Posted on 01/17/2025 6:19:04 PM PST by george76
As lawyers, we often take a series of steps to protect the interests of our clients when it becomes necessary to sever or end representation. The dropping of a client can have a damaging impact on the reputation or standing of a client. That is why it was surprising to see Mark Lemley, a Stanford law professor publicly denounce Mark Zuckerberg as part of social media tirade. It is a deeply concerning lesson for students at a law school already rocked by prior controversies over intolerance for opposing viewpoints.
When we take on a client, we are closely identified with their interests and their case. That creates a deep professional obligation not to use that relationship for our own benefit against the interests of our client. Thus, a lawyer cannot sever an unpopular criminal defendant by denouncing him as morally reprehensible.
We continue to shoulder that obligation even after we end our representations. (I have had to sever clients in the past and avoided any public statement on the reasons or critical comments tied to the cases).
Professor Lemley did not represent Zuckerberg in a criminal matter. However, he was counsel in the high-profile representation of Meta in 2023 after comedian Sarah Silverman and other authors sued the company for alleged copyright violations.
After Zuckerberg recently pledged to restore free speech protections on Meta, many on the left went positively berserk.
This week, Lemley, a partner at the law firm Lex Lumina, decided that he was not content with simply severing the representation without fanfare or embarrassment to his clients. Instead, he decided to publish a tirade on LinkedIn to denounce Zuckerberg’s “descent into toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness.”
He declared “While I think they are on the right side in the generative AI copyright dispute in which I represented them, and I hope they win, I cannot in good conscience serve as their lawyer any longer.” He further declared that he deactivated his Threads account because he did not want to “support a Twitter-like site run by a Musk wannabe.”
Rather than expressing concern over the trashing of a former client, Rhett Millsaps, managing partner of Lex Lumina, stated, “Money can’t buy everyone. We’re proud to be a firm that doesn’t sell out our values. Sadly, it seems this is becoming a rarer and rarer quality in America today.”
The incident raises a question that can be uncertain and difficult for many lawyers. I do not believe that Professor Lemley should be forced into a life of monastic silence over Meta policies unrelated to his litigation. Zuckerberg is a public figure and Lemley often engages in public commentary.
What concerns me is the nexus drawn by both Lemley and Lex Lumina to their representation of Zuckerberg to magnify their message of opposition. They could have simply severed representations without comment while Lemley could have continued his commentary in opposition to the new free speech policies. Frankly, while Professor Lemley is a respected and accomplished academic, it is doubtful that such criticism would have generated significant media attention. It was the connection to severing representation that amplified the message and caused the criticism to go viral.
Instead, the media is aflame with stories of how even Zuckerberg’s own lawyer and law firm cannot abide him. That was the obvious result of the public statements made by Lemley and the firm in demonizing their former client and citing their severance as morally compelled by his policies.
This can clearly be a gray area for many lawyers. The rules expressly prevent a lawyer from representing a client in an adverse case against a prior client or using information derived from the prior case. That is not the case here. Indeed, Professor Lemley appears to stand by the merits of the earlier case. The question is whether lawyers should use their prior representation as a type of cudgel in a public denunciation of a former client, using their prior representation to elevate their own voices.
None of this sits well with me, but I may be “old school” on such professional conduct issues. I would feel the same way if a lawyer attacked an anti-free speech figure like Hillary Clinton by emphasizing their prior representation. Once again, I am not suggesting that representation bars lawyers from criticizing former, high-profile clients. Professor Lemley has free speech rights and strong opinions in this area. However, the use of the severance or termination of representation as part of that criticism is deeply problematic in my view.
Hey Mark, welcome to the party pal.
Mr. Turley I generally like your writings but just give it up. Law schools specifically and universities in general are lost, they are not bastions of thought any more, they are cesspools and indoctrination centers.
They all need burned to the ground, not respected.
I wonder if Zuck is surprised at how fast he became a Nazi.
This is how people get redpilled.
A long time ago in a U.S. far, far away, I actually respected law professors.
However, the profession that I chose pits my ideas against nature’s laws, which cannot be m*sturbated upon as can our mere human-based “laws”, which appear to change as a function of which “law skool” is dominating at the moment.
Thankfully,-the few lawyers that I know are good folks. None are from the ivy-league (small letters intended).
How is it Neo-Nazi?
I’m no big fan of Zuck, but he should sue this POS for defamation. There is NOTHING to suggest he is a “neo-Nazi”! Sue this POS into the poorhouse.
Funny how the people who act most like Fascists, always claim they are “Anti Fascist”
<< After Zuckerberg recently pledged to restore free speech protections on Meta, many on the left went positively berserk. >>
Right, because nothing says fascist like being against government coercion and censorship.
This may happen. It’s clearly false and the lawyer knows it is false. My gosh, Zuckerberg is a Jew.
“I’m no big fan of Zuck, but he should sue this POS for defamation. There is NOTHING to suggest he is a “neo-Nazi”! Sue this POS into the poorhouse.”
Agree 100%
But they dont even GET that the ship has sailed on that WOKE bull####.
And calling someone a “nazi” now is like calling them a “jerk”...it’s used so much that it has lost its power in the way THEY use it.
I hope it never loses its power in the way it was originally used in Germany.
Jews, even liberal ones, should be outraged every time it is used on nonsense...or fallacies.
It was a terrible thing.
And it’s been made into a common word for dems to call others.
“Rather than expressing concern over the trashing of a former client, Rhett Millsaps, managing partner of Lex Lumina, stated, “Money can’t buy everyone. We’re proud to be a firm that doesn’t sell out our values.”
B.S. They don’t mind selling out what Constitutional values they may have to Leftist political agendas that trample on Constitutional values like freedom of speech.
Lex Lumina sounds like a pathetic excuse for a firm.
The line to become Zuck’s new lawyer forms to the left.
He learned from Musk.
And what if...
Maybe Zuckerberg is just pretending to restore free speech.
How will we ever be able to see if a conservative FaceBook user is shadow-banned or not?
“Shadow banning, is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or the user’s content from some areas of an online community in such a way that the ban is not readily apparent to the user.”
Maybe this is a magnificent Democrat tactic. Making Zuckerberg look suddenly ultra-conservative but continuing to operate against conservatives from the shadows, as FaceBook has always done.
I never trust people who decide to be RED in the morning and BLUE in the afternoon - depending on how the wind is blowing.
People simply dont change like that, so massively and so quickly. Zuckerberg’s sudden immense change of heart isn’t typical of human behavior. Unless he is a victim of a severe blackmail, or other out of the norm pressures.
So, what zuck’s former lawyer, and the lawyer’s law firm are saying it that they are weakling men who are wedded to woke as weak sisters, So, let’s work to make them go broke.
A wise man once said “Trust But Verify.”
That said.
Zuckerberg is some kind of rat jumping ship.
Who in their right mind would trust him?
ping
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.