An attorney friend writes:
Cliff;
I saw your post on Stimson in NRO. It is even more of an outrage then you let on. In all the big firms there are certain clients they won’t take, not because of a conflict, but because some big client doesn’t like them. You can not do work for Coke if you work for Pepsi. You can not do work for a Fortune 500 company if you also take plaintiff’s cases.
If Law Firms let out, as they do, they are susceptible to this, why shouldn’t corporations be ashamed to have the same lawyers and Abu Sayef? Do you think Williams & Connolly did not receive insults from the usual suspects for defending Oliver North? (and W&C is one of the few big firms that I know of that tends to fight this type of client directed case picking).
Why is it wrong for Stimson to point out who is representing what clients (which is public information after all?). What about the law firms that represent tobacco companies or “Big Global Warming?” Do you think the Left doesn’t divest itself of cases to these firms? Where is the bar when that happens?
In point of fact, many of these firms can now take on some Ramsey Clark type clients so as to quiet the usual suspects against them.
Best ,
Me: Two more points: 1) I’ve heard that the Saudis put many law firms on retainer so those firms can’t be hired against them – sort of an attorney insurance policy. 2) If Cully had complained to the media about the inadequacy of the legal representation the detainees were receiving, you think he’d have been given the boot?