Following the now almost forgotten event that was known as “9/11”, the U.S. government took action against a variety of individuals and groups who seemed highly sympathetic to the idea of overthrowing the current Constitutional order and replacing it with something else. One might almost label them “insurrectionists”. They were unpopular among large segments of the American public but had the good fortune to receive first rate legal counsel. Major law firms defended accused Islamofascists pro bono and responded to criticism by pointing to the example of John Adams, who appeared in court in behalf of the British soldiers charged with carrying out the “Boston Massacre” and secured acquittals of most of them. Adams was at that time engaged in polemics against the British Crown, yet he believed that the Crown’s agents were entitled to the services of lawyers.
Times have changed. It’s now an article of faith among the “wokened” segment of the legal profession that representing certain defendants is a blot on a lawyer’s character, if not grounds for disbarment. Today we saw a striking instance of that view. In the morning, the Supreme Court held “that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home”. On that basis, it struck down New York’s requirement that citizens must demonstrate “a special need for self-defense” in order to obtain licenses to carry firearms anywhere but in their own residences.
Arguing the case for the plaintiff gun owners was Paul Clement, one of the most eminent of Supreme Court advocates. When the Court announced its decision, he was a partner in Kirkland & Ellis LLP, one of the world’s largest law firms. The firm’s reaction to his victory in this high profile case wasn’t to congratulate him. Instead, it announced that it will “no longer represent clients with respect to matters involving the interpretation of the Second Amendment” and will withdraw from pending cases, leaving its clients to find new lawyers.
“We [Mr. Clement and another partner, Erin Murphy] were given a stark choice: either withdraw from ongoing representations or withdraw from the firm,” Clement said in a statement. "Anyone who knows us and our views regarding professional responsibility and client loyalty knows there was only one course open to us: We could not abandon ongoing representations just because a client's position is unpopular in some circles.”
The two ousted lawyers announced that they will form a new law firm and will take over the representations that Kirkland & Ellis, evidently without a thought for the interests of the clients, is abandoning. How its action can be reconciled with the rules of legal ethics is a mystery to me, but we can be sure that the firm won’t have to endure the slightest rebuke from the legal Brahmins who rushed twenty years ago to defend inmates at Guantanamo.
Comments