I've said this before, but this seems to miss the point that the largest law firms only really care about transactional work and the people getting run out of the firms are mostly litigators who are explicitly doing advocacy work on behalf of non-corporate clients. That's just not work that a business firm needs to be doing and, frankly, I don't know why you would come to a firm that's mostly known for representing PE funds in order to do it. K&E isn't turning down bond offerings from American Outdoor (FKA Smith & Wesson) or the Olin Corporation (makers of Winchester ammunition). It's saying we're a law firm for large corporate clients because we're here to make money.
It's also simply not true that there aren't conservative partners at these firms, as you say these are people who work for giant corporations for a living. You can pull donation data by employer and if you type the top firms into Open Secrets you'll find plenty of donations to Trump and the NRSC and Ted Cruz and whoever else. The issue is getting the *firm's* name in the signature block of a bunch of briefs that are really policy advocacy pieces being funded by policy advocacy organizations and have absolutely nothing to do with business. It's perfectly reasonable to say as a matter of marketing that the firm doesn't do that kind of work in the same way that Cravath and Paul Weiss and others have an official policy against working for activist funds because they're in the business of working for incumbent boards.
I note that you have not defended your original thesis: that Big Law Firms should take on conservative pro bono projects in order to create some ideological diversity. I do not believe that thesis is defensible. (1) There are plenty of law firms (and deep pockets) that make certain that Right Wing priorities get thoroughly litigated; (2) There are well-endowed conservative NFPs that litigate Right Wing priorities; and (3) using scant pro bono resources to pursue goals that the majority of attorneys at a firm would find as going AGAINST the public good is an affirmatively bad thing.
The underlying issue here seems to be one of perspective and of a lack of a uniform definition for terms like cancel culture. We each bring a different perspective to these issues imbued with our own inherent biases and lived experiences. It is hard to fully account for those things. It is also hard to account for a term like cancel culture when the term is so loaded and so politicized and lacks a uniform agreed upon definition.
"First, I think Biglaw is neither conservative nor liberal—rather, it is overwhelmingly libertarian. It's perfectly okay to be a Biglaw person who works for IJ or Cato. Nobody in Biglaw is going to be fired for saying that labor unions should have fewer rights or that taxes should be lower, nor is there any stigma in defending very well-heeled white-collar criminals. This is also obvious from looking at pro bono work—how many large firms are happy to sue the government on behalf of criminals? Big firms are happy to help convicted rapists and murderers avoid the death penalty. This is not even tied to LGBT/religion issues—as someone with conservative views on criminal justice, I simply assume that a number of partners, recruiters, or associates at any large firm are going to discriminate against me for having those views.
Second, an obvious reason for big firms to avoid taking partisan sides is because, once an institution is partisan, it is fair game. This is what's happened to public education, and what happened to Disney in Florida. Many people complain that a politician like Ron DeSantis is violating free-speech principles in going after what public schools can teach, but from the perspective of someone on the right, those principles are already toast. 'What if liberals had total control over the public education and university system?' Well, they already do, so there's no downside to fighting back. Obviously it would be a lot harder for someone like DeSantis to do this to AmLaw100 firms, but it's not impossible. Law is a heavily regulated industry. Maybe GOP-run states will conclude that some firms deserve antitrust scrutiny, or change pro hac vice rules so that it's harder to work across state lines. Maybe, as you say, states will pass legislation making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of political views. Once firms are openly taking sides, all of this is on the table."
The longer a person goes to school, college, post-graduate, etc., the longer they are exposed to liberal pressure from leftist academics (which most academicians are) and leftist peers. Of course lawyers tend to be leftist. What's odd is that anyone would refute the obvious. The ABA is overtly leftist, demanding leftist criteria from lawyers, as a whole. Anyone who argues that lawyers as a whole (in the U.S.) do not lean strongly to the left is someone whose critical thinking skills need examination.
Remember the King in The King and I: “There are times I am not sure of what I used to think I absolutely know. Very often find confusion in conclusions I concluded long ago. . . . “
I've said this before, but this seems to miss the point that the largest law firms only really care about transactional work and the people getting run out of the firms are mostly litigators who are explicitly doing advocacy work on behalf of non-corporate clients. That's just not work that a business firm needs to be doing and, frankly, I don't know why you would come to a firm that's mostly known for representing PE funds in order to do it. K&E isn't turning down bond offerings from American Outdoor (FKA Smith & Wesson) or the Olin Corporation (makers of Winchester ammunition). It's saying we're a law firm for large corporate clients because we're here to make money.
It's also simply not true that there aren't conservative partners at these firms, as you say these are people who work for giant corporations for a living. You can pull donation data by employer and if you type the top firms into Open Secrets you'll find plenty of donations to Trump and the NRSC and Ted Cruz and whoever else. The issue is getting the *firm's* name in the signature block of a bunch of briefs that are really policy advocacy pieces being funded by policy advocacy organizations and have absolutely nothing to do with business. It's perfectly reasonable to say as a matter of marketing that the firm doesn't do that kind of work in the same way that Cravath and Paul Weiss and others have an official policy against working for activist funds because they're in the business of working for incumbent boards.
This is a very good column.
I note that you have not defended your original thesis: that Big Law Firms should take on conservative pro bono projects in order to create some ideological diversity. I do not believe that thesis is defensible. (1) There are plenty of law firms (and deep pockets) that make certain that Right Wing priorities get thoroughly litigated; (2) There are well-endowed conservative NFPs that litigate Right Wing priorities; and (3) using scant pro bono resources to pursue goals that the majority of attorneys at a firm would find as going AGAINST the public good is an affirmatively bad thing.
The underlying issue here seems to be one of perspective and of a lack of a uniform definition for terms like cancel culture. We each bring a different perspective to these issues imbued with our own inherent biases and lived experiences. It is hard to fully account for those things. It is also hard to account for a term like cancel culture when the term is so loaded and so politicized and lacks a uniform agreed upon definition.
Posting on behalf of a reader who emailed me:
"First, I think Biglaw is neither conservative nor liberal—rather, it is overwhelmingly libertarian. It's perfectly okay to be a Biglaw person who works for IJ or Cato. Nobody in Biglaw is going to be fired for saying that labor unions should have fewer rights or that taxes should be lower, nor is there any stigma in defending very well-heeled white-collar criminals. This is also obvious from looking at pro bono work—how many large firms are happy to sue the government on behalf of criminals? Big firms are happy to help convicted rapists and murderers avoid the death penalty. This is not even tied to LGBT/religion issues—as someone with conservative views on criminal justice, I simply assume that a number of partners, recruiters, or associates at any large firm are going to discriminate against me for having those views.
Second, an obvious reason for big firms to avoid taking partisan sides is because, once an institution is partisan, it is fair game. This is what's happened to public education, and what happened to Disney in Florida. Many people complain that a politician like Ron DeSantis is violating free-speech principles in going after what public schools can teach, but from the perspective of someone on the right, those principles are already toast. 'What if liberals had total control over the public education and university system?' Well, they already do, so there's no downside to fighting back. Obviously it would be a lot harder for someone like DeSantis to do this to AmLaw100 firms, but it's not impossible. Law is a heavily regulated industry. Maybe GOP-run states will conclude that some firms deserve antitrust scrutiny, or change pro hac vice rules so that it's harder to work across state lines. Maybe, as you say, states will pass legislation making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of political views. Once firms are openly taking sides, all of this is on the table."
The longer a person goes to school, college, post-graduate, etc., the longer they are exposed to liberal pressure from leftist academics (which most academicians are) and leftist peers. Of course lawyers tend to be leftist. What's odd is that anyone would refute the obvious. The ABA is overtly leftist, demanding leftist criteria from lawyers, as a whole. Anyone who argues that lawyers as a whole (in the U.S.) do not lean strongly to the left is someone whose critical thinking skills need examination.
Remember the King in The King and I: “There are times I am not sure of what I used to think I absolutely know. Very often find confusion in conclusions I concluded long ago. . . . “