understanding?"

[bernard11]

FYI, the NYT is vastly more accurate than the news sources you seem to prefer.

[bernard11]

Exactly.

The fierce defenders of the liberty of the employer suddenly change their tune.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, like your usual defendant announcing remorse, I expect.

I think the key point, though, is that they weren't just instructed to express remorse for what they'd done, but instead for what they'd believed. For their opinions, not acts.

They were instructed to renounce their political beliefs, in essence. That's a bit off putting.

[Brett Bellmore]

I mean, imagine if Antifa members being prosecuted for setting fire to a police station had been instructed by their public defenders to renounce, not arson, but instead Marxism? That's about what happened here.

The sad thing is, it was probably solid advice, given where the trials were taking place.

[Ed Grinberg]

They were instructed to renounce their political beliefs, in essence. That’s a bit off putting.

To you & me, yes. Not to "liberals." (How liberal of them!)

[Ed Grinberg]

As has been pointed out to you above, neither professor Lat nor (I think) any of the commenters here are suggesting lawsuits or prosecutions against these (ideologically intolerant) employers.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you're suggesting the lawyers in question got kicked out of the firm because they'd "hurt or treated unfairly" somebody, and not because they'd just defended a constitutional right the people running the firm disapproved of?

[MaddogEngineer]

Why do you think that those people "are worse than hypocrites...they've never believed in the principle" is unique to one side?

I'm a Peace through Strength Reagan Republican, who is confused by the Left's enthusiasm supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia. I'm in favor of helping Ukraine in any way that doesn't go against our national interests, which to me is totally consistent with a Reagan foreign policy.

I'm less convinced about the authenticity of the recent enthusiam for military action by many on the left, as well as their criticism of anyone who is skeptical of our help for Ukraine. Pot, kettle, yada yada...

[F.D. Wolf]

It is the usual practice of progressives to denounce "whataboutism", then, in the very next breath, to wail, "What about...?!"

"It's different when we do it," might as well be the motto of the Democratic party.

[MaddogEngineer]

And I was addressing "the principle" part. My point being your tribal attempt to discredit people who you dislike/disagree with by claiming they lack principles itself lacks any credibility. I thought someone like you should certainly understand Rule #4 of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

[Brett Bellmore]

McConnell got what he wanted: The "Red wave" was blunted, and didn't carry a bunch of Trumpy candidates over the finish line. Now he's minority leader, but he was facing just being another Senator in a Senate where Republicans he doesn't like were in control, and he nicely averted that by demoralizing Republican voters just before the election.

[bernard11]

Are you claiming that a Republican majority in the Senate would have elected someone else as Majority Leader?

Seems implausible.

[bernard11]

This is an amazing comment.

Consider: McConnell sabotaged Trumpy candidates because if they won and the GOP got a majority, he would have been out as Majority Leader.

Let’s see.

Just to be clear, the Senate Leadership Fund is McConnell’s PAC.

The Senate Leadership Fund has “become the highest-spending advertiser” AdImpact, started in 2014, has ever reported on, according to data it released Thursday. The numbers show the GOP group has spent about $178 million on advertising in five key U.S. Senate races — Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania

The GOP super PAC has spent $42 million in Georgia, where GOP candidate Herschel Walker is seeking to flip one of the state’s U.S. Senate seats back to red by defeating incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock. …

In Pennsylvania, where Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, a Democrat, and celebrity TV doctor Mehmet Oz, a Republican, are vying for the state’s open U.S. Senate seat, the Senate Leadership Fund has spent $41 million on advertising this year.

The group has doled out $36 million on ads in North Carolina in an attempt to bolster Republican U.S. Rep. Ted Budd against state Supreme Court Justice Cheri Beasley, a Democrat, for that state’s open U.S. Senate seat.

Ohio Republican Senate candidate J.D. Vance’s campaign was the target of $31 million in advertising support from the Senate Leadership Fund in his bid to win out over Democratic U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan for an open seat in the Buckeye State.

And in Nevada, where U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto is attempting to hold the seat for Democrats against former state Attorney General Adam Laxalt, a Republican, the McConnell-aligned super PAC has spent $28 million on advertisements.

Some of those folks are awfully Trumpy. Funny McConnell would spend so much money to help candidates he hoped would lose.

[David Nieporent]

McConnell did not get what he wanted, and was not facing just being another senator in a senate where Republicans he doesn't like were in control. You are mentally ill.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's circle of who is not working against True Conservativism is quite narrow.

[Brett Bellmore]

Deprogramming of January 6 Defendants Is Underway

[Brett Bellmore]

As the writer says, the assigned reading list might or might not have been morally beneficial, but it had diddly squat to do with what she was charged with.

[bernard11]

Your article is an illogical, dishonest POS.

It’s safe to say Heather Shaner, a D.C.-based criminal defense attorney representing a handful of January 6 protesters, does not share the political beliefs of her Capitol clients, which is why she’s forcing them to read books and watch movies highlighting dark chapters in U.S. history.

Shaner didn't "force" her clients to do anything. Whether LLoyd's statement to the court were sincere or not is unknown, but she could have said much the same whether she read Shaner's books or not.

At least we have learned where you get the bullshit you spread around here.

At least

[Nige]

'who is confused by the Left’s enthusiasm supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia'

If you think it's Ukraine's war, you ARE confused.

[damikesc]

You can participate in a war you did not initiate.

Poland was briefly in a war with Germany AND the Soviets. They certainly did not initiate it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm sure the left have their internal divisions, too. So why would you think the right is unified? Internal battles are the most vicious, and you really can NOT understand the GOP without understanding that it's in the middle of a low grade civil war, and has been since the late 90's.

Trump was an example of that, the GOP establishment loathed him with a passion, because he threatened to displace their grip on the party. Which grip is much more important to them than the party actually winning elections...

[bernard11]

Nobody said there are no internal divisions on the right.

What we said is that the idea that McConnell didn't want a Senate majority is ludicrous beyond belief - so absurd as to suggest derangement.

McConnell spent more than $40M each to help Walker and Oz and over $30M on Vance - three major Trump candidates. That's far more than Trump himself spent on their races.

Yet somehow you think it's plausible that McConnell wanted them to lose. Wow.