I was surprised when you characterized Patrice's article as thoughtful, so I went back to ATL for the first time in probably 7-8 years for something other than bonus news. I'll grant you that he has some valid arguments, but the irony of the piece is that even his tone betrays the kind of invective that is permissible only because it is directed at "wrong" ideas. Dismissing your central thesis with "Simply put, it is not" and then characterizing a successful idea as "unintentional" are grating, immature ways to engage in public discourse.
Patrice's best point is that firm's may be making a financial decision to sacrifice conservatives because some clients don't like their ideas, but (1) I'm not sure that's true--the world is much bigger than the echo chamber of liberal law firms/legal departments, and (2) even if it is, is the argument that failure to tolerate differing ideas is okay if it makes us money? Surely Patrice would not argue the same for tolerance of other sorts of differences. At the end of the day, it seems like the real rule is that if you can sufficiently "other" your opposition (call them a racist, sexist, etc.) then anything goes. Suffice it to say I feel pretty good about my decision to stay away from the toxicity of your prior (writing) home.
I agree with your response to Joe’s most important point, the “it’s not personal, it’s just business” argument. That might have some truth to it—I agree that some of this is driven by clients, and I said as much when I reported on Clement leaving Kirkland—but that doesn’t make it right. There’s a difference here between the descriptive and the normative—and just because you like capitalism (as I do) doesn’t mean you can’t criticize some things done for capitalist reasons.
But Joe’s point does raise a hard question: in terms of coming up with solutions, what can law firms do to push back on clients who try to pressure firms into punishing minority viewpoints? I think it’s fine to say “stand strong”—as Cooley did when Elon Musk wanted them to fire that SEC lawyer who hadn’t done anything wrong—but I feel there has to be a better answer than just that.
I think it's possible that breeding more tolerance in big law would beget more tolerance in corporate legal departments (which consist largely of attorneys who got their start in big law). But I admit that is sort of like saying "if you fix the problem, the problem will be fixed."
Intellectual diversity benefits us all. When we are surrounded or enmeshed only by the viewpoint that we ourselves hold than we become beholden to narrow lens through which we then view the world around us. This does ourselves a disservice as we inhibit our own growth and development. Unfortunately, the internet and politics have converged in recent times to make it easier than ever to only read and hear what we want to hear and read. The legal industry is far from immune to this. I take pride in having friends that hold a variety of ideologies and perspectives, some of which I do not agree with. I learn from them and welcome their friendship. I value their friendship.
Even for an opponent of cancel culture, wokeism, often-counterproductive DEI training -- all are real things, and significant problems -- the case for claiming public service in representing any paying client, no matter what the client's goals -- is self-interest wrapped in the fig leaf of public interest. The issues are different for pro bono work or court-assigned engagements. But why do the NRA, or Donald Trump, or funded vaccine deniers, or the Mafia deserve the best lawyers? Why do they deserve YOU? They don't. Suppose Donald Trump could not find a lawyer willing to push his election fraud claims? Suppose the Mafia had to rely on court-appointed lawyers? Those would be good results, not bad results. But acknowledging those facts would deprive many lawyers of happy pay days. The system and ethics rules of course permit making money from such work. But it has nothing to do with any public interest.
Here is a very interesting and thoughtful law review article that makes your argument (just in more detail). I'm not sure I agree with all of Professor Wendel's points, but his article has definitely changed the way that I think about these issues.
They deserve the best lawyers they can afford or provided pro bono because they are Americans. OJ had the right as an American to have the best lawyers he could afford because the American system of Justice is adversarial. They also deserve the best lawyers because they may be right. For example, the negative consequences of the vaccine are now coming to light. Seems pretty stupid now that the government was so insistent on vaccinations for children and on masking 2 year olds and on canceling school for 2 years. By the way some people believe the second amendment is as important a RIGHT ( not a privilege) as the first amendment.
I was surprised when you characterized Patrice's article as thoughtful, so I went back to ATL for the first time in probably 7-8 years for something other than bonus news. I'll grant you that he has some valid arguments, but the irony of the piece is that even his tone betrays the kind of invective that is permissible only because it is directed at "wrong" ideas. Dismissing your central thesis with "Simply put, it is not" and then characterizing a successful idea as "unintentional" are grating, immature ways to engage in public discourse.
Patrice's best point is that firm's may be making a financial decision to sacrifice conservatives because some clients don't like their ideas, but (1) I'm not sure that's true--the world is much bigger than the echo chamber of liberal law firms/legal departments, and (2) even if it is, is the argument that failure to tolerate differing ideas is okay if it makes us money? Surely Patrice would not argue the same for tolerance of other sorts of differences. At the end of the day, it seems like the real rule is that if you can sufficiently "other" your opposition (call them a racist, sexist, etc.) then anything goes. Suffice it to say I feel pretty good about my decision to stay away from the toxicity of your prior (writing) home.
I agree with your response to Joe’s most important point, the “it’s not personal, it’s just business” argument. That might have some truth to it—I agree that some of this is driven by clients, and I said as much when I reported on Clement leaving Kirkland—but that doesn’t make it right. There’s a difference here between the descriptive and the normative—and just because you like capitalism (as I do) doesn’t mean you can’t criticize some things done for capitalist reasons.
But Joe’s point does raise a hard question: in terms of coming up with solutions, what can law firms do to push back on clients who try to pressure firms into punishing minority viewpoints? I think it’s fine to say “stand strong”—as Cooley did when Elon Musk wanted them to fire that SEC lawyer who hadn’t done anything wrong—but I feel there has to be a better answer than just that.
I think it's possible that breeding more tolerance in big law would beget more tolerance in corporate legal departments (which consist largely of attorneys who got their start in big law). But I admit that is sort of like saying "if you fix the problem, the problem will be fixed."
Intellectual diversity benefits us all. When we are surrounded or enmeshed only by the viewpoint that we ourselves hold than we become beholden to narrow lens through which we then view the world around us. This does ourselves a disservice as we inhibit our own growth and development. Unfortunately, the internet and politics have converged in recent times to make it easier than ever to only read and hear what we want to hear and read. The legal industry is far from immune to this. I take pride in having friends that hold a variety of ideologies and perspectives, some of which I do not agree with. I learn from them and welcome their friendship. I value their friendship.
Even for an opponent of cancel culture, wokeism, often-counterproductive DEI training -- all are real things, and significant problems -- the case for claiming public service in representing any paying client, no matter what the client's goals -- is self-interest wrapped in the fig leaf of public interest. The issues are different for pro bono work or court-assigned engagements. But why do the NRA, or Donald Trump, or funded vaccine deniers, or the Mafia deserve the best lawyers? Why do they deserve YOU? They don't. Suppose Donald Trump could not find a lawyer willing to push his election fraud claims? Suppose the Mafia had to rely on court-appointed lawyers? Those would be good results, not bad results. But acknowledging those facts would deprive many lawyers of happy pay days. The system and ethics rules of course permit making money from such work. But it has nothing to do with any public interest.
Here is a very interesting and thoughtful law review article that makes your argument (just in more detail). I'm not sure I agree with all of Professor Wendel's points, but his article has definitely changed the way that I think about these issues.
https://bit.ly/3jQzmMT
They deserve the best lawyers they can afford or provided pro bono because they are Americans. OJ had the right as an American to have the best lawyers he could afford because the American system of Justice is adversarial. They also deserve the best lawyers because they may be right. For example, the negative consequences of the vaccine are now coming to light. Seems pretty stupid now that the government was so insistent on vaccinations for children and on masking 2 year olds and on canceling school for 2 years. By the way some people believe the second amendment is as important a RIGHT ( not a privilege) as the first amendment.