Additional incidents are discussed in Judge Ho's law review article, "Agreeing to Disagree: Restoring America by Resisting Cancel Culture." They involve a summer associate who was told not to discuss "her conservative Christian belief that the transgender movement is not good for women," a law clerk interviewing for a position at a firm who was criticized for clerking for a Trump appointee (and ultimately not given an offer), participants in the Blackstone Fellowship Program at the Alliance Defending Freedom being told to remove it from their resume if they want to get hired at a certain firm, and students interviewing for summer positions being told that providing their preferred pronouns is mandatory.
Here's a link to the article (see pages 7-8 for the incidents described above):
Biglaw’s bread and butter is serving interests that read as broadly conservative. Interesting that we would only look at pro bono projects, if you take a broad look at law firm work you get a very different picture. Most paid work is on behalf of giant corporations and not liberal. Consider the stance a biglaw firm is likely to take in a case dealing with employee discrimination, oil and gas, antitrust, consumer protection, etc. I am sure Paul Clement wishes his views were more popular (I wish everyone agreed with me, too!), but this is just not a serious concern.
I have never been near a Big Law firm, but I have been a member of the Vermont Bar for over 40 years, and the NH Bar for almost 20. The "liberal" bias has been a constant problem for years, but it has gotten considerably worse over the last five years:
In 2018, I attended the annual NH Bar Association meeting. During a talk by a former federal judge and present Harvard Law Professor on the topic of "Judging in the age of Trump", I asked what the speaker thought of Carter Page being surveilled with a warrant that had no apparent legal basis. I was shouted down by boos and catcalls throughout the hall, and when I made a follow up comment, a lawyer turned around and angrily told me this was no longer subject for discussion. Former Justice Souter was in the front row. No bar leader said a word about the rudeness, and during the break several lawyers came up to me and whispered that they agreed with me. Whispered! In 2020, I proposed a resolution for the Vermont Board of Bar Managers to support the First Amendment, as there had been several instances where people had been punished for voicing what would normally be called reasonable opinions in this state. They voted it down unanimously. When I tried to revive the resolution at the county bar, I was called every name in the book, including "crazy", comparing me to the "lunatic ravings of a homeless person". One of the lawyers involved in the slander still brings the issue up in pleadings and in court (I know, it's weird.) Recently, I was at a conference and speaking with a prominent lawyer about CRT (which I have had a lot of primary information about, because I was involved in some litigation.) He was clearly angered by my opinion, and I offered to provide him with the information I had to support my opinion, and he agreed. I sent all the information to him. He did not have the courtesy to reply. I followed up asking if he received it. Nothing. You see, conservatives are sub-humans who do not deserve even rudimentary courtesy. Fortunately, I don't need these folks to help my career, but I feel sorry for young people who are starting out and have families to support.
Social conservatives can't long exist in Big Law and certainly can't take socially conservative legal positions or clients. Economic conservatives can. It is kind of crazy that leftism which was for hundreds of years associated with economic leveling and the working class now is most comfortable among million dollar lawyers working for big tech firms and is uncomfortable with representing working class people who want to know what is going on in their kid's schools.
“Progressive” and “conservative” are constructs that imprison the minds of the young, and frankly this wonderful site ought not to propagate them. The real issue that these constructs obfuscate is whether critical thinking is welcome in the legal academy and in the law firms that they stock with young lawyers. By critical thinking I mean the clarity and courage to expose cant for what it is. The legal academy should reward such clarity and courage, but of course it tends more to demean and marginalize critical thinking than to reward it. Law firms have a different role and that is to put to a client’s use the power of critical thinking. The discipline of client purpose helps somewhat to correct the failings of the legal academy but for many it is too late. Could we please forget this “progressive” and “conservative” duality and instead focus on the qualities of mind and character required to engage in critical thinking?
I am not at a law firm, and haven't been, so maybe this is a dumb comment. But I would guess, given how many law firms exist, that the answer is that some large law firms are hostile to opposing viewpoints; others are not; and that if you're a lawyer choosing to join a law firm, this is something you might want to consider when deciding whether to go there.
The conservatives love to act like victims, but when was the last time they showed anyone with different viewpoints tolerance? Aren't they actively legislating against the rights of groups who don't align with their world view (women, immigrants, LGBTQ, et al). Also, when will they stop trying to make up alternative facts whole cloth? Their whole interpretation of the law was bought and paid for by money from Kochs, Olin, and similar buying buildings on college campuses. The idea that anything short of persecuting disenfranchised populations is "wokeness" is nonsense.
I don't see this issue as a political one, e.g. one that is a left-leaning or right-leaning issue. I see this as a symptom of a larger and intractable problem - the rise in intolerance of views that differ from your own regardless of what the view is. This intolerance leads to people not listening to one another, not talking to one another, sometimes not even wanting a relationship with someone. It is damaging to the communal framework that underlies so much of modern society. I personally enjoy and want to have friends and colleagues from across the political spectrum. I have much to learn from others especially those whose life experiences and views are not those of my own.
Never in Big Law, but the rapid descent of the right into "Trump's party not Republican Party" (to paraphrase a Trump scion) is a major issue. The true conservatives, including Liz Cheney, Lisa Murkowski, etc. have been increasingly shoved out for radicals, including radicals in gun rights, forced birth advocates, and advocates of the most UN"woke" attitudes one can have (anti-gay, trans, anti-any religion but Christian and anti-secular in general, etc.). This has been exacerbated by the "quality" of the attorneys representing many of the major players in Trump's orbit and the willingness of those attorneys to stretch the bounds of ethics past the breaking point.
"I'm an ex-Supreme Court law clerk and am retired after 45 years of practice. Those years included partnership stints with two major national law firms.
In 2010 I was Special Counsel with a multi-office Biglaw firm based in New York. In that year I was asked by a former colleague to join him in representing an individual party who supported the constitutionality of Michigan's Proposition 2.
Proposition 2 had been adopted as part of Michigan's constitution in a statewide referendum. It prohibited the state, including state universities, from engaging in racial discrimination and from granting racial preferences. Thus it barred state universities from practicing the strongest version of "affirmative action." Its constitutionality had been challenged as a violation of equal protection by various groups, including (surprisingly to me) the ACLU.
My proposed defense of Proposition 2 was submitted to my firm's pro bono committee. The good news was that this pro bono representation was approved. The bad news was (a) that the approval was conditioned on prohibition of any use of the firm's name -- in court filings I could only use my name and the street address of my office -- and (b) the head of the firm's civil rights practice group visited and chastised me for getting the pro bono committee's approval without any discussion with him.
Clearly, despite the approval of my proposed representation, the firm was not happy with my choice of client. Let me add that in 2014 the constitutionality of Proposition 2 was upheld by the Supreme Court 6-2, with Justice Breyer joining in the result."
Just want to add: this is not just an issue for conservatives, per se; it’s an issue for anybody who holds a conservative view on any of an increasing number of policies (especially policies connected with social conservatism, anti-“wokeness”, or Trump) - even if that person is not actually conservative. I am a moderate; the totality of my views probably puts me on the center-left and I have voted predominantly for Democrats in recent years. None of this - nor my pro bono work for causes identified with the left - has prevented my work on religious liberty from coming back to bite me, often. (Working on left-leaning causes, I should add, has never hurt me professionally in any perceptible way.)
As someone watching law firms and law schools from a distance, it seems to me that the top lawyers - that is, the ones who graduated in the upper parts of their classes from elite law schools - have spent the last seven or so years of their educations in an ideological cocoon. They believe that, not only are they the smartest of the smart, but that their views on social justice (which tend to the left) are self-evidently the only moral position. They have mostly encountered no professors who force them to think through their positions, or to grapple with genuine opposing views.
Since they are the smartest of the smart, they think they are entitled to deference as part of the employment package. Which was the prestigious firm lately where the senior partner had to explain that no, the firm would not offer severance packages to allow their more socially conscious associates to find more congenial employment?
It seems to me that it's up to the senior partners to exercise leadership, and explain that legal ethics and common decency require respect even for those with whom we disagree. And legal competence requires understanding opposing views, and engaging with them on their strongest points, rather than trying to define them by caricatures and declare them beyond the pale. If big law firms need to troll the depths of the less elite schools to find lawyers who will buy into this view, maybe they don't need the very top students after all.
And, if senior partners have bought into the ideological monoculture, let them run their firms accordingly, hiring only the committed as associates. I suspect such firms would be at a disadvantage - not only would they eschew profitable clients, but they'd be unprepared for the strong arguments of their ideological adversaries.
As a conservative in BigLaw, I can tell you: suck it up/that's what the money is for. This of course only mostly applies to coastal firms - so, by and large, the most important law firms - but it is real. But also: it's fine.
That said, law firms should be mocked by outside commentators every time they use "Latinx" unironically, and they should also be shamed when they do something clearly shameful (e.g., K&E telling Paul Clement to fire his clients for obviously ideological purposes). But, most law firm lawyers are lefties and most of the recruitable talent is lefties, and the job is basically to implement right-wing economic policies, so you have to let them blow off steam one way or another. So, if they want to represent terrorists and make themselves feel good about it, c'est la vie.
My progressive law prof told me to be careful about having Fed Soc on my resume. “Be careful what you say,” he warned. I left it on my resume--I was the President for goodness sakes.
When I interviewed at my current BigLaw job, the decision-making interviewer told me “just looking at your resume and ... we can talk about this later, but I just want to let you know ...” his eyes expanded as they stared in mine, “that I’m a MAJOR REAGANITE.”
Days into the job, I see an email from the head of the associate committee (a Partner) informing everyone that the “associates haven’t liked the manner in which the firm has responded to the Dobbs decision” (the firm was silent on the Dobbs decision). Another email: “the associates are concerned with our unequal representation of Republican over Democrat PACs.” At our subsequent townhall meeting, the CEO assured everyone that we represent both sides equally.
I suppose the associates wanted outrage at Dobbs and unequal representation of Democrat PACs over Republican PACs.
Around my REAGANITE boss, I can speak my mind, within reason. I can speak of evil commies with reckless abandon.
A brilliant meta point being made by David here to show that even his readership (overwhelmingly well educated people interested in the law, I think I’m safe to assume) is past the point of calm interchange of ideas. If we as a readership can’t do it, what hope is there that society (let alone communities within Big Law) can? Political division can no longer be easily bridged anyway, might as well fight it out imo.
Additional incidents are discussed in Judge Ho's law review article, "Agreeing to Disagree: Restoring America by Resisting Cancel Culture." They involve a summer associate who was told not to discuss "her conservative Christian belief that the transgender movement is not good for women," a law clerk interviewing for a position at a firm who was criticized for clerking for a Trump appointee (and ultimately not given an offer), participants in the Blackstone Fellowship Program at the Alliance Defending Freedom being told to remove it from their resume if they want to get hired at a certain firm, and students interviewing for summer positions being told that providing their preferred pronouns is mandatory.
Here's a link to the article (see pages 7-8 for the incidents described above):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gQkiD6eZyunLYwGaWKKk-ZS3r8v6wif3/view
Posting on behalf of a reader:
”Being former Big-Law from the flyover State of Texas, the piece below sounds like navel-gazing whining from coastal elites.”
Biglaw’s bread and butter is serving interests that read as broadly conservative. Interesting that we would only look at pro bono projects, if you take a broad look at law firm work you get a very different picture. Most paid work is on behalf of giant corporations and not liberal. Consider the stance a biglaw firm is likely to take in a case dealing with employee discrimination, oil and gas, antitrust, consumer protection, etc. I am sure Paul Clement wishes his views were more popular (I wish everyone agreed with me, too!), but this is just not a serious concern.
I have never been near a Big Law firm, but I have been a member of the Vermont Bar for over 40 years, and the NH Bar for almost 20. The "liberal" bias has been a constant problem for years, but it has gotten considerably worse over the last five years:
In 2018, I attended the annual NH Bar Association meeting. During a talk by a former federal judge and present Harvard Law Professor on the topic of "Judging in the age of Trump", I asked what the speaker thought of Carter Page being surveilled with a warrant that had no apparent legal basis. I was shouted down by boos and catcalls throughout the hall, and when I made a follow up comment, a lawyer turned around and angrily told me this was no longer subject for discussion. Former Justice Souter was in the front row. No bar leader said a word about the rudeness, and during the break several lawyers came up to me and whispered that they agreed with me. Whispered! In 2020, I proposed a resolution for the Vermont Board of Bar Managers to support the First Amendment, as there had been several instances where people had been punished for voicing what would normally be called reasonable opinions in this state. They voted it down unanimously. When I tried to revive the resolution at the county bar, I was called every name in the book, including "crazy", comparing me to the "lunatic ravings of a homeless person". One of the lawyers involved in the slander still brings the issue up in pleadings and in court (I know, it's weird.) Recently, I was at a conference and speaking with a prominent lawyer about CRT (which I have had a lot of primary information about, because I was involved in some litigation.) He was clearly angered by my opinion, and I offered to provide him with the information I had to support my opinion, and he agreed. I sent all the information to him. He did not have the courtesy to reply. I followed up asking if he received it. Nothing. You see, conservatives are sub-humans who do not deserve even rudimentary courtesy. Fortunately, I don't need these folks to help my career, but I feel sorry for young people who are starting out and have families to support.
David:
Social conservatives can't long exist in Big Law and certainly can't take socially conservative legal positions or clients. Economic conservatives can. It is kind of crazy that leftism which was for hundreds of years associated with economic leveling and the working class now is most comfortable among million dollar lawyers working for big tech firms and is uncomfortable with representing working class people who want to know what is going on in their kid's schools.
“Progressive” and “conservative” are constructs that imprison the minds of the young, and frankly this wonderful site ought not to propagate them. The real issue that these constructs obfuscate is whether critical thinking is welcome in the legal academy and in the law firms that they stock with young lawyers. By critical thinking I mean the clarity and courage to expose cant for what it is. The legal academy should reward such clarity and courage, but of course it tends more to demean and marginalize critical thinking than to reward it. Law firms have a different role and that is to put to a client’s use the power of critical thinking. The discipline of client purpose helps somewhat to correct the failings of the legal academy but for many it is too late. Could we please forget this “progressive” and “conservative” duality and instead focus on the qualities of mind and character required to engage in critical thinking?
I am not at a law firm, and haven't been, so maybe this is a dumb comment. But I would guess, given how many law firms exist, that the answer is that some large law firms are hostile to opposing viewpoints; others are not; and that if you're a lawyer choosing to join a law firm, this is something you might want to consider when deciding whether to go there.
The conservatives love to act like victims, but when was the last time they showed anyone with different viewpoints tolerance? Aren't they actively legislating against the rights of groups who don't align with their world view (women, immigrants, LGBTQ, et al). Also, when will they stop trying to make up alternative facts whole cloth? Their whole interpretation of the law was bought and paid for by money from Kochs, Olin, and similar buying buildings on college campuses. The idea that anything short of persecuting disenfranchised populations is "wokeness" is nonsense.
I don't see this issue as a political one, e.g. one that is a left-leaning or right-leaning issue. I see this as a symptom of a larger and intractable problem - the rise in intolerance of views that differ from your own regardless of what the view is. This intolerance leads to people not listening to one another, not talking to one another, sometimes not even wanting a relationship with someone. It is damaging to the communal framework that underlies so much of modern society. I personally enjoy and want to have friends and colleagues from across the political spectrum. I have much to learn from others especially those whose life experiences and views are not those of my own.
Never in Big Law, but the rapid descent of the right into "Trump's party not Republican Party" (to paraphrase a Trump scion) is a major issue. The true conservatives, including Liz Cheney, Lisa Murkowski, etc. have been increasingly shoved out for radicals, including radicals in gun rights, forced birth advocates, and advocates of the most UN"woke" attitudes one can have (anti-gay, trans, anti-any religion but Christian and anti-secular in general, etc.). This has been exacerbated by the "quality" of the attorneys representing many of the major players in Trump's orbit and the willingness of those attorneys to stretch the bounds of ethics past the breaking point.
Posting on behalf of a reader:
"I'm an ex-Supreme Court law clerk and am retired after 45 years of practice. Those years included partnership stints with two major national law firms.
In 2010 I was Special Counsel with a multi-office Biglaw firm based in New York. In that year I was asked by a former colleague to join him in representing an individual party who supported the constitutionality of Michigan's Proposition 2.
Proposition 2 had been adopted as part of Michigan's constitution in a statewide referendum. It prohibited the state, including state universities, from engaging in racial discrimination and from granting racial preferences. Thus it barred state universities from practicing the strongest version of "affirmative action." Its constitutionality had been challenged as a violation of equal protection by various groups, including (surprisingly to me) the ACLU.
My proposed defense of Proposition 2 was submitted to my firm's pro bono committee. The good news was that this pro bono representation was approved. The bad news was (a) that the approval was conditioned on prohibition of any use of the firm's name -- in court filings I could only use my name and the street address of my office -- and (b) the head of the firm's civil rights practice group visited and chastised me for getting the pro bono committee's approval without any discussion with him.
Clearly, despite the approval of my proposed representation, the firm was not happy with my choice of client. Let me add that in 2014 the constitutionality of Proposition 2 was upheld by the Supreme Court 6-2, with Justice Breyer joining in the result."
Just want to add: this is not just an issue for conservatives, per se; it’s an issue for anybody who holds a conservative view on any of an increasing number of policies (especially policies connected with social conservatism, anti-“wokeness”, or Trump) - even if that person is not actually conservative. I am a moderate; the totality of my views probably puts me on the center-left and I have voted predominantly for Democrats in recent years. None of this - nor my pro bono work for causes identified with the left - has prevented my work on religious liberty from coming back to bite me, often. (Working on left-leaning causes, I should add, has never hurt me professionally in any perceptible way.)
As someone watching law firms and law schools from a distance, it seems to me that the top lawyers - that is, the ones who graduated in the upper parts of their classes from elite law schools - have spent the last seven or so years of their educations in an ideological cocoon. They believe that, not only are they the smartest of the smart, but that their views on social justice (which tend to the left) are self-evidently the only moral position. They have mostly encountered no professors who force them to think through their positions, or to grapple with genuine opposing views.
Since they are the smartest of the smart, they think they are entitled to deference as part of the employment package. Which was the prestigious firm lately where the senior partner had to explain that no, the firm would not offer severance packages to allow their more socially conscious associates to find more congenial employment?
It seems to me that it's up to the senior partners to exercise leadership, and explain that legal ethics and common decency require respect even for those with whom we disagree. And legal competence requires understanding opposing views, and engaging with them on their strongest points, rather than trying to define them by caricatures and declare them beyond the pale. If big law firms need to troll the depths of the less elite schools to find lawyers who will buy into this view, maybe they don't need the very top students after all.
And, if senior partners have bought into the ideological monoculture, let them run their firms accordingly, hiring only the committed as associates. I suspect such firms would be at a disadvantage - not only would they eschew profitable clients, but they'd be unprepared for the strong arguments of their ideological adversaries.
As a conservative in BigLaw, I can tell you: suck it up/that's what the money is for. This of course only mostly applies to coastal firms - so, by and large, the most important law firms - but it is real. But also: it's fine.
That said, law firms should be mocked by outside commentators every time they use "Latinx" unironically, and they should also be shamed when they do something clearly shameful (e.g., K&E telling Paul Clement to fire his clients for obviously ideological purposes). But, most law firm lawyers are lefties and most of the recruitable talent is lefties, and the job is basically to implement right-wing economic policies, so you have to let them blow off steam one way or another. So, if they want to represent terrorists and make themselves feel good about it, c'est la vie.
My progressive law prof told me to be careful about having Fed Soc on my resume. “Be careful what you say,” he warned. I left it on my resume--I was the President for goodness sakes.
When I interviewed at my current BigLaw job, the decision-making interviewer told me “just looking at your resume and ... we can talk about this later, but I just want to let you know ...” his eyes expanded as they stared in mine, “that I’m a MAJOR REAGANITE.”
Days into the job, I see an email from the head of the associate committee (a Partner) informing everyone that the “associates haven’t liked the manner in which the firm has responded to the Dobbs decision” (the firm was silent on the Dobbs decision). Another email: “the associates are concerned with our unequal representation of Republican over Democrat PACs.” At our subsequent townhall meeting, the CEO assured everyone that we represent both sides equally.
I suppose the associates wanted outrage at Dobbs and unequal representation of Democrat PACs over Republican PACs.
Around my REAGANITE boss, I can speak my mind, within reason. I can speak of evil commies with reckless abandon.
Around the Orwellian associates, I stay quiet.
A brilliant meta point being made by David here to show that even his readership (overwhelmingly well educated people interested in the law, I think I’m safe to assume) is past the point of calm interchange of ideas. If we as a readership can’t do it, what hope is there that society (let alone communities within Big Law) can? Political division can no longer be easily bridged anyway, might as well fight it out imo.