A Solo View on Stimson’s Message to Biglaw

Over at my beat at Legal Blog Watch, I posted my opinion on Assistant Deputy Secretary Cully Stimson’s suggestion that corporate clients reconsider their relationship with large firms who represent Guantanamo detainees.  I’m posting some other thoughts here at MyShingle, more from a solo’s perspective.

Stimson’s comments have drawn criticism from dozens of bloggers, as well as the ABA and 100 law deans.  Indeed, the Pentagon has since disavowed Stimson’s comments.  Yet while it’s gratifying to see lawyers galvanized over some issue, I still do not regard this matter as clear cut at all.  In fact, there’s a strange irony to it.

I believe that initially,
the law firms that signed up to represent detainees cared deeply about
their rights.  But soon after, dozens of other firms (listen to Stimson’s
speech – they’re all listed) jumped on board.   And I believe that many of the firms did so for PR and so that they would
not be at a competitive recruiting disadvantage.  The firms’
decision to represent the detainees was economic, not political,
which is why threats of economic repercussions carry the impact that
they do.  Usually, when lawyers sign up to represent a client,
threats from the government or anyone else about being ostracized or
repercussions do not move us.  That is part of our job. And anytime
we take on controversial clients, that’s part of the risk.

Maybe I am jaded, but I see this kind of thing happen all the time.
Judges, prosecutors and the public routinely criticize lawyers for
cases we handle.  While Stimson’s comments may be particularly
inappropriate because he’s charged with administering the legal system
for Guantanamo detainees, all in all, his attempt to intimidate firms
happens all the time – in fact, sometimes, it’s large firms that exert
that pressure.

Back when I was a baby lawyer, I met a client at a legal aid clinic who
wanted to sue a major hotel for denying him entry to the dining room
for breakfast (he had money).  The hotel was represented by a major
firm that did pro bono for the clinic.  The firm told the clinic
that if I continued the suit through the clinic, then they’d drop
their support of the clinic.  So the clinic dropped me.  Do you
think I gave up the case?  Of course not.  I pursued it on my own
dime.  It didn’t even occur to me to drop the case.

What concerns me is that I’ve not heard much from the large firms
who signed up to represent these detainees.  Where is their outrage,
their re-affirmance of commitment to their clients?  I have not seen
it yet (perhaps it is there and I’ve overlooked it).  To me, the
lack of comment from large firms and the potential that they may run
scared is far worse than Stimson’s remarks.

Stimson’s remarks are offensive only if there’s the potential that they
might work.  If Stimson made those comments about most of the lawyers
who I know, I wouldn’t find them offensive, I’d find them silly:
because I think almost everyone here has too much character to back
down from a case.  I wish I had the same faith in our big law
colleagues.