As a former in-house counsel, I would never willingly engage any of the surrendering firms for two reasons: (1) a law firm that fails to defend itself when it has the law on its side disqualifies itself from representing my company (“Hire us, we’re a big tough law firm that folded instantly when bullied.”); and (2) there’s rarely cause to pay big firm fees. Often people engage big law for the same reason they hire big-name consultants. So executives can tell the board: “We lost the case, but we did everything we could—after all we hired [insert firm name here]”. Maybe there’s a third reason if you think their management didn’t adequately consider reason (1).
This is a wonderful analysis. Thank you for taking the time to put it out there. A friend in Tanzania asked me yesterday if the U.S. is back to selling slaves. Unfortunately, I couldn't have said it better 😬
“At the same time, there is a strong argument that Reuveni’s flaccid defense was inappropriate: If he could not advocate zealously for his client, he shouldn’t have been in the courtroom at all.”
Sorry but that’s nonsense. Of course he should be in the court, and he acted exactly right. He put the best case he could, and acknowledged he could go no further. I say this as a 40 year trial attorney.
Hi Liz, as a non-lawyer who finds your and Andrew's work fascinating, I have to ask about this line:
"At the same time, there is a strong argument that Reuveni’s flaccid defense was inappropriate: If he could not advocate zealously for his client, he shouldn’t have been in the courtroom at all."
On the podcast you guys go into this more, but one line of reasoning sticks out to me. You say that he has a duty of candor to the court - AKA "tell the truth" in my layman's opinion. The counter-argument I heard there and in this quote above is that he should have bowed out and/or resigned before this point.
As a non-lawyer, I am confused by the latter argument. As the "man on the inside", he knows better than anyone that they are asking him to lie, stall for time, act in bad faith, etc. In my view, recusing himself, resigning, not answering the questions, etc is just lying by omission. Is it not?
In an argument, if I know the truth and that truth is bad, and I also know that whoever they get to replace me is just going to tell that lie instead - I would view myself as a liar if I walk away too. I could have stopped it, but didn't. You can see this in the Eric Adams case. All resigning did was ensure that their name wouldn't be on the paper - the lie was still told.
Framed this way, I see the only options he had were: lie, lie indirectly by resigning/recusing/etc, or tell the truth. That duty of candor should trump all and it seems for this man that it did.
I get the practicalities of why that might not be acceptable and why recusal might be a better option, but I like to think in normal scenarios that we aren't accidentally sending someone to a hellhole to be tortured and/or killed.
Am I wrong for thinking this? Is this a controversial view?
As a former in-house counsel, I would never willingly engage any of the surrendering firms for two reasons: (1) a law firm that fails to defend itself when it has the law on its side disqualifies itself from representing my company (“Hire us, we’re a big tough law firm that folded instantly when bullied.”); and (2) there’s rarely cause to pay big firm fees. Often people engage big law for the same reason they hire big-name consultants. So executives can tell the board: “We lost the case, but we did everything we could—after all we hired [insert firm name here]”. Maybe there’s a third reason if you think their management didn’t adequately consider reason (1).
This is a wonderful analysis. Thank you for taking the time to put it out there. A friend in Tanzania asked me yesterday if the U.S. is back to selling slaves. Unfortunately, I couldn't have said it better 😬
I would love for someone to explain how threatening the existence of a law firm if they don’t offer free services to them is not a shakedown.
This shameful cowardice is concrete proof that big law only gives a shit about money, morals and the actual law be damned.
"Defenestration" is such a good, perfect word.
"To remove from the premises by way of the nearest window."
“And what happens when the firms take on pro bono clients the administration doesn’t like, particularly in law suits against the government?”
Are you kidding? They’re not going to do that.
“At the same time, there is a strong argument that Reuveni’s flaccid defense was inappropriate: If he could not advocate zealously for his client, he shouldn’t have been in the courtroom at all.”
Sorry but that’s nonsense. Of course he should be in the court, and he acted exactly right. He put the best case he could, and acknowledged he could go no further. I say this as a 40 year trial attorney.
Hi Liz, as a non-lawyer who finds your and Andrew's work fascinating, I have to ask about this line:
"At the same time, there is a strong argument that Reuveni’s flaccid defense was inappropriate: If he could not advocate zealously for his client, he shouldn’t have been in the courtroom at all."
On the podcast you guys go into this more, but one line of reasoning sticks out to me. You say that he has a duty of candor to the court - AKA "tell the truth" in my layman's opinion. The counter-argument I heard there and in this quote above is that he should have bowed out and/or resigned before this point.
As a non-lawyer, I am confused by the latter argument. As the "man on the inside", he knows better than anyone that they are asking him to lie, stall for time, act in bad faith, etc. In my view, recusing himself, resigning, not answering the questions, etc is just lying by omission. Is it not?
In an argument, if I know the truth and that truth is bad, and I also know that whoever they get to replace me is just going to tell that lie instead - I would view myself as a liar if I walk away too. I could have stopped it, but didn't. You can see this in the Eric Adams case. All resigning did was ensure that their name wouldn't be on the paper - the lie was still told.
Framed this way, I see the only options he had were: lie, lie indirectly by resigning/recusing/etc, or tell the truth. That duty of candor should trump all and it seems for this man that it did.
I get the practicalities of why that might not be acceptable and why recusal might be a better option, but I like to think in normal scenarios that we aren't accidentally sending someone to a hellhole to be tortured and/or killed.
Am I wrong for thinking this? Is this a controversial view?
The truth sometimes must be told.