I have vowed to make this point again and again, every time I see the argument raised in print or in speech, as often as I encounter it and for the rest of my life—as should you.
The Washington Free Beacon, often an admirable and indeed indispensable source of news and information that the left-biased mainstream media hides, distorts, or just ignore hoping it will the public will never have the opportunity to consider it, added this yesterday:
Biden DOJ Enlists Kristen Clarke, Who Defended Black Nationalists Charged With Voter Intimidation, To Combat Voter Intimidation
“Justice Department civil rights chief Kristen Clarke released guidelines this week on how to report cases of voter intimidation, asserting that “voter intimidation has no place in our democracy.” Years earlier, Clarke defended a New Black Panther Party member who threatened a Philadelphia poll worker while brandishing a club.
“As a civil rights attorney in 2009, Clarke lobbied the Obama administration to drop a case against members of the New Black Panther Party charged with intimidating voters and poll workers in Philadelphia. Two members of the militant group, one holding a billy club, called black poll workers working for the GOP “race traitors” and said there “would be hell to pay” because of the workers’ party affiliation.
“A Justice Department lawyer told a federal oversight panel that Clarke, then a lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, ‘was lobbying for the dismissal of the New Black Panther Party case before it was dismissed’.”
Ugh. Even presenting this as “news” is misleading. The conservative Free Beacon headlines the story as if the fix is in, or that there is obvious hypocrisy, or that Clarke is a phony. That is unethical journalism. This would be an equally informative headline:
Biden DOJ Enlists Kristen Clarke, Who Once Attended a Ray Charles Concert, To Combat Voter Intimidation
For Clarke’s previous clients and their positions have absolutely no relevance to her ability to represent other clients, including those with diametrically opposed objectives. None. Lawyers do not have to be in sympathy with their clients, and are not to be deemed complicit in their clients’ conduct by the act of representing them zealously. This isn’t my opinion, for as Mona Lisa Vito memorably told the judge (Fred Gwynne) in the climax of “My Cousin Vinny,” “It’s fact.” Do I really have to quote this rule again? Yes, I do:
ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 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 and spit it back at anyone who impugns the integrity and trustworthiness of a lawyer who once represented an unsavory client. This ignorance-based, cognitive dissonance-fueled weapon has been used against lawyers ranging from Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine to Ted Cruz and Ken Starr. It was this very issue that led me to finally repudiate my Harvard degree (and later boycott my 50th Reunion), after Harvard Law School Professor Ron Sullivan was forced out as an undergraduate resident dean because he was representing Harvey Weinstein in a criminal trial in New York.
Our legal system and constitutional protections collapse if lawyers can only safely represent clients they like, agree with, or whose agendas they support. Right now this is a real threat, with lawyers being intimidated out of representing ex-President Trump for fear they will be forever deemed corrupt by the Trump Deranged.
This 1.2 concept shouldn’t be hard, but partisans especially refuse to grasp it. It is just too tempting for Republicans to point out that Hillary Clinton defended a child rapist and for Democrats to use Ken Starr’s representation of tobacco companies against him.
Journalists are obligated to make the public better informed, not more civically illiterate. The Free Beacon should be ashamed of itself.
Ethics Alarms 
Let me preface this by saying that my experience with lawyers has not been positive. Between us, my wife and I have dealt in one way or another with representatives of five different law firms. I would recommend precisely none of them; and three of the five should have been disbarred years ago.
That said, whereas I’ll agree that defending a client, especially in a criminal case, should reflect in no way on a lawyer’s professionalism or integrity, I reserve that right to use the phrase “walking lawyer joke” to apply to lawyers who initiate frivolous lawsuits, hoping the defendant will settle just to make the matter go away.
Like that lawsuit in the Columbo post?
A worthy example.
I’m sure she sought out the role, it required extensive and vigorous zealous representation against a stacked and staked opposition by prosecutors who made Marcia Clark and Thomas Binger look like flea circus performers instead of ants, and her role was pivotal and essential to preventing the Obama justice department determined to nail a black beret to a burning cross.
::Raises fist in solidarity and superglues other hand to a pier at low tide in protest::
Any comment on John C. Eastman?
I am not sure why this is news. Clarke is the Assistant US Attorney. Wouldn’t that be within her job description? That being said, she is an activist. Her US Attorney bio has this bit of information:
“Assistant Attorney General Clarke began her career as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division through the Department of Justice’s Honors Program. In 2006, she joined the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where she helped lead the organization’s work in the areas of voting rights and election law across the country. Ms. Clarke worked on cases defending the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, presented oral argument to the D.C. District Court in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, and has provided testimony on federal and state voting rights legislation.”
jvb
I don’t believe a lawyer doing a job one is hired to do makes one an activist, though. Maybe she is, but her representations don’t prove that.
My attorney husband is also a conservative Catholic blogger, but he doesn’t get the two roles confused. However, he does insist on having his retainer paid up front, and that his clients allow him to “drive the legal clown car.” If a client insists on going against his advice, he withdraws as that client’s counsel.
Who was she representing at the time? If she was a prosecutor in the civil rights division of the DOJ and lobbied to have the charges dropped then she failed to protect the rights of the poll workers. If she was retained as counsel for the Panthers then her representation is inconsequential to such an appointment. I am not clear on these points.
From my reading of the linked story Ms Clarke was not representing the defendants but was serving in a legal defense political role for the NAACP a black advocacy group. From that story it appears she lobbied to have the DOJ stop investigation of another black political boss in Mississippi who ran elections that favored black voters and harmed white voters.
Holding a defense counsel accountable for the ideology of his or her client is wrong. However, questioning the objectivity of a lawyer who is entrusted to treat everyone equally but has an ideology that leads the to work for specific political outcomes is fair game.
Excellent comment, Chris.
jvb
She was retained as counsel for the Panthers.
No, she was working for the NAACP, and it was defending the Black Panthers. She can’t properly “lobby” the Justice Department regarding their handling of the case unless she is a lawyer engaged in the case—the use of “lobbying” was sloppy. As a defense attorney I “lobbied” prosecutors to drop charges against my client, but that’s not political lobbying.
Jack wrote,
Given the context I think I understand what you wish to convey with the above sentence.
However, the sentence is claiming something else [than I think …. etc.]
To use the example you gave,
Even if Harvard Law School Professor Ron Sullivan liked, agreed with or supported Havey Weinstein’s agenda, Professor Ron Sullivan would be forced out as an undergraduate resident dean.
So? The point is that he should not be. What matters is whether he represents his client zealously and well. Lawyers are obligated to be honest and have integrity. If they can only represent client who are honest and have integrity, the system doesn’t work. 1.2 b is there for the protection of the lawyers, so they need not fear representing the likes of Harvey Weinstein. Thus the importance of the word “safely>”
I agree with you that “The point is that he should not be.”
You made the claim,
I used your example of Ron Sullivan to show that the claim you make is not true/relevant.
Let’s rewrite your claim as follows,
IF lawyers can only safely represent clients they like, agree with, or whose agendas they support THEN our legal system and constitutional protections collapse.
IF (A) THEN (B)
But A is NOT (always) true. Let’s represent A as a 2×2-matrix which results in 4 possibilities
H1: The lawyer does like, agree with, and supports the agenda of the client he represents.
H2: The lawyer does NOT like, agree with, and supports the agenda of the client he represents.
V1: The lawyer can represent his client safely.
V2: The lawyer can NOT represent his client safely.
This gives four possibilities:
The example of Ron Sullivan you gave is – assuming that Ron Sullivan did NOT like, agree with, and supports the agenda of Harvey Weinstein – is an example of H2V2. Ethical wrong
And my claim, “Even if Harvard Law School Professor Ron Sullivan liked, agreed with or supported Harvey Weinstein’s agenda, Professor Ron Sullivan would be forced out as an undergraduate resident dean.” would be an instance of H1V2. Also ethical wrong. (See later remarks)
One can therefore simplify statement A to,
Rewritten to fit your original claim it would be,
Your original claim became unnecessary complicated and thereby confusing because you brought in the part of,
Later remarks about H1V2
One can discuss if H1V2 is always ethical wrong. If for instance a lawyer would say, I will represent Jeffrey Epstein because I support his agenda (in this case, facilitating sex with minors) there would be millions of Americans understandably mad at this lawyer.
This is, of course, completely in line with ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2 (b).
One can discuss if H1V2 is always ethical wrong. If for instance a lawyer would say, I will represent Jeffrey Epstein because I support his agenda (in this case, facilitating sex with minors) there would be millions of Americans understandably mad at this lawyer.
But they still would be wrong and unethical. And all lawyers must behave as if they do support their clients and their clients’ objectives, whether they sincerely do or not. I’m fairly sure, for example, that Johnny Cochran thought OJ was slime. In “The Conspirator,” Frederick Aiken became a pariah representing Mary Surratt the way he should have, even though he was pretty sure she was guilty.