White Shoe Law Firms vs. the Neocon-Christer Mafia

Boy Genius Eugene Volokh

The Volokh Conspiracy is my favorite law blog. Eugene Volokh, leader of the pack, is a law professor and former child prodigy at my alma mater, UCLA Law School, and writes on free speech and slippery slopes, among other things.

On this page, posts are gathered together about the remarks of deputy assistant secretary of defense of detainee affairs Cully Stimson, who questioned the number of major corporate law firms who had signed up to represent detainees at Guantánamo Naval Base, who are, of course, suspected or accused of terrorist activity and affiliations. Stimson suggested that corporate clients pressure these Establishment firms to eschew these representations. Critics, including the Volokh conspirators, piled on the heretic. After a barrage of press and blogosphere discussion, Stimson recanted. However, as Galileo is supposed to have said, the moon still moves.

One of the question laymen often ask lawyers is why they represent people who are obviously guilty of heinous crimes. The stock answer is that to insure we have a fair system, everyone is entitled to representation, and if the goal of representation for everyone is to be achieved. In the abstract, I agree with the statement, although of course many who represent unsavory defendants have other motivations, such as money, fame, making political points, and sympathy for the accused or their plight. None of these motivations is necessary to be condemned, either, but one need not acknowledge the nobility of the actions of lawyers like Lynne Stewart, who was convicted of providing non-legal assistance to the convicted terrorist Omar Abdel Rahman, known as the "Blind Sheikh," or the communist lawyers whose representation of unpopular defendants is said bys ome to have been designed to propagandize about the unfairness of the system, as opposed to achieving the best results for their clients.

Because of the importance of providing representation to all, it's considered unethical to try to dissuade a lawyer from representing a particular defendant. The criticisms that Stimson drew are understandable from this perspective.

And yet, it's worthy of comment that these white shoe firms have flocked to work on this particular issue. The younger lawyers in these firms are perhaps influenced by legitimate concerns for the innocence of some of the detainees (many apparently got swept up in post 9/11 operations more or less at random) and the procedural confusion attendant upon their incarceration, and the professionally interesting constitutional issues raised by the clients' situation. Are they also salivating in response to the conditioning they received at the major law schools, with their heavily left-wing culture, and their location in the blue-state word-worker élite that regards Bush & Co. as a bunch of Bible-thumping fascist rubes, and the Guantánamo cases as a blow against some neocon-Christer Mafia?

The white shoe firms' choice of pro bono clients is not a legitimate target of government pressure, but why these folks choose to do what they do is a proper subject of public discussion.