Lawyers of any ilk lean, almost exclusively, to the Left. The reason is simple: the Left is addicted to litigating what they can't achieve through the democratice process, and lawyers like people who are keen on litigation.

It's simple, like 2+2

Maybe it's because education itself is a liberalizing influence. That's way republicans want to cut education funding. Their base is full of uneducated people.

Democratice sounds like some decadent sugary coating. Possibly a dessert demi-glace. And as I recall, it was the 'Right' who litigated rather than counting votes in 2000. Some day we'll have to face it: neither side has any real moral high ground.

Check the exit poll data. Bush voters on average had 1 more year of schooling than Kerry voters.

Check the exit poll data. Bush voters on average had 1 more year of schooling than Kerry voters.

When I interviewed at K+E (NY) two years ago, we actually talked about this at lunch. The NY associates said that the DC and Chicago offices are very conservative, while NYC and LA offices are much more liberal.

11:13: precious lot of good it did them, too.

11:12 says: "Maybe it's because education itself is a liberalizing influence. That's way republicans want to cut education funding. Their base is full of uneducated people."

It's quite the other way around. Liberals have had almost exclusive control of education for at least 30 years. In that same time, graduates of our public schools have become less and less literate.

Sorry 11:12, nice fantasy. You really need to join the Reality-Based community on the Right.

Re: education. Off a litte. In 2000 and 2002, Rs won more educated voters. In 2004, the years of schooling were almost equal (Ds win dropouts and post grads, Rs win some college and college grads)

Here's some data: http://www.amconmag.com/2004_12_06/feature.html

"Check the exit poll data. Bush voters on average had 1 more year of schooling than Kerry voters."

Okay, don't mind if I do:

post-graduate study - 55% Kerry
finished college - 49%/49%
college dropouts - 54% Bush

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Jenner has a reputation as being lefty. True? Does it play out at all in the firm's culture? how?

Obama does not accept money from registered lobbyists. His numbers at law firms would be even better if he would accept cash-money from this group of people.

some college =/= college dropout btw

a number of those might still be in college

Does anybody have knowledge/opinions about the politics of Houston's big 3: BB, VE, FJ? Thanks.

11:24 - fair enough. But are college kids really known for being republican?

11:17: Your conclusion doesn't follow. "Democrats control public schools" does not equal "education has no liberalizing influence."

If anything, you support the other side's argument, since under this deteriorating public school system the country has slowly grown more conservative.

The "Republicans are illiterate"/"No, Democrats are illiterate and can't spell 'why'" argument isn't going anywhere, I'd wager. But getting back to the issue at hand: GD&C has the conservative rep., but as 11:15 indicated with Kirkland, the political persuasions vary a lot between offices. DC and Texas are pretty conservative - the appellate practice, with Olsen and Scalia, would see to that - while the California offices, combined, give more money to the Democratic party than just about any other institution in California. The Bay Area offices in particular are really very liberal. I guess a Californian is a Californian is a Californian.

Depends on where you are. My campus was about 90% Republican. I don't think you can make such a generalization about a group of millions.

DLA Piper > Kirkland

Both parties are composed of corrupt retards.

It has never ceased to amaze me:

(1) why either party would favor the gov't to be hands off in one area of our lives (financial or social) while overly hands on in the other, and

(2) why millions upon millions of mindless drones drink their cool-aid without question, turning themselves into either knee-jerk republicans or democrats.

Our political system desperately needs third parties.

DLA Piper has given more to Kerry and H. Clinton than any other law firm.

Lat's suggestion that you can "look into the former government service of its lawyers" isn't particularly apt.

First, attorneys care more about money than politics.

Second, attorneys in D.C. that select a firm based on the predominance of Democrats or Republicans aren't particularly savvy. A change in Administration or control of Congress can mean a loss in business. Most firms in D.C. (or at least the smart ones) hedge their bets by hiring attorneys with both D and R backgrounds.

11:17 - Are you suggesting that Bush did not litigate in the case of Bush v. Gore?

I do think the educated classes are, in generally, more socially liberal, but it often becomes a question of whether a voter puts his or her social values above his or her desire to be taxed less

Some firms and their leanings:

Paul Weiss = liberal

Wachtell = liberal (but with a few exceptions, like George Conway, who worked on the Paula Jones case)

Wiley Rein = conservative

Williams & Connolly = liberal (lots of former Clintonistas -- but w/some exceptions)

Ron Paul to 5%!

In D.C., much more so than even GDC, Wiley Rein is EXTREMELY Republican. While there are "some liberals" who work there and are tolerated just fine, the partnership is VERY Republican. For instance, just look to the fact that the firm used to be Wiley Rein & Fielding....until the administration needed the conservative powers of Fred Fielding and lured him away. Beyond Wiley and GDC, however, liberal politics seem to dominate most firms.

As a fairly liberal guy, I was really nervous about even interviewing with K&E. But in reality, I've been blown away by both the diverse political mindsets at this office as well as the generally liberal politics of the associates I've met. Obviously we're not talking Maoism here, but the majority of junior and senior attorneys I've met are moderate to slightly left-leaning. In addition, there has been a huge growth in pro bono at K&E in the last few years...even cases unrelated to the desirability of bong hits 4 jesus.

I turned down offers at several of the traditional left-leaning firms in town, and suffice to say I haven't regretted it yet.

11:17: On second thought, perhaps you meant that it's the Democrats who are out to sabotage education. I think incompetence is a better explanation for that.

Meanwhile, conservatives take active measures to stilt educational progress by drumming out science in the curriculum in favor of canards like "intelligent design" and "abstinence-only," while objecting to any depiction of history that doesn't fit the cheerleader model.

Besides, the public schools (K-12) aren't really the point. Most people get that far. I think this argument has more to do with what effect is created by higher education. That's my take, anyway. In that case, if you want to argue that higher education has a conservative influence, you'll have to disavow the eternal conservative gripe that university profs are "brainwashing" students to be liberal, etc.

The vast majority of rank and file associates, even at Kirkland DC, are left-leaning. The appellate group and a few other former clerks are certainly right-leaning, but they don't come close to approaching a majority.

How do the Law Offices of Billy Merck lean?

How about Saiontz & Kirk? I hear they're nihilists. That's what I heard, so it's must be true. Also, they're illiterate.

With rare exception -- such as one-office firm Wiley Rein -- BIGLAW firms lean Democrat and liberal. Even ostensibly "conservative" offices of national firms, such as Gibson or Kirkland, are perceived as such only becuase of a few prominent partners who work there. But scratch the surface and those offices are predominantly Democratic too.

With rare exception -- such as one-office firm Wiley Rein -- BIGLAW firms lean Democrat and liberal. Even ostensibly "conservative" offices of national firms, such as Gibson or Kirkland, are perceived as such only becuase of a few prominent partners who work there. But scratch the surface and those offices are predominantly Democratic too.

check out www.tray.com for all the info on law firms and political contributions. Look in the lefthand column under "Donors" for employer/occupation lookup and type in the law firm you wish to search. Results will list the attorneys who have contributed.

Students should be wary of anyone who paints a law firm with a red or blue brush. The only color that matters is green.

As a conservative, I summered at both a perceived "liberal" firm and a "conservative" one in D.C. Both were predominantly Democrat/liberal (look at how NoVa, D.C., and MD vote), but there were very few differences between them. Both were -- for the most part -- full of reasonable, intelligent people who were focused on representing their clients, whoever they might be, to the best of their abilities.

There are much more important factors to consider when choosing a firm because politics will have virtually no role in your day to day life.

Instead of drawing the conclusion that firms must be liberal because they donate to Democrats like Hillary Clinton, maybe you should draw the conclusion that Democrats like Hillary Clinton are not that liberal if gigantic corporate law firms are willing to support her.

How many K&E partners donated to Dennis Kucinich?

"Who's the f**ken nihlists around here?! You bunch of f**ken crybabies! "

To 12:02: Isn't the only reason someone might take politics into consideration when choosing firms in order to make connections for post-firm jobs? It doesn't seem crazy to choose a firm based on politics (especially in D.C.) if you want to take advantage of the revolving door after 3-5 years of being an associate... right?

Jones Day Chicago is conservative.

Instead of drawing the conclusion that firms must be liberal because they donate to Democrats like Hillary Clinton, maybe you should draw the conclusion that Democrats like Hillary Clinton are not that liberal if gigantic corporate law firms are willing to support her.

How many K&E partners donated to Dennis Kucinich?

I hear Cravath is all about the Green Party.

Jones Day everywhere is conservative. Who but a conservative christian into self-flagellation would choose to wear a suit everyday for the privilege of receiving no bonus?

Guess which Arkansas law firm is NOT supporting Hillary?

11:51

I think it's a pretty safe bet that Saiontz & Kirk (actually, they're Saiontz, Kirk & Miles) lean to the left, being that they're trial lawyers and all. And they're busy trial lawyers!

http://www.youhavealawyer.com/

Lawsuits for Dangerous Drugs and Medical Products

INVESTIGATING SIDE EFFECT CLAIMS FOR THE FOLLOWING PRODUCTS
2 ACTIQ LOLLIPOPS: fentanyl narcotic lollipop "off-label" uses could lead to overdose, addiction or death
2 AMBIEN: sleeping pill could cause serious injuries from sleep driving and other activities while asleep
2 AVANDIA: diabetes drug has been linked to risk of heart attacks, heart failure and death
2 BAXTER INFUSION PUMPS: recalled infusion pumps could malfunction causing injury or death
2 COMPLETE MOISTURE-PLUS: recalled contact lens soluction caused Acanthamoeba keratitis eye infection
2 DRUG ELUTING STENTS: medicated heart stents increase the risk of blood clots and heart attacks
2 FOSAMAX: osteoporosis medication causes jaw decay (osteonecrosis of the jaw) which may lead to surgery to remove dead jaw bone
2 KETEK ANTIBIOTIC: liver failure or death may result as a side effect of the antibiotic
2 KUGAL HERNIA REPAIR MESH: recalled because defects may cause bowel problems or intestinal injury
2 MRI/MRA GADOLINIUM CONTRAST : for those with kidney problems, the contrast could cause Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis
2 ORTHO-EVRA BIRTH CONTROL PATCH : side effect may lead to blood clots, heart attack, stroke or pulmonary embolism
2 OXYCONTIN: addiction, overdose and death as a result of the pain killer drug
2 PERMAX / DOSTINEX : side effects increase risk of heart valve damage
2 PLAVIX: blood thinner increases risk of heart attack, stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding and death
1 TRASYLOL: injection given before heart surgery which may cause kidney failure, heart attack or stroke
5 VIAGRA: side effect causes vision problems and possible blindness
5 ZELNORM : side effects increase risk of heart attacks, strokes and death
4 ZYPREXA / RISPERDAL / SEROQUEL: atypical antipsychotic drugs linked to diabetes and other side effects

I think it is somewhat short sighted to say that an entire BigLaw firm is righty or lefty. I think it varies from office to office, group to group, and individual to individual. In my firm, the T&E department is dominated by liberals. The RE department has some of the most conservative people I know, and very few lefties. The litigators seem more liberal, while the corporate group tends to be more republican.

If there are partners at the firm who are connected into your ideology of choice and you can catch their coattails, you can get where you want to go.

It's been my experience that most firms are 1) socially liberal and 2) economically conservative.

This has a lot to do with advanced education and very high paychecks.

That said, there are always those that are outliers that make more noise relative to their actual influence in the firm.

Also, I think that there has been a significant movement even among staunch conservatives at firms away from the republican party (though not necessarily to the dems). I never thought I'd say it, but perhaps some conservatives/lawyers are actually intellectually honest? Weird.

Maybe they just donate to whoever they think is going to win.

A LOT of the K&E donors to Republicans (over 80% of Republican dollars to Romney) also donated to Clinton or Obama. Obama has raised almost as much from K&E as the three leading Republicans combined (within about $2k). There have been NO K&E donations to Edwards.

K&E has a long standing business relationship with Mitt Romney--K&E does a lot of Bain Capital work--and so donations to Romney are completely unsurprising. K&E also has had a PAC which historically would make equal donation to each party in national election cycles--not sure how state candidate donations were/are handled.

And the K&E associates are not making donations (at least at this stage)--thus the Scalia/Thomas clerk thing is not as big a deal as one might think. And most of the loyal Republicans have (temporarily) decamped for jobs inside the Administration and therefore don't count.

K&E is Obama's biggest campaign donor, FYI.

Why does anyone care if democrats or republicans have, on average, more education?

Are you going to vote for a candidate because college professors like him? Or because they don't? What is this, high school ASB, where you vote for the kid that all the popular kids are voting for? Basically, anyone with a dog in that fight has, by that very act, proven they're an idiot. they have proven nothing, however, about which candidate is the one I should vote for.

Personally, I tend to vote for the candidate who is most likely to run the executive branch the way I'd most prefer.

Scooter Libby was Mark Rich's lawyer. Nuff said.

A few people have hit the nail on the head. To summarize:

(1) Big firms (and most people) donate to who they think is going to win. It's all about gaining influence with the potential president. Very little of it actually has to do with support of that candidate's specific policy stances.

(2) There actually are law students out there who think that a law firm that is a big donor to the Democratic party must be a warm, fuzzy and "progressive" place to work. They're in for a rude awakening.

(3) With the exception of certain practices in DC, a large firm's political leanings rarely have any impact on life at the firm.

(4) For anyone that argues that either party has some moral high ground, or that either party is generally "smarter" than the other -- you and your party deserve each other.

re: education and parties

Because there is an incorrect stereotype in much of the northeast (including DC) that Ds are somehow "smarter" than Rs. This narrative gets play in the media in various forms. For example, Bush had better grades than Kerry at Yale but Bush was made out as the dunce and Kerry as some intelligent savior.

Narratives are powerful. And when they are incorrect, they should be challenged and discarded.

1:27-
And Scooter Libby's lawyers were Democrats. Full circle it comes.

If D's are smarter than R's, why is it always the D's complaining about voters who can't read a ballot or following voting instructions?

This is a stupid post. The legal field is currently very liberal. Almost every firm is politically pretty far too the left. This is especially true in cities such as NYC, where I don't know of a single firm that is known to be a conservative hot-bed.

Moreover, even in Washington D.C. where certain firms are considered more conservative, the majority of associates are still liberal with the possible exception of Wiley Rein.

BTW, conservative lawyers are considerably more tolerant of liberal lawyers than liberal lawyers are of conservatives. Conservative lawyers who graduate from top-ten schools are used to being in the minority and therefore tend to be more tolerant of divergent viewpoints.

All you head-in-the-sand nihilists who think neither party is any better than the other -- you and your corrupt, ignorant country deserve each other.

I'm a DC biglaw associate (and former law clerk), and my only comment is that most of comments to this post are either inane or wildly inaccurate. Only "Let the Eagle Soar" gets it right. Read his/her comment again, as everything it states is dead on.

Only in the U.S. -- where "left" and "liberal" have come to mean "less right" or "less conservative" -- could there be a seeming consensus that "most firms" or "most lawyers" are left-leaning or liberal.

You wanna know which firms are leftist? Look at the pay structure at that firm. The party leanings of the people who work there are NOT tantamount to the ideology of the firm itself, as an institution.

Any firm that has an entrenched economic hierarchy, and that exploits its working class (low-level associates and staff) for the benefit of its elite, is institutionally right-leaning and conservative.

To the extent that the firm relies on "meritocracy," and widens the gap between the elite and the working class, it moves rightward. To the extent that it narrows this gap and attempts to treat everyone equally, it moves leftward.

From this, I think it's fairly safe to conclude that most firms -- while perhaps to the left of most of corporate America -- are still firmly to the right of any institution truly worthy of the labels "leftist" or "liberal."

I'll add a few more points:

If you're really interested in a left-leaning firm, look for a firm that spreads the wealth. The recent pay hikes are nice -- but not "left-leaning" if they come packed with higher billable-hour expectations (i.e., increased exploitation of workers). Look at the bonus structure. Look at PPP. The more "flat" the pay structure, the more leftward the firm.

Also, look at the firm's diversity -- particularly in its partners. The more homogeneous, the more conservative/rightward it is.

Finally, look at its client list. A truly leftist firm would not represent big insurance, big pharm, and other big corporate interests against the little guy.

Again, taking all these things into consideration, one is hardpressed to argue that any big firm is "leftist" or "liberal" in its orientation. Like I said, the party leanings of the lawyers at the firm don't mean much -- simply because neither major party in the U.S. can be fairly called "leftist" or "liberal."

With the exception of perhaps a few social issues, the whole country has moved significantly rightward over the past 60 years (post-WWII).

11:32 said: "

Both parties are composed of corrupt retards.

It has never ceased to amaze me:

(1) why either party would favor the gov't to be hands off in one area of our lives (financial or social) while overly hands on in the other, and

(2) why millions upon millions of mindless drones drink their cool-aid without question, turning themselves into either knee-jerk republicans or democrats.

Our political system desperately needs third parties."

=======================================================================

My sentiments exactly. You all should check out Unity08, it's exactly what people who feel like 11:32 are looking for!

www.unity08.com

I had an interview with Covington, and some kentucky-fried partner with a major sideline at the RNC asked me about my thesis on campaign finance reform. the interview went downhill from there...he thought the whole issue was "horsefeathers".

But Arnold & Porter, across the street, is super-liberal...especially the old partners who live in Maryland. Can't vouch for the newbies livin' la vida VA.

"conservative lawyers are considerably more tolerant of liberal lawyers than liberal lawyers are of conservatives. Conservative lawyers who graduate from top-ten schools are used to being in the minority and therefore tend to be more tolerant of divergent viewpoints."

Oh give me a fucking break. Conservative lawyers MIGHT be relatively more tolerant of white, heterosexual, male liberals. Having been on the receiving end of some pretty horrific sexism at my firm (which, from my female classmates' stories, sadly does not make me an outlier -- and I'm in "liberal" Los Angeles), I can assure you they are NOT tolerant of us liberal women.

As for conservatives being in the poor widdle minority in law school, give me another break. Upwards of 50% of kids at most of the top ten law schools are trust fund kids -- they might wear their grungy clothes and play rebel for a few years, but when it comes down to it: 1) Mommy and Daddy raised a good little conservative and 2) that good little conservative is being extra-good by going to law school like Mommy and Daddy told him or her to. Just because they play nice with the liberal kids doesn't mean they're going to turn Marxist on you. If they didn't care about protecting their own interests, they Would Not Be In Law School. Joining ACS will make them feel good about themselves when they spend the summer drinking expensive scotch at Uncle Milton's lakeside mansion. But don't for a second think that, when push comes to shove, they'll be on the side of the oppressed minorities. Sorry to break it to you, but having gay friends and listening to rap music does not make you liberal.

As a moderate who's progressively gotten further and further left (though, as Marx noted, "left" is a pretty ridiculous term to apply to ANY aspect of American life or politics), I found the handful of liberal kids in law school to be MUCH nicer and more "tolerant" than the overwhelming majority of right-leaning kids. Then again, I don't have a penis, which I'm sure had some effect on how people treated me.

As 7:02 aptly notes, the "liberals" in law school -- or as undergrads, or as associates -- are often merely Democratic party loyalists. This is NOT equivalent to "liberal" or "leftist." The Democrats are just as guilty of wanting to conserve power for the elite few, as opposed to dispersing it equally to the many -- and that makes them (at least in that regard) just as conservative as the Republicans.

Being pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, anti-Iraq war, or anti-death penalty does not qualify you as a leftist.

Rightward conservatives love to attack the "liberal elite" -- by this they are referring precisely to what 7:02 refers to: wealthy, privileged white people who look down their noses at "ignorant"/"uneducated" Republicans, and give lip service to Democratic party stances on the hot-button issues du jour -- but who would really rather not get fully behind universal health care, free public education through college, and an aggressively progressive income tax, and whose "tolerance" for women and minorities is often little more than patronization.

If the "liberals" everyone is referring to on this thread were really such a strong majority throughout higher education, now and for the last 40 years (as the conservatives claim), don't you think we would have universal health care, free public education through college, and an aggressively progressive income tax by now?

We don't, because those we call "liberals" really aren't.

And by the way, a self-proclaimed "liberal" who is intolerant of another's views is little more than a dishonest conservative. A true liberal is capable of entertaining -- even seriously considering -- another's views, no matter how foreign. It's the conservative impulse that reacts antagonistically to new or different ideas.

And "liberal elite" is an oxymoron. (In liberalism there are no "elite" -- the principal goal is egalitarianism.) The only reason conservatives get away with the moniker is that stupid people proclaiming themselves to be "liberal" while maintaining their elitist attitudes make for an easy target. (And degrade the "liberal" label in the process.)

Here's another vote for Let The Eagles Soar's summary.

At any big firm, many of the partners will give money to presidential candidates of both parties. They will also give money to the chairmen of congressional committees relevant to their practice. This is business.

Big firms in NYC generally range from moderately liberal to way liberal. This will have very little effect on your day-to-day interactions with people. There will be the usual number of people who haven't heard the sage advice about religion and politics and start yapping about rethugs/demorats at any opportunity. Like anywhere else, these people, regardless of political affiliation, will be viewed as "obnoxious" or "assholes" by most other people, regardless of political affiliation. If you are the one who always starts these conversations, then yes, you are the problem, not everyone else.

"The Washington outpost of Kirkland, which is stocked with tons of former Scalia and Thomas clerks, is probably not funneling massive cash to La Hillary."

Note to Lat: Sometimes the best way to support a Republican is to fund a Democrat that you feel is destined to lose.

I find the focus on campaign contributions kind of odd. I really have no idea how anyone at my firm donates. But we do have a political law group that, as far as I can tell, represents almost exclusively party organizations, candidates, and causes of only one party. And at least on the local matters I've been on, the same firms seem to always be on the other side. If you're recruiting and you care about what causes your firm is involved in, those are easy questions to ask that I would think would be a little less sensitive than who's giving cash to whom.

My firm is Barack and Michelle Obama's former firm and according to opensecrets.org, I think the only person who did not give Obama money here is the security guard downstairs.

It is not surprising that someone with the handle of Marx posted that pantload of Marxist shite.

People are conflating supporting of the status quo and treating your associates like crap with being conservative politically. Have you people learned nothing from the whole Aaron Charney episode. Both partners in the alleged scandal donated to "liberal" causes.

The overwhelming majority of people at top law schools, top law firms, etc. are Democrats. This is true of firms in any city but especially true in places such NYC, San Fran., and Beantown.

As to a previous poster's idotic comments equating trustfund babies with supporting Republican policies that is just blatantly false. Most ultrawealthy people are Democrats. Silicon Valley gives the majority of its money to Democrats. People such as Warren Buffet and George Soros are partisan Democrats etc. Do you think those Park Avenue and Beverly Hills fundraisers for Democrats are populated by blue-collar workers?

As for politics in the office place, I have heard a number of people discuss politics in their interactions in the workplace in an obnoxious way and they have all been Democrats. Republicans, who are used to being discriminated against in law school tend to keep their opinions to themselves.

If you disagree and you work at top-100 law firm in NYC, just name one lawyer who makes nasty comments about liberals on a daily basis. Chances are you can't come up with anybody.

Anonymous | July 31, 2007 11:12 AM: "And as I recall, it was the 'Right' who litigated rather than counting votes in 2000."

It has been demonstrated again and again that the halt of the recount wasn't really the problem and Gore may have still lost even if it had continued. The New York Times hosts several news pieces on this very fact, do a search (i.e. "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote" by Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder). The Supreme Court was right to stop any undue altering of the outcome by allowing individual counties to arbitrarily decide what their own card disqualification standards would be as they raced to meet the Florida State mandated deadlines. It's not nearly as partisan as you're trying to make it out to be.