A comment on Katyal. You seem to be arguing that a lawyer representing interests you disagree with is somehow required, ethically, to only represent clients who are "good guys". If that were the test, then lawyers would not be able to make a living since the "good guys" typically have no money. That they try to make up for it by doing pro bono work for "good guys" is apparently inadequate to expiate their sin of working for money. In the real world, everyone who works has to focus on customers or clients who can afford to pay for their services. Joseph Welch of Hale and Dorr in Boston was a hero of the politically liberal for his resistance of McCarthyism. Most of the time, he was a corporate lawyer who used his considerable skills on behalf of corporate clients. He was one of my heroes. He was also rather fortunate in being able to represent good guys who could pay. Most are not so fortunate.
Yeah, I'm sure old Neal would be out hustling on the street corners if he weren't protecting helpless billionaires and immunizing corporations against liability for running child slave gangs, all while applauding himself for an "incredibly harrowing" escape from Burning Man. He's a leech with all the self-awareness of something with absolutely no self-awareness.
Legal marketing is its own kind of animal. Many times a firm will accept a matter or a client and once that happens the members are required to handle it or service the client. Sometimes a client will demand the firm handle a matter it would reject if it were presented by itself. Perhaps Katyal can pick and choose what he will handle; perhaps not; I really don't know. Handling unpopular cases is sometimes the mark of a great lawyer. John Adams is remembered for defending the British soldiers who fired on American revolutionaries. Abraham Lincoln made his living defending railroads. I guess I'd need to know a lot more about the circumstances under which the Katyal matters were accepted before judging them. One of the cases you criticized, as I recall, was an objection to jurisdiction as opposed to justification of behavior, for example.
Well, I expect we can agree that if Lincoln had survived and returned to lawyering, he wouldn't have represented railroad companies unless he wanted to.
A comment on Katyal. You seem to be arguing that a lawyer representing interests you disagree with is somehow required, ethically, to only represent clients who are "good guys". If that were the test, then lawyers would not be able to make a living since the "good guys" typically have no money. That they try to make up for it by doing pro bono work for "good guys" is apparently inadequate to expiate their sin of working for money. In the real world, everyone who works has to focus on customers or clients who can afford to pay for their services. Joseph Welch of Hale and Dorr in Boston was a hero of the politically liberal for his resistance of McCarthyism. Most of the time, he was a corporate lawyer who used his considerable skills on behalf of corporate clients. He was one of my heroes. He was also rather fortunate in being able to represent good guys who could pay. Most are not so fortunate.
Yeah, I'm sure old Neal would be out hustling on the street corners if he weren't protecting helpless billionaires and immunizing corporations against liability for running child slave gangs, all while applauding himself for an "incredibly harrowing" escape from Burning Man. He's a leech with all the self-awareness of something with absolutely no self-awareness.
Well, I wasn't defending his lobbying for Trump's Justices. I'm strictly referring to his representation of clients.
I think they're of a philosophical piece, Jack. He's not a lawyer who has to accept every job coming through the door.
Legal marketing is its own kind of animal. Many times a firm will accept a matter or a client and once that happens the members are required to handle it or service the client. Sometimes a client will demand the firm handle a matter it would reject if it were presented by itself. Perhaps Katyal can pick and choose what he will handle; perhaps not; I really don't know. Handling unpopular cases is sometimes the mark of a great lawyer. John Adams is remembered for defending the British soldiers who fired on American revolutionaries. Abraham Lincoln made his living defending railroads. I guess I'd need to know a lot more about the circumstances under which the Katyal matters were accepted before judging them. One of the cases you criticized, as I recall, was an objection to jurisdiction as opposed to justification of behavior, for example.
Well, I expect we can agree that if Lincoln had survived and returned to lawyering, he wouldn't have represented railroad companies unless he wanted to.
Presidents din't get rich in those days.