Actually, it’s terrifying.
A core function of lawyers in our society is to give everyone equal access to the law irrespective of their believes, interests, or motives. Without them, the public and all of its entities, institutions and organizations become slaves and victims of laws rather than beneficiaries of them, with an elite and corrupted professions using their knowledge and skills to distort democracy rather than protect it.
The relentless ideological corruption of academia is slowly but surely corrupting the professions it is trusted to train, with lawyers being a striking example. Now law students are increasingly taught that their interests, not their clients, should be the focus of their passions, and those interests have been dictated by progressive and leftist agendas, with the aim of transforning a profession designed to be equally accessible to all into a tool of dominance by one side of the political spectrum over the others.
This developments is the reason ethics alarms must sound over the students of both Yale and Harvard Law Schools condemning a major law firm’s choice of clients. They are trying to build a national law student boycott of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison until the firm drops ExxonMobil as a client. Climate change, you know. As we increasingly see, the environmentalist cult is being used to justify weakening democratic institutions and principles.
A pledge is circulating declaring that top students will no longer interview for summer associate positions or work at the firm until Paul, Weiss, and of course there will be other firms, no longer represent the oil and gas giant, and, inevitably, other energy companies. Providing Exxon with competent representation in a series of climate change lawsuits makes firms complicit in the planet’s destruction. Thus the legal system must be rigged against them.
The last sentence is my fair and accurate translation of the objective behind the pledge, which reads,
“As future lawyers, we have a choice. Will we commit ourselves to enabling corporations to continue putting human civilization at risk of climate catastrophe? Or will we dedicate our careers to making a positive impact in our communities and helping build a more just and sustainable future?”
Wrong, you arrogant, indoctrinated, totalitarian fools. Your future profession exists to make a positive impact on communities by giving all citizens and legal entities the benefit of the rule of law and the core principles articulated in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp defended the firm’s work for Exxon in a prepared statement:
“We are proud of the outstanding work we do for a wide range of commercial and pro bono clients in their most challenging and high-profile matters, including our recent defense of ExxonMobil in a securities fraud case in which the court found, after trial, that plaintiff’s claims were entirely without merit. Paul, Weiss is committed to free speech and debate, just as we are committed to the principle that we represent our clients and safeguard the rule of law zealously and to the best of our abilities.”
This episode is just a continuation of the canary dying in the mine episode I wrote about here, when Harvard Law Students interfered in Harvey Weinstein’s rights to a defense by attacking Dean Ronald Sullivan, who was one of his lawyers. Here are some highlights of that post for those of you who don”t take advantage of links. First, the principle at stake, which this blog exists, in part, to explain, promote and protect:
I have vowed…that if I accomplish nothing else with this blog, I will do my best to put a stake through the ignorant and destructive idea that lawyers only represent clients they agree with, admire, or personally support. Here its is again, the ABA rule that is quoted somewhere in every jurisdiction’s attorney conduct regulations. Let’s do it really big this time:
ABA Model Rule 1.2(b): “A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities.”
Got that? Memorize it Print it out and carry it in your wallet, and hand it to your ignorant loud-mouth family member who complains about those scum-bag lawyers who represent bad people. Post it on social media and in online comment sections where people are bloviating about the same. idiotic misconception.
Then this:
Harvard undergrad and law students are attacking law school Dean Ronald S. Sullivan and demanding that he resign because he joined the team of lawyers defending Harvey Weinstein, the Godfather of #MeToo, who is facing multiple charges of sexual harassment, rape, and sexual assault. Because the Dean is black, the Association of Black Harvard Women wrote in a public letter, “You have failed us.” Law student Danu Mudannayake wrote in a petition, “Do you really want to one day accept your diploma from someone who … believes it is OK to defend such a prominent figure at the center of the #MeToo movement?” You mean from someone who understands what it means to be a lawyer? You shouldn’t get a degree, Danu, until you complete a 500 word essay explaining why what you just wrote should disqualify anyone from admittance to the bar.
That applies to the law students pressuring Paul Weiss.
____________________________
Facts: TaxProf Blog
Ethics Alarms 
Get a copy of the petition and circulate it among all existing law firms. I bet these idealists will be unhappy if all the top firms decide not to interview any signatory because signing suggests they put the firm’s clients at risk from less than aggressive advocacy.
I was thinking the same thing. The letter would be cowardly grandstanding if sent without public signatures, thus risking their own careers.
With public signatures, it is just incompetent anti-democatic grandstanding. That’s a slight improvement….
I remember Charles Stimson losing his job at the Defense Department during the George W. Bush administration when he suggested that clients pressure law firms that were representing Gitmo detainees.
Of course, the United States was fighting a war, there were real national security concerns behind the Bush Administration’s counter-terrorism programs, and at that time, the so-called “Gitmo bar” was providing help that, objectively, made Jane Fonda look like a piker with that anti-aircraft gun photo-op.
There was REAL collusion with America’s enemies going on, collusion that arguably warranted surveillance and the very measures turned on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Yet a government official LOST HIS JOB for calling it out. Why? Because the same intelligentsia that is okay with denying Exxon (or other disfavored segments of society) access to the legal system felt it as important that an enemy we were at war with have access to our courts and legal system.
Back then, I felt that principle was being turned into a suicide pact. Now, I realize I misread it. It was not about principle at all… it was about advancing the Left’s power.
This is the same thing, advancing the Left’s hold on power, and now leveraging it to silence dissenting arguments. In a sense, the days of Rule 1.2(b) may very well be numbered. Lawyers will find ways around it. They will decline to represent. Get appointed? They’ll find a way out of it, and if they can’t, they will then throw the case.
I wonder when these elite institutions will work to cull out the “non-woke” from even being admitted, or openly rescind admissions or begin making those grounds for expulsion. Soon, conservatives will only be able to get law degrees from Regent University Law School, George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School, Liberty University’s Law School, or BYU’s Law School.
The Federalist Society is already a target for silencing – see what is happening to make federal judges disassociate with them, It’s getting pushback, but how long will that pushback happen before those in power decide to ram that ban through?
And you can point to this, and say, “This is Why Donald Trump Will Be Re-Elected.” Because a lot of people are seeing this for what it is.
This aspect of the law, defending unpopular people and helping to vindicate their rights is part of what makes the legal profession one of the noblest.
Adams defense after the Boston Massacre should be the definitive counter example for these students, especially for a place like Harvard.
-Jut
I am old enough to remember when it was called global warming.
Now it is called climate catastrophe.
Climatology is junk science, just like phrenology, Lysenkoism, and Nazi racial science!
I’m old enough (just barely) to remember the 1970s…when scientists were convinced we headed for the next Ice Age. Climate alarmists just try to scare with whatever piece of spaghetti will stick to the wall.
I suspect Paul Weiss will be able to do just fine without any Yale Law School grads. I trust Paul Weiss will not be sending recruiters to New Haven next fall. You know, goose, gander, all that stuff.