Early Week EQs

A few thoughts to begin the week:

1. Acknowledging a risk of bias? A number of Supreme Court justices withdrew or quit private clubs this year after Congress passed a law prohibiting the acceptance of memberships worth more than $50. I’m thinking about this in the context of ABA Model Rule 3.5(a), which prohibits a lawyer from seeking “to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law”. If you’re curious, Oregon’s Code of Judicial Conduct can be found here.
2. Considering the ethics of law school admissions — do clout heavy officials have too much power to determine which applicants make it through the process?
3. With all the talk around here about social networking websites (Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, etc.), it’s worthwhile to consider firm policies addressing their use. The Lawyerist has an interesting discussion on the topic.
4. Mike wrote an important post about stress and lawyering a few weeks ago; and last week, I posted a bullet on how one secretary was handling the economic downturn. This month, Denise Howell from Bag and Baggage, weighs in with a column over at The American Lawyer on work-life balance in an economic downturn. Among her points — that “flexibility and balance-oriented policies are tools that can help firms survive the conflagration.” (Not to mention the fact that I really like her use of the word conflagration.)

Leave a Comment »

Politics and Positional Conflicts

I always get a little giddy when a new Supreme Court nominee is being chosen. I know. I said it. Giddy. I’m curious who is going to get picked, where he or she is from and why that person — above all the other immensely qualified candidates — is receiving the nod.

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor is no exception. The national discussion is not as loud as it could be considering that Congress and the President share the same party, but there is still some interesting fodder out there.

As an example, I read a piece today on Salon that discussed Manuel Miranda, the former aide to Bill Frist, who is organizing some conservative opposition to the nomination. In fact, the New York Times reports that the conservative group has even signed a letter calling on Senate Republicans to filibuster the nomination. A copy of the letter was obtained by The New York Times.

But what caught my eye is that Miranda is the same person who, according to Salon, spent most of 2005 “insisting that Senate Republicans had to force through rule changes that would make it impossible to filibuster judicial nominees.” Looking at his website, he acknowledges that in 2005, he formed the National Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters.

And — Miranda is a lawyer. Which got me thinking about positional or issue conflicts, which arise when a lawyer’s position in one case could be detrimental to the position taken in another case. The potential harm to clients is real — but what I find interesting, in both Miranda’s situation and positional conflicts in general, is the effect that this has on lawyer credibility.

Seems to me the quesiton that arises is: how much stock can be put in a lawyer who changes his position on substantive issues with the flip of a coin — or more appropriately, with the change in political winds?