“Major law firms today may as well be investment banks.”
Adolfo Garcia
Some of us made a category error.
We thought lawyers were one kind of thing, when they were really another kind of thing.
I had this idea that lawyers were part of a learned and honorable profession dedicated to delivering justice. The profession is a guild, with membership in the Bar that gives them the privilege to speak in court and to represent clients. They protect the rule of law by preserving the integrity and independence of their profession. They put their clients' interests -- and the interests of the legal profession and justice itself -- above their own. I experience this ethic among lawyers I encounter in my daily life in Medford, Oregon. I learned it was more complicated than that, and wrote about it last year.
But some lawyers and law firms have a national presence and reputation: Big Law, those giant law firms with familiar names. I see the names on court documents in nationally famous cases. They are known for hiring top graduates from top law schools. Those new hires receive stupendous first-year salaries. Being a partner at Big Law was a general-purpose qualifier for jobs of public trust. As someone capable of handling the largest, most complex business deals, a partner in such a firm would be suitable to do the most complex and demanding jobs in public service. I had some sense that those attorneys would represent the highest standards of professionalism.
College classmate Adolfo Garcia told me I had it wrong.
Adolfo is in a position to know. He spent his whole fifty-one-year career as a lawyer in Big Law with six firms that are all ranked in the AmLaw 200. He reminds me that his views are strictly and totally his personal views and are in no way connected to any firm or professional organization.
I have watched the complete transformation of law over my fifty one years of practice. After graduation from Georgetown Law School I started practice in New York City and have been at "Big Law" practice from then to today, where I am still in practice as a partner in one of them. These are strictly and exclusively my personal views.My first job was with one of those leading so-called “Wall Street” firms that were focused on representing the major corporate enterprises and business interests, and probably were as focused as anyone in the profitability and thus partner and lawyer compensation. That mindset in the profession then was relatively small, in relation to the profession as a whole, and that money/profitability focus tended to be mostly among law firms in New York City, especially Wall Street and Midtown. It also showed up in the major politically-connected, politically-active firms in Washington, D.C., and top-end firms in the major cities.That is no longer the case today. Big Law, as it is called now, has become a much, much larger part of the overall legal business, extending far beyond New York and Washington, D.C. It now extends to every major city and even some secondary cities for the top components of the law business. The Big Law expectation was very intense, with very large hours and driven commitment effort of lawyers, including partners. But the expectations were low compared to today's.
New York firms did not change and become more like the rest of the country. Instead, the rest of the country, certainly at high-end law practices, has become New York. The New York expectations of billable hours -- often well in excess of 2,000 billable hours a year, with many exceeding 2,500 hours -- has become the standard in Big Law. Big Law is no longer a profession. It is exclusively a business. All of the principles, norm, and strategies that drive Big Law are the same as the ones that drive big, successful, profitable businesses. Whatever there may have been of a profession in Big Law at one point, has disappeared. Major law firms today may as well be investment banks. This has created a climate of totally focused, bottom-line businesses driven by nothing but the bottom line, the profitability of the firms, and thus the resulting significant compensation of its partners.
In my view, this total transformation from a profession to a business helps explain the reaction that you have seen by Big Law to the actions the Trump administration took against firms that had represented the interests of Trump opponents, and their capitulation to Trump's demands. If you understand Big Law today, you understand what they did. They weren't protecting a profession. They were protecting a business.
[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]
11 comments:
You might as well debate whether humans are essentially ‘good’ or ‘evil.’ Once ethics, principles, and standards start rolling downhill, there is no stopping.
This blog doesn't apply to local attorneys in the Rogue Valley. Most are struggling just to survive. They do the dirty work in the legal profession, and nothing glamorous.
First: The typical client of a Big Law firm (e.g., Pacificorp) doesn't want lawyers who get into disputes with the federal government unless it's the client's dispute, so it would make no sense for such a client to go to a lawyer who gets into a dispute with the Trump administration for the so-called principle of the thing. Big Law reflects its clientele.
Second: Many local lawyers reflect their clientele's support of Trump. For some lawyers, it's because Trump is supposed to be good for business (don't overthink this). For others, it's because of religion (don't overthink this either).
Third: Do you really think that being a card-carrying member of the ACLU or whatever makes you right? Many people would beg to differ, if that's what you think. In any event, most lawyers don't have what it really takes to fight City Hall, much less the President, unless they're getting paid to do it; that's always been so.
Fourth: There might be a payoff for Harvard to resist or defy the Trump administration. There is no obvious payoff for most lawyers to be seen as professional gadflies or status quo disruptors; the people at the country club aren't, by and large, big liberals. What's that saying along the lines that being a liberal when you're 22 makes sense but when you're 40 you're wise to the ways of the world and therefore a conservative?
This comment comes from one who was in the same college class as the author, went to a different law school, and then began a career in a not-major city in a 17-person law firm. Because of the "luck of the draw" or "who was willing and available to take on a matter", I spent at least half of my time thereafter across the table from or in a courtroom with opposing counsel who were Big Law.
There is nothing in my experience over the past 50 years that causes me to have any disagreement with what Adolfo has written; not even a nuance change.
Commenting on what the Anonymous just above me has written, there are thousands (guessing here) of attorneys who fit your description of "doing the dirty work in the legal profession." My change would be in the wording. For me, doing it right, doing it well, and doing it in a cost-effective way for the benefit of the client and within the system of the law is usually not glamorous but it is what being a professional is supposed to be. These people are heroes, usually unsung.
As to the first point, a lawyer’s first duty is to represent the client, but there is now a potential conflict of interest if the lawyer has to worry that a full-fledged defense will bring down the wrath of the federal government. I wouldn’t want to go to a firm that has shown it won’t do what I’m paying it to do but will back down at the first sign of pressure. Also, there may be conflicts in the so-called pro bono work the law firms have agreed to do. Aren’t there definitions of pro bono work? Will the law firms abide by these definitions or will they back down again? If they do provide unpaid work that isn’t clearly pro bono (as currently defined) at the Trump administration’s direction is that a bribe? Lots of issues in these very muddy waters.
‘If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.’
Falsely attributed to Winston Churchill. He had been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! Was he smart or resilient? Is there any true altruism?
In January, Harvard retained Ballard Partners. Susie Wiles used to work for Ballard Partners. In other words, Harvard chose the outfit with the inside connection, not the outsiders whose agenda is to "speak truth to power" or whatever. Harvard wants winners, not losers.
Sussman Godfrey is a major law firm that was on Trump’s shit list for its representation in several 2020 election-related lawsuits, but rather than capitulate they sued him. The federal judge overseeing the case blocked Trump’s executive order against them, saying: “The executive order is based on a personal vendetta against a particular firm, and frankly, I think the framers of our Constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power.”
Other law firms should follow their example, just as other universities should follow Harvard’s. As David Brooks said a few days ago, it’s time for a comprehensive national civic uprising. “These are not separate battles. This is a single effort to undo the parts of the civilizational order that might restrain Trump’s acquisition of power. And it will take a concerted response to beat it back…”
Sounds like Big Healthcare. Even well-meaning medical professionals can't escape our sick, ailing "healthcare system." Whatever you think of him, Luigi Mangione decided to fight back.
The love of money is the root of all evil. Deliver us from "Greed is Good." It seems as if Pope Francis tried. But the lust for money and power is irresistible to many.
Laugh or Cry: The supposedly most "Christian" or "Judeo-Christian" administration (except for the non-churchgoing, orange Leader of the Pack) is also the most ruthless and corrupt.
The Easter message Trump tooted (or whatever he calls posting on "Truth" Social) tells us all we need to know about this administration's attitude toward Christ.
Post a Comment