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.
For quite some time, the interests of “giant corporations” has been neither liberal nor conservative. Like the academy, the media and the administrative state, it is blatantly authoritarian, culturally identitarian, and openly serves the interests of an incredibly homogeneous cohort of well-to-do gadflies.
Virtually every L&E, antitrust, and consumer protection lawyer I know on the defense side is a staunch liberal. All of them sleep at night because the vast majority of clients, who by the way are usually also liberal lawyers, are trying to do the right thing. We don't spend our time covering up imaginary corporate malfeasances. To represent Big Business of any kind as a litigator is to devote yourself to fighting one frivolous lawsuit after the next, with no end in sight.
A personally liberal lawyer can do fundamentally conservative work. I know plenty of liberal lawyers in large firms who try to avoid those cases. Some of them wind up on them anyway. Sometimes they understand the merit of their defenses, but they basically hate the work. The fact that their position may be legally “correct” or likely to win, doesn’t make the case neutral politically. That you’re describing such cases as apolitical just shows how deeply engrained conservatism is in law firm culture.
LOL @ "sometimes they understand the merits of their defenses." To assign a lawyer to a matter regardless of whether they understand the client's defenses would be entirely consistent with BigLaw norms.
It is also true that liberals generally have a harder time understanding conservative positions, as that smug superiority does engender a great deal of intellectual laziness.
FYI, I have no idea what the rest of your comment is saying. "Fundamentally conservative work"? Apolitical work? You've totally lost me.
You mean spending your days defending corporate America from lawsuits you daily (and rightly) denounce as frivolous, then voting for and giving money to the very people who make those lawsuits possible?
So the opioids suits were frivolous? And all the times juries deliver large verdicts against corporate polluters? The courts just messed up by not dismissing them, the juries weren’t right, and the appellate courts also didn’t have their heads on straight?
Do I dare question the wisdom of 12 idiots passing judgment on highly technical and scientific matter they couldn't possibly understand? Um, yeah.
With apologies to the poor McKinsey partners who had to pay that ridiculous settlement, yes, the vast majority of opioid suits are frivolous because the vast majority do not name Purdue. You can read the "well thought out opinion" of several courts that have agreed. Something tells me you have not, yet have nonetheless already formed a rigid opinion, which means you'll likely have that opinion regardless of what you read (not that you will). Or, at least until the progressive narrative turns to "Big Pharma is our friend!" I know you're skeptical, but give it time... y'all can turn on a dime!
Defending someone under the law but wishing the law were different requires cognitive dissonance? Again, these associates don’t like the work (and may not last long at a law firm for that reason) but they can reconcile the positions intellectually pretty easily.
My point is that they actually don't mind the work. I'm trying to dispel the fanciful notion that working for corporate America, for the vast majority of lawyers, involves taking positions that are inconsistent with liberal political positions. Unless they're drinking from the Kool Aid firehose, and some are, they're mostly seeing their clients as the woke, virtue-signaling liberals that they are and the other side, the Plaintiff's bar, for what they are: bloodsucking bottom feeders who'd sellout their own mothers, to say nothing of their clients, for the chance at another dollar. Compared with the Plaintiff's bar, BigLaw is a noble, righteous profession.
Any way, you cannot reconcile a desire to fix our broken legal system, which would largely benefit corporations (perish the thought) with the Democrats' policy positions, which is nearly 100% aligned with the plaintiff's bar, but you can reconcile a vote for Democrats because, obviously, there are other issues.
The cases you’re describing certainly exist, but if you think liberals in biglaw aren’t dodging cases they find objectionable, you probably don’t know, or aren’t talking to, any actual liberals
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?
There was that stupid complaint filed by the Stanford fedsoc folks a year or two ago, which of course was rightly denounced by many mainstream conservatives.
You're right. There isn't "left" or "right" in BigLaw. There is only the predominate form of wokism de jure, and you're smoking something strong if you think it has any relation to conservative politics. Challenge it at your peril.
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.
It's been 25 years since I was looking at going to firms, but at least back then, this was an issue for a small number of conservative law students thinking about a small number of firms. So in the DC market, if you had credentials to get there, and if you wanted to be with other conservatives, you went to Kirkland, or Gibson, or (now) Jones Day. Or you picked a boutique conservative firm, like the then-new Cooper & Kirk. If you were fine being one of a very small number of conservatives at very liberal firms, you had the rest of the DC biglaw firms to choose from. There were reasons to go to conservative-friendly firms (better contacts for the next GOP administration), and reasons not to go there (fewer choices), but it wasn't a serious problem.
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.
Whether this is a lame attempt at satire or the tragically misguided efforts of a partisan hack, it is completely divorced from reality. The kooks are out in force.
These "conservatives" in name only are something, aren't they. D president in an election year? No Supreme Court nominations for you. R president a week before an election? HAVE IT AT MR. TRUMP SIR. You can't have a democracy where there are different rules for different people. Back the Blue, Back the Blue ... but not against the innocent January 6 tourists. And how many of them have spoken about about the abject antisemitism in their midst? Precious, precious, precious few.
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.
I thought this was about law firms? Instead of getting into some back and forth about greenwashing, a responsive rejoinder would show me a law firm with oil and gas clients that has brought a “liberal” lawsuit related to the environment. I’m unaware of such a firm.
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.
Your comment is very telling. It reflects the incredible bigotry of the professional class towards ordinary Americans. And you engage in the default ad hominem arguments that every "liberal" makes: you can't argue merits, so you attack the speaker. I have been a conservative all my life, and active in local Republican politics, and your description of the "right" bears no resemblance to the people I know. None whatsoever. I will bet you have NEVER had any meaningful conversation on politics with a conservative, because your comments are a caricature, not a description of a real person. The cave you and other "liberals" are in will hurt you all in the long run, because bigotry hurts the bigot more than the victim.
Many of my colleagues and clients, including my partner in practice, are very conservative. Unfortunately, the party is driving those old fashioned conservatives away. Trump's minions have conquered the RNC and proceeded to rape its coffers for the personal gain of Trump. The likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Herschel Walker, Kari Lake, Blake Masters, Ken Paxton, "Dr." Oz, and Lauren Boubert, have all sullied the name of the party with their antics. I have voted for Republicans back when Tom Davis was the face of the party here in Northern VA. Maybe what you are saying is that MGT, Herschel, Kari, et al are caricatures? I made no ad hominem arguments or characterizations, instead commenting on the positions now being espoused -- anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti- non-Christian, and for forced birth, forced indoctrination in "patriotism" as defined by Ron De Santis and Greg Abbott, and for banning books that don't meet some group of prude mother's idea of a proper library. I hope those are not ordinary persons, but I am afraid it aptly describes many.
Huh? They have been "driven away" by --and you list a couple of first term congresswomen, and candidates for office who haven't been elected yet. Herschel Walker? He is Lincolnesq compared to John Fetterman--and far more honest. Walker revealed his disabilities iand health struggle n a tell all book; Fetterman and the Democrats and the press have been hiding his cognitive disabilities. Boubert and Greene? How about Maxine Waters, Cori "defund the police" Bush, Ilhan "it's all about the Benjamins" Omar, AOC, who thinks being a Congresswoman is performance art, and gives us helpful tips on make-up? Then there's Bernie. Bernie lived near us 50 years ago, and his son went to the same parent cooperative pre school my daughter did. Bernie had no visible means of support, never volunteered in the parent cooperative, and left our impoverished area of the state owing debts to various locals. The old farmer who hays our fields has told us Bernie still owes him for firewood he sold him. Then Bernie spent the next eight years campaigning on the Liberty Union ticket, got 2% of the vote, and according to his own website, did nothing else--until he became mayor of Burlington in 1980. He has accomplished nothing in the House or Senate. He has not changed his political view one iota for the last half century. And he almost became the Democrat nominee for President. Chuck Schumer threatened Supreme Court justices by name on the steps of the Supreme Court, telling them they will "reap the whirlwind". Then there is Joe Biden. Our President is demented and nasty. He calls half of the country fascists; and his DOJ has arrested peaceful protestors, with dozens of agents, guns drawn, while not investigating fire bombings at pregnancy centers. He belongs to the most corrupt family in American history--except for the Clintons--his son and brother earning tens of millions from foreign actors and lying about his knowledge of his son's lucrative deals with the CCP. Then, there is the Russian collusion between Hillary Clinton campaign, Danchenko, Steele, and the FBI. And your white shoe "conservative" lawyers switched parties for these folks? Your colleagues are not conservative; they are big government acolytes who use their talents to fashion onerous government regulations with their "friends" in the government to protect their clients from competition. The Democrat party fits their careers perfectly. "Forced indoctrination"? Wow. Have you ever reviewed the mandatory "trainings" on CRT that government (and many private) employees are subjected to all across the country? I have listened to 10 hours of indoctrination foisted on Vermont state employees. It was incredibly racist against Black Americans, and our expert concluded it was classic indoctrination. I can send the transcripts to you if you would like. How about all the people who have lost their jobs because they said the wrong thing? A Vermont teacher lost her job because she questioned the propriety of hoisting the Black Lives Matter flag at school. Two coaches lost their jobs this month in Vermont because they defended girls in Randolph High School who didn't want a biological male watching them undress in their locker rooms--oh, and one coach called him a "boy" in a social media post.
That was his job terminating sin. And then there was the Black Vermonter who lost his position on a DEI committee and was vilified in the media because he wore a shirt that said "1776 Forever Free". I kid you not. Then, of course, there is the collusion between the federal government and big tech to censor "misinformation" . Since when in the USA has "misinformation", as defined by Big Brother, been censored? Forced birth? Oh my. let's kill that baby instead. Banning books? you mean like "To Kill a Mockingbird"? and "Huckleberry Finn"? Please. And parents are "prudes" because they don't like books for children which show explicit pictures of fellatio? Sorry, your post is telling. It recites all the talking points. I trust you are far more analytic and thoughtful in your practice.
Lots of interesting facts. Have these things about Bernie Sanders been written up anywhere? Would you be willing to talk to a reporter about them, if they haven't? erasmuse61@gmail.com
Come on. You clearly have no idea of what a conservative is. You confuse the word with "Republican", and your idea of "Republican" is "liberal Republican". It's as if I said Joe Biden wasn't a liberal because he's too extreme, and is not a real Democrat like Scoop Jackson was.
Your comments are dishonest. You call it forced birth I call it murder. But in 99.9% cases there is no forced conception, is there? Why should baby suffer when someone is being irresponsible?
Also-true conservatives aren't anti-immigration. They are anti-illegal immigration. Are you really an attorney?
Not anti-gay but anti-bigotry on both sides, including freedom of speech which for example means not having to bake a cake to endorse a social cause one does not agree with. People you call conservatives we call Dems in disguise or RINOs. They are no conservatives.
Why would a Christian encourage other religions if we know that the only way to salvation is through Jesus? The conservatives I know are transparent and honest unlike most of the liberals I know. They are afraid to talk to anyone who does not follow their way of thinking. Stick to the "small talk" they say...How about a debate? Why are the so-called progressives afraid to debate any ideas and instead push for censorship?
Don't even bring up Youth books in libraries. I will give you the benefit of the doubt as you may have not seen the books the parents want to kick out of school and public libraries. Perhaps you should check out "Lawn Boy" or Gender Queen" so you aren't so ignorant on this subject. I don't think any parent of 8- to 12-year-old boy wants them to read this garbage.
Good Lord. I had no idea this newsletter had such a huge number of traitors as subscribers. Mr. Slocum, don't let these liars tell you that what you've seen with your own eyes isn't reality.
Traitors? Democrats, the most racist party in history (killing hundreds of thousands of their fellow Americans to preserve slavery, and then 100 years of apartheid--and never an apology), who have used the intelligence community and the FBI to subvert the last two Presidential elections,, Instead of engaging in political discourse, engage in name calling. first, it was Republicans are evil, greedy and stupid. Then it was Republicans are racist, homophobes, xenophobes, transphobic. Now its traitors. That calls for the death penalty under the constitution. Lets string up tens of millions of American traitors. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler would approve.
Ah, the party that is now populated by racists and antisemites wants to change the subject by going back 100 years when the other party was populated by racists and antisemites, and who cleaned themselves up by rooting out most of the racists and antisemites. I can't wait to hear what you think about the Whigs, comrade.
Name calling again. That is all you people do. So, you said it, it must be true. That is how the Left operates. Facts don't matter. Racists and anti-semites? We don't have Ilhan Omar in our midst--and the Dems refused to censure her for her anti-semitic comments. And its the Leftists who are enthusiastic supporters of BDS. Don't tell me there is a difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. And the Dems are still the worst racists. Any Black American who dares to be independent is pilloried by you ("you ain't black!") --the present President of the United States said. Dems hate school choice--which the overwhelming majority of Black Americans support, because Dem/teachers' union run public schools are horrific. Black elementary students are far behind Whites in school. Take D.C. highest per capita spending on kids; test scores in the tank. Why? because Dems don't give a damn. They spend the money on top heavy administrations with high priced administrators and forget the kids. The Dems don't care one whit about THAT disparate impact. And defunding the police and the drugs pouring in from the southern border hurts Black communities far more than the rest of the country. People are dying, and you don't give a damn about THAT disparate impact either. And 40% of all abortions are Black babies. You don't care about THAT Disparate impact either. Oh, and I know that we must be guilty about and apologize for our ancestors. We need to pay reparations. We must do land acknowledgments. Everyone except Democrats. The rest of us have to acknowledge are forbear's sins, but not the Democrat party. Hmmm.
"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.
AS a member of the bar for 47 years and an alum of Big Law and the Department of Justice, I am sick unto death of Woke cancel culture, whether it is in
Big Law or elsewhere. The people who practice it have earned all the resentment it causes.
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.
For quite some time, the interests of “giant corporations” has been neither liberal nor conservative. Like the academy, the media and the administrative state, it is blatantly authoritarian, culturally identitarian, and openly serves the interests of an incredibly homogeneous cohort of well-to-do gadflies.
Virtually every L&E, antitrust, and consumer protection lawyer I know on the defense side is a staunch liberal. All of them sleep at night because the vast majority of clients, who by the way are usually also liberal lawyers, are trying to do the right thing. We don't spend our time covering up imaginary corporate malfeasances. To represent Big Business of any kind as a litigator is to devote yourself to fighting one frivolous lawsuit after the next, with no end in sight.
A personally liberal lawyer can do fundamentally conservative work. I know plenty of liberal lawyers in large firms who try to avoid those cases. Some of them wind up on them anyway. Sometimes they understand the merit of their defenses, but they basically hate the work. The fact that their position may be legally “correct” or likely to win, doesn’t make the case neutral politically. That you’re describing such cases as apolitical just shows how deeply engrained conservatism is in law firm culture.
LOL @ "sometimes they understand the merits of their defenses." To assign a lawyer to a matter regardless of whether they understand the client's defenses would be entirely consistent with BigLaw norms.
It is also true that liberals generally have a harder time understanding conservative positions, as that smug superiority does engender a great deal of intellectual laziness.
FYI, I have no idea what the rest of your comment is saying. "Fundamentally conservative work"? Apolitical work? You've totally lost me.
That’s amazing. Zero cognitive dissonance here.
Say more about that! I think my view is consistent but am happy to be corrected
You mean spending your days defending corporate America from lawsuits you daily (and rightly) denounce as frivolous, then voting for and giving money to the very people who make those lawsuits possible?
Yeah, it is weird.
So the opioids suits were frivolous? And all the times juries deliver large verdicts against corporate polluters? The courts just messed up by not dismissing them, the juries weren’t right, and the appellate courts also didn’t have their heads on straight?
Sounds like a well thought out opinion.
Do I dare question the wisdom of 12 idiots passing judgment on highly technical and scientific matter they couldn't possibly understand? Um, yeah.
With apologies to the poor McKinsey partners who had to pay that ridiculous settlement, yes, the vast majority of opioid suits are frivolous because the vast majority do not name Purdue. You can read the "well thought out opinion" of several courts that have agreed. Something tells me you have not, yet have nonetheless already formed a rigid opinion, which means you'll likely have that opinion regardless of what you read (not that you will). Or, at least until the progressive narrative turns to "Big Pharma is our friend!" I know you're skeptical, but give it time... y'all can turn on a dime!
Defending someone under the law but wishing the law were different requires cognitive dissonance? Again, these associates don’t like the work (and may not last long at a law firm for that reason) but they can reconcile the positions intellectually pretty easily.
My point is that they actually don't mind the work. I'm trying to dispel the fanciful notion that working for corporate America, for the vast majority of lawyers, involves taking positions that are inconsistent with liberal political positions. Unless they're drinking from the Kool Aid firehose, and some are, they're mostly seeing their clients as the woke, virtue-signaling liberals that they are and the other side, the Plaintiff's bar, for what they are: bloodsucking bottom feeders who'd sellout their own mothers, to say nothing of their clients, for the chance at another dollar. Compared with the Plaintiff's bar, BigLaw is a noble, righteous profession.
Any way, you cannot reconcile a desire to fix our broken legal system, which would largely benefit corporations (perish the thought) with the Democrats' policy positions, which is nearly 100% aligned with the plaintiff's bar, but you can reconcile a vote for Democrats because, obviously, there are other issues.
The cases you’re describing certainly exist, but if you think liberals in biglaw aren’t dodging cases they find objectionable, you probably don’t know, or aren’t talking to, any actual liberals
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?
The problem is that all the attacks on critical thinking are from the Left. When did rightwing students last shout down a speaker?
There was that stupid complaint filed by the Stanford fedsoc folks a year or two ago, which of course was rightly denounced by many mainstream conservatives.
But really, to ask the question is to answer it.
I like this post very much.
You're right. There isn't "left" or "right" in BigLaw. There is only the predominate form of wokism de jure, and you're smoking something strong if you think it has any relation to conservative politics. Challenge it at your peril.
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.
That is going to seriously limit your options.
It's been 25 years since I was looking at going to firms, but at least back then, this was an issue for a small number of conservative law students thinking about a small number of firms. So in the DC market, if you had credentials to get there, and if you wanted to be with other conservatives, you went to Kirkland, or Gibson, or (now) Jones Day. Or you picked a boutique conservative firm, like the then-new Cooper & Kirk. If you were fine being one of a very small number of conservatives at very liberal firms, you had the rest of the DC biglaw firms to choose from. There were reasons to go to conservative-friendly firms (better contacts for the next GOP administration), and reasons not to go there (fewer choices), but it wasn't a serious problem.
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.
Whether this is a lame attempt at satire or the tragically misguided efforts of a partisan hack, it is completely divorced from reality. The kooks are out in force.
Cool. Which part is factually inaccurate?
Hear hear.
These "conservatives" in name only are something, aren't they. D president in an election year? No Supreme Court nominations for you. R president a week before an election? HAVE IT AT MR. TRUMP SIR. You can't have a democracy where there are different rules for different people. Back the Blue, Back the Blue ... but not against the innocent January 6 tourists. And how many of them have spoken about about the abject antisemitism in their midst? Precious, precious, precious few.
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.
Have you *ever* heard of a law firm that wouldn't let its partners do pro bono work for liberal clients?
If it conflicts with client interests, certainly. Eg if a firm has oil and gas clients, it will be unlikely to take on climate change work.
Name a large energy company that doesn’t actively promote ameliorating climate change?
I thought this was about law firms? Instead of getting into some back and forth about greenwashing, a responsive rejoinder would show me a law firm with oil and gas clients that has brought a “liberal” lawsuit related to the environment. I’m unaware of such a firm.
This is probably accurate but not limited to suits against Big Oil. In general, BigLaw does not shit where it eats.
Glad to see you took time away from reading "Libs of Tik Tok" to participate.
Comments like these aren't helpful and aren't appropriate for David's substack. Maybe it's just me, but I come here for serious discussion, not this.
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.
Your comment is very telling. It reflects the incredible bigotry of the professional class towards ordinary Americans. And you engage in the default ad hominem arguments that every "liberal" makes: you can't argue merits, so you attack the speaker. I have been a conservative all my life, and active in local Republican politics, and your description of the "right" bears no resemblance to the people I know. None whatsoever. I will bet you have NEVER had any meaningful conversation on politics with a conservative, because your comments are a caricature, not a description of a real person. The cave you and other "liberals" are in will hurt you all in the long run, because bigotry hurts the bigot more than the victim.
Many of my colleagues and clients, including my partner in practice, are very conservative. Unfortunately, the party is driving those old fashioned conservatives away. Trump's minions have conquered the RNC and proceeded to rape its coffers for the personal gain of Trump. The likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Herschel Walker, Kari Lake, Blake Masters, Ken Paxton, "Dr." Oz, and Lauren Boubert, have all sullied the name of the party with their antics. I have voted for Republicans back when Tom Davis was the face of the party here in Northern VA. Maybe what you are saying is that MGT, Herschel, Kari, et al are caricatures? I made no ad hominem arguments or characterizations, instead commenting on the positions now being espoused -- anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti- non-Christian, and for forced birth, forced indoctrination in "patriotism" as defined by Ron De Santis and Greg Abbott, and for banning books that don't meet some group of prude mother's idea of a proper library. I hope those are not ordinary persons, but I am afraid it aptly describes many.
Huh? They have been "driven away" by --and you list a couple of first term congresswomen, and candidates for office who haven't been elected yet. Herschel Walker? He is Lincolnesq compared to John Fetterman--and far more honest. Walker revealed his disabilities iand health struggle n a tell all book; Fetterman and the Democrats and the press have been hiding his cognitive disabilities. Boubert and Greene? How about Maxine Waters, Cori "defund the police" Bush, Ilhan "it's all about the Benjamins" Omar, AOC, who thinks being a Congresswoman is performance art, and gives us helpful tips on make-up? Then there's Bernie. Bernie lived near us 50 years ago, and his son went to the same parent cooperative pre school my daughter did. Bernie had no visible means of support, never volunteered in the parent cooperative, and left our impoverished area of the state owing debts to various locals. The old farmer who hays our fields has told us Bernie still owes him for firewood he sold him. Then Bernie spent the next eight years campaigning on the Liberty Union ticket, got 2% of the vote, and according to his own website, did nothing else--until he became mayor of Burlington in 1980. He has accomplished nothing in the House or Senate. He has not changed his political view one iota for the last half century. And he almost became the Democrat nominee for President. Chuck Schumer threatened Supreme Court justices by name on the steps of the Supreme Court, telling them they will "reap the whirlwind". Then there is Joe Biden. Our President is demented and nasty. He calls half of the country fascists; and his DOJ has arrested peaceful protestors, with dozens of agents, guns drawn, while not investigating fire bombings at pregnancy centers. He belongs to the most corrupt family in American history--except for the Clintons--his son and brother earning tens of millions from foreign actors and lying about his knowledge of his son's lucrative deals with the CCP. Then, there is the Russian collusion between Hillary Clinton campaign, Danchenko, Steele, and the FBI. And your white shoe "conservative" lawyers switched parties for these folks? Your colleagues are not conservative; they are big government acolytes who use their talents to fashion onerous government regulations with their "friends" in the government to protect their clients from competition. The Democrat party fits their careers perfectly. "Forced indoctrination"? Wow. Have you ever reviewed the mandatory "trainings" on CRT that government (and many private) employees are subjected to all across the country? I have listened to 10 hours of indoctrination foisted on Vermont state employees. It was incredibly racist against Black Americans, and our expert concluded it was classic indoctrination. I can send the transcripts to you if you would like. How about all the people who have lost their jobs because they said the wrong thing? A Vermont teacher lost her job because she questioned the propriety of hoisting the Black Lives Matter flag at school. Two coaches lost their jobs this month in Vermont because they defended girls in Randolph High School who didn't want a biological male watching them undress in their locker rooms--oh, and one coach called him a "boy" in a social media post.
That was his job terminating sin. And then there was the Black Vermonter who lost his position on a DEI committee and was vilified in the media because he wore a shirt that said "1776 Forever Free". I kid you not. Then, of course, there is the collusion between the federal government and big tech to censor "misinformation" . Since when in the USA has "misinformation", as defined by Big Brother, been censored? Forced birth? Oh my. let's kill that baby instead. Banning books? you mean like "To Kill a Mockingbird"? and "Huckleberry Finn"? Please. And parents are "prudes" because they don't like books for children which show explicit pictures of fellatio? Sorry, your post is telling. It recites all the talking points. I trust you are far more analytic and thoughtful in your practice.
Lots of interesting facts. Have these things about Bernie Sanders been written up anywhere? Would you be willing to talk to a reporter about them, if they haven't? erasmuse61@gmail.com
Come on. You clearly have no idea of what a conservative is. You confuse the word with "Republican", and your idea of "Republican" is "liberal Republican". It's as if I said Joe Biden wasn't a liberal because he's too extreme, and is not a real Democrat like Scoop Jackson was.
Your comments are dishonest. You call it forced birth I call it murder. But in 99.9% cases there is no forced conception, is there? Why should baby suffer when someone is being irresponsible?
Also-true conservatives aren't anti-immigration. They are anti-illegal immigration. Are you really an attorney?
Not anti-gay but anti-bigotry on both sides, including freedom of speech which for example means not having to bake a cake to endorse a social cause one does not agree with. People you call conservatives we call Dems in disguise or RINOs. They are no conservatives.
Why would a Christian encourage other religions if we know that the only way to salvation is through Jesus? The conservatives I know are transparent and honest unlike most of the liberals I know. They are afraid to talk to anyone who does not follow their way of thinking. Stick to the "small talk" they say...How about a debate? Why are the so-called progressives afraid to debate any ideas and instead push for censorship?
Don't even bring up Youth books in libraries. I will give you the benefit of the doubt as you may have not seen the books the parents want to kick out of school and public libraries. Perhaps you should check out "Lawn Boy" or Gender Queen" so you aren't so ignorant on this subject. I don't think any parent of 8- to 12-year-old boy wants them to read this garbage.
res ipsa
Good Lord. I had no idea this newsletter had such a huge number of traitors as subscribers. Mr. Slocum, don't let these liars tell you that what you've seen with your own eyes isn't reality.
Traitors? Democrats, the most racist party in history (killing hundreds of thousands of their fellow Americans to preserve slavery, and then 100 years of apartheid--and never an apology), who have used the intelligence community and the FBI to subvert the last two Presidential elections,, Instead of engaging in political discourse, engage in name calling. first, it was Republicans are evil, greedy and stupid. Then it was Republicans are racist, homophobes, xenophobes, transphobic. Now its traitors. That calls for the death penalty under the constitution. Lets string up tens of millions of American traitors. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler would approve.
Ah, the party that is now populated by racists and antisemites wants to change the subject by going back 100 years when the other party was populated by racists and antisemites, and who cleaned themselves up by rooting out most of the racists and antisemites. I can't wait to hear what you think about the Whigs, comrade.
Name calling again. That is all you people do. So, you said it, it must be true. That is how the Left operates. Facts don't matter. Racists and anti-semites? We don't have Ilhan Omar in our midst--and the Dems refused to censure her for her anti-semitic comments. And its the Leftists who are enthusiastic supporters of BDS. Don't tell me there is a difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. And the Dems are still the worst racists. Any Black American who dares to be independent is pilloried by you ("you ain't black!") --the present President of the United States said. Dems hate school choice--which the overwhelming majority of Black Americans support, because Dem/teachers' union run public schools are horrific. Black elementary students are far behind Whites in school. Take D.C. highest per capita spending on kids; test scores in the tank. Why? because Dems don't give a damn. They spend the money on top heavy administrations with high priced administrators and forget the kids. The Dems don't care one whit about THAT disparate impact. And defunding the police and the drugs pouring in from the southern border hurts Black communities far more than the rest of the country. People are dying, and you don't give a damn about THAT disparate impact either. And 40% of all abortions are Black babies. You don't care about THAT Disparate impact either. Oh, and I know that we must be guilty about and apologize for our ancestors. We need to pay reparations. We must do land acknowledgments. Everyone except Democrats. The rest of us have to acknowledge are forbear's sins, but not the Democrat party. Hmmm.
And big law representing Hillary gave us the Steele dossier and 2 years of Russian collusion delusion.
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.
AS a member of the bar for 47 years and an alum of Big Law and the Department of Justice, I am sick unto death of Woke cancel culture, whether it is in
Big Law or elsewhere. The people who practice it have earned all the resentment it causes.