Posted on 05/23/2022 4:59:38 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
Big Law has thus far proven much better than the U.S. Supreme Court at keeping its opinions from leaking. As Law.com's Patrick Smith reports, large law firms have been noticeably mum since a draft SCOTUS opinion reversing Roe v. Wade was made public. The silence may be temporary, however. In interviews, leaders of several Am Law 100 firms, speaking anonymously due to the debate around the issue, told Smith that firm management feels constrained to talk about the decision publicly because it’s still a draft ruling and it’s not the law right now. But they expected some firms will take a public stand once the final decision comes out, even if public messaging is fraught with the risk of alienating employees, clients and others. “The hallmark of a good business leader is to do what is best for your clients, your people and your community,” said one firm leader, adding that that becomes a hard issue when within the client base, office and surrounding community there is dissonance. “It would be hard to put out a statement even if 80% of your firm agrees with you,” the leader said.
(Excerpt) Read more at law.com ...
This sentiment is fraught.
Is the person who said it a totalitatian?
Every type of "diversity" appears to be considered a "strength", with the seemingly sole exception of viewpoint discrimination. These days, on issues of substance and importance, having a different opinion, having a different viewpoint or perspective that from that of the powers that be makes you a "problem" for the people who run large law firms, and for young reporter Zack Needles writing at Law.com who is apparently duly pro-abort probably doesn't even personally know someone who is pro life.
Imagine that: The word for "viewpoint diversity" in NewSpeak is the (fingernails-down-the-blackboard-sounding) term "dissonance".
Makes it sound like something that needs to be eliminated, ended immediately, to save the hearing of decent folk everywhere!
“with the seemingly sole exception of viewpoint discrimination”
meant to say “viewpoint diversity”
Behind a pay wall, sorry...you get the gist though...
Why can’t Big Law opine that drafts of Supreme Court decisions should not be leaked and activists should not threaten, pressure or try to coerce judges, and leave it at that?
The people who run those firms need to maintain their virtue signaling credentials.
B/c they support the demonikraps on the issue of abortion ... the ends justifies the means.
Notice there is no media “public interest” in the leaker. Certain leaks and leakers are protected, others are destroyed.
What I want to hear is liberal big law say: “We disagree with overturning Roe but the court has spoken and our firm supports the Supreme Court because it is Supreme.
“This is now a settled issue and the law of the land. We call on all Americans to support the law of the land.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.