Senator Gillibrand Worked on the Big Tobacco Cases While At DPW
Yesterday, the New York Times published a story about New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s ties to “big tobacco.” As an associate at Davis Polk & Wardwell, Gillibrand — who replaced Hillary Clinton as New York’s junior Senator — represented Phillip Morris.
For most people who understand how law is practiced at the top firms in the country, the interesting part of the NYT article pretty much ends there. As an associate, especially a “superstar” associate as Gillibrand appears to have been, you work for the partners and represent the clients they tell you to represent. It’s really not that complicated.
But since Gillibrand is now a Senator and tobacco is “evil,” neither the Times nor Gillibrand could just leave well enough alone. The Times takes the first shot:
But a review of thousands of documents and interviews with dozens of lawyers and industry experts indicate that Ms. Gillibrand was involved in some of the most sensitive matters related to the defense of the tobacco giant as it confronted pivotal legal battles beginning in the mid-1990s.
Gillibrand was at DPW from 1991 to 2000. And she was really good at it. Wouldn’t one expect that a superstar mid-level would be involved in “sensitive matters” relating to a huge firm client? But hey, the Times reports that Gillibrand is a “former smoker.” Ah-ha. She clearly wants to hand out free cigarettes in elementary school.
But Gillibrand does slightly overplay her hand. We’ll get into it after I take a smoke break.
It probably wouldn’t have been politically acceptable for Gillibrand to say: “oh yes! I was all up in Phillip Morris. That case freaking made me. I probably could have made partner at DPW, but then David Boies offered me a bunch of money to jump ship to Boies Schiller. I was quickly able to roll those high powered contacts into a successful Congressional campaign — where I raised a TON of money — and now I’m a freaking Senator. Beat that with a stick.”
Fine, she couldn’t say that. But did she have to go in this direction?
After initially agreeing to be interviewed by The New York Times, the senator canceled through her spokesman, Matt Canter, who said that focusing on Philip Morris would not reflect the range of her work as a lawyer, which also included representing pro bono clients, including abused women and families contending with lead paint in their homes..“Senator Gillibrand was serving as a young associate when she was assigned this case,” Mr. Canter said. “It is a small part of her 15-year legal career.”
I don’t have any inside information. But if I had to pick what was a “small part” of her Biglaw career, I’d bet the scorched earth battle against lead paint was a much smaller part of her practice than the being one of the go-to associates on Phillip Morris. I mean, the Times also reports:
When she moved in 2001 to a new firm, Boies Schiller, where she worked until 2005, one of Ms. Gillibrand’s clients was the Altria Group, Philip Morris’s parent company, where she helped with securities and antitrust matters, according to the firm.
I don’t think that she was hired for her pro bono commitment.
Even DPW gets in on the political act:
Still, in an approach that was not uncommon at law firms that represented tobacco companies, lawyers at Davis Polk were permitted to decline work on the tobacco cases if they had a moral or ethical objection to the work, Mr. Chang said.
Riiiight. “Sir, I have a moral objection to working with this huge firm client on cutting edge, high profile legal work. But I still want to make partner. Why don’t you get back to me when you have something I want to work on. Thanks!”
Look, Gillibrand was a good lawyer and there shouldn’t be anything wrong with that. She shouldn’t have to hide it. Then again, apparently there are a lot of people who don’t understand what lawyers do for a living:
At Davis Polk, lawyers not only represented Philip Morris in litigation, they advised the company on business strategy, including how to protect the image of the cigarette company and how to deal with concerns about the effects of its products. This approach reflects, in part, the longstanding closeness between the firm and tobacco makers. But it also raised concerns among critics that the lawyers had crossed a line, and were essentially becoming agents in the business operation.There were instances, for example, when Ms. Gillibrand was called upon to help the company deal with mounting public unease about its product and practices, according to interviews and a review of industry documents. Ms. Gillibrand was also schooled in some of the chemistry of cigarettes.
Holy God man! You mean this “lawyer” actually learned about the product her client produced and sold? She advised them on business strategy? Damn it Jim, I’m a lawyer not a client services professional. I “strenuously” object.
With all the heat bankers are taking these days, it’s easy to forget that lawyers are also generally hated and poorly understood. But whether or not you agree with Gillibrand’s politics (which she is apparently still in the process of inventing) can we at least agree that her years at Davis Polk and Boies Schiller don’t really tell us anything about what she believes.
As New Lawyer, Senator Defended Big Tobacco [New York Times]
(156) Comments
Comments
who cares
I will enjoy watching the Times become another on-line only newspaper.
Dear NYTimes --
Lawyers are their clients' agents.
Signed,
A Third Grader
The best post you've written in weeks. Still bad though.
I don't recall the Times ever being particularly interested in finding out who Gillibrand's predecessor represented in private practice. So, who does the ed board want to put in the seat instead? Little Cuomo?
Davis Polk also defended the Board of Education side in Brown v. Board of Education. Therefore, Gillibrand hates black people. Gillibrand = George Bush.
Anyone who disagrees is a racist.
Yes We Can Change We Can Believe In
good post EM
LOL at Star Trek & A Few Good Men refs.
Good post.
I don't really care what she did at DPW and BS. She's a gun-toting homophobe now, and a hypocrite to boot. And Paterson is an incompetent fool for appointing her (and for even considering the Dauphine).
"Still, in an approach that was not uncommon at law firms that represented tobacco companies, lawyers at Davis Polk were permitted to decline work on the tobacco cases if they had a moral or ethical objection to the work, Mr. Chang said."
LOL. My firm fed me the same bullshit line. Then, after I had made clear my preference not to do tobacco work, they stuck me on it exclusively from day one.
Wolves.
Bubba smokes stogies.
Bubba smoked MJ.
W smokes stogies.
W did coke.
Laura smoked (smokes?) cigs.
BO smokes (smoked?) cigs.
BO did coke (maybe?).
Can we all go back to being grownups now?
Pretty good post, Elie.
11: That wasn't the case at DPW at that point in time. If you said no, that was that. You weren't staffed to the case.
But if she had turned down the Phillip Morris work on moral grounds, that WOULD show us something about what she believes.
If she had defended child rapists and murderers at Legal Aid, the NYT would have canonized her. Cigarette companies, that's a different matter. Agree w/2 - cannot wait to see the 'Old Gray Whore, I mean, Lady' go under
3,
Lawyers should only represent kittens, widows and orphans.
Signed,
A socialist at age 30
Hmmm . . . I thought all kinds of bad people had been orphans
better stick to kittens only
Watching the NY Times war with its own various prejudices is like watching someone play rock-paper-scissors with themselves. "Smoking is evil! And so are big corporations! But Gillibrand is a hard-working woman! And a Democrat! But maybe we can attack her without explicitly saying she's a Democrat? But she was just lawfully defending her client! But maybe we can impute immorality from a negative of her not turning down Big Tobacco work? But then she would have torpedoed her professional career by turning down work important to the firm! But it was probably handed down by the rich white male patriarchy! But if she had left she wouldn't have risen to the point where she could become a female Democratic senator! Not true, she could have worked for PETA's 'sea kittens' campaign or strapped herself to America's verdant kale fields! Hey, isn't Obama a smoker? Shut up!"
Wow, shes horrible
I think you should pluralize "school" MysTTTal. It's not improper as written, but "schools" is more fitting. Your grammar sucks, and now your style sucks. How did you become an editor?
Agree with 6, Gillbrand is a racist who is trying to convince my kids to start smoking. She needs to get out of office ASAP. And if someone could retroactively tax 102% of her income that she earned while working on these cases I would appreciate it as a symbol of my moral outrage.
Wow, she's cute.
It blows my mind that anyone on earth could find defending big tobacco immoral... what kind of weirdos are you?
As a professional writer with a professional audience, one should always proofread his work. It's really not that complicated.
Good work, Mystal. Now I'm guessing it'll be 6 more weeks or so before we see another post of this caliber.
24: Do you know anything about the history of tobacco litigation and how duplicitous tobacco companies were?
27, do you even know what the lawyers who draw a salary from Legal Aid actually do?
Hmm, the Times blew this one.
She also blew Joe Camel.
27: Do you know anything about the history of _____ litigation and how duplicitous _____ were?
Unless you're willing to condemn it all... (which I guess might not be an unreasonable view)
28, rape/kill babies?
Wow, she's cute.
32,
On the taxpayer's dime, no less.
- Not 28
19, that was funny. I don't agree w/ you at all, but I still cracked up. Mark of good humor
Would somebody please think of the children?
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/smoker-in-chief/?scp=1&sq=smoker%20in%20chief&st=cse
Her role is identical to the role played by every biglaw attorney representing Philip Morris in the '90s, right down to taking classes in the cigarette college, and being asked if one had a moral objection to representing cigarette manufacturers. This is not news.
Great post. Junior associates work on what partners tell them to. It's not too feasible to refuse to work on a case because the client is Phillip Morris. Probably most of the work she did had nothing to do with defense and everything to do with writing threatening letters , which seems to be 90% of what the associates in my office did.
You have lawyers shamelessly defending the terrorists at Guantanamo who want to kill us all (NYT applauds that), but somehow defending an American corporation and its perfectly legal products is wrong? WTF?!?!?!
Fuck the NYTimes.
I think it is kind of awesome that people who go the corporate whore big firm route have their misdeeds follow them around forever...
Yay for Comeuppance!
Is it unprofessional to have relations with my hand during our morning conference call?
39, Phillip Morris and their ilk also want to kill us all, just more slowly.
NYT knows full well what lawyers do and how they operate. They just want to smear anyone whose political views are to the right of Ward Churchill.
But hey, if you're going down, might as well go down swingin'...
I'm just trying to figure out whether there is a "small tobacco" or a "medium sized tobacco".
39,
If you have secret evidence that everyone in Guantanamo is a terrorist, you should probably bring it to the attention of the Justice Department.
But, then again, maybe people randomly picked up in the middle of a war zone based on what someone with a grudge said aren't all guilty?
The NYTimes has the doe-eyed innocence of a 3L. Practice in a BigLaw for awhile and realize that Big Tobacco isn't even near the pinnacle of evil. At least people choose to smoke.
Talk to the people who club the baby seals, kill polar bears, make weapons of mass destruction, put carcinogens in consumer goods, etc.
#1 - a rare great post from mysTTTal
#2 - awesome post by #19. everybody should go back and re-read it.
#3 - as others have noted, the only people that the NYT thinks are deserving of legal representation are guantanamo terrorists, medical device tort plaintiffs, ADA/RA/Title IX/civil rights plaintiffs, and death penalty appellants. it would be quite humorous if the times weren't so influential. i too can't wait till they go under like the rest of their liberal MSM brethren.
39 - touche. What a miserable driveby. Every lawyer should be offended by any effort to smear a lawyer by attributing her client's views and interests to her. No wonder nobody wants to go into public service & put their necks in that guillotine.
This is just another pathetic attempted hit job by that rag. Good thing it's going under.
Great post 19!
38: Read the article - no, associates didn't have to work on those cases (at least not at Davis Polk) and, no, Gillebrand's responsibilities weren't limited to letter-writing. 37, yes, but those associates aren't senators with enormous public accountability.
Finally a good post Elie!
52, when firms tell you at interviews that they permit you to down work from partners if you've already got a lot on your plate, you believed that too, right?
52, they are not required to work on those cases just like they are not required to come in on the weekends. Good luck staying employed if you actually avail yourself of those options. It is only really a choice on paper, a mid-level associate can't refuse work like that, it is career suicide.
Tobacco haters should read some American history books. Without this cash crop there would be no U.S.
Baby seals are delicious.
Another hatchet job by the New York Times - starting on the cover with a full page on the inside. Even if you view the article as objective, why so much ink? What is the Times' adgenda in this?
55 is 100% right of course.
- former associate at two V5 firms
Good post. I almost lost my breakfast when I opened the paper this morning and saw this garbage reporting. If you graduated from law school between, say, 1991-1996, and went to work in the litigation department of most of the big firms, you spent a significant chunk of 1995-1998 working on tobacco litigation. Big fucking deal. The only associate I knew who got out of tobacco work because of "moral grounds" was one whose mother was a plaintiff in one of the individual smoker suits.
DPW put her on committees and gave her more client contact than the "typical" associate? Good for her, she didn't have to spend two years in document review hell.
Wow, a lot of hate for the NYT today. Yeah, it'd be GREAT to see the top newspaper of our times be destroyed by fops who repeat whatever FOX tells them to. Because THEY'RE so impartial.
The newspaper's an institution. It's not always right, but no news organization is - they're always trying to hit a moving target. If you don't like their report, don't buy it, don't read it, wah, moving on.
But really? Liberals are so dumb!!! Our Republicans are always right!!! Anyone who questions a conservative is a traitor!!! But Obama could kill a baby and MSNBC would love him for it. Really? This is the jingoistic repartee that it's come to?
Since when did political beliefs become sports? Save this level of vitriol for the Yankees, Red Sox, whatever your enemy team is, and grow up.
Besides, if the Times ever went down, if all the main newspapers ever went down, then all we'd have left, with any credibility, would be bloggers, or people like Ann Coulter - you know, those people who only write unbiasedly about everything.
Wow, a lot of hate for the NYT today. Yeah, it'd be GREAT to see the top newspaper of our times be destroyed by fops who repeat whatever FOX tells them to. Because THEY'RE so impartial.
The newspaper's an institution. It's not always right, but no news organization is - they're always trying to hit a moving target. If you don't like their report, don't buy it, don't read it, wah, moving on.
But really? Liberals are so dumb!!! Our Republicans are always right!!! Anyone who questions a conservative is a traitor!!! But Obama could kill a baby and MSNBC would love him for it. Really? This is the jingoistic repartee that it's come to?
Since when did political beliefs become sports? Save this level of vitriol for the Yankees, Red Sox, whatever your enemy team is, and grow up.
Besides, if the Times ever went down, if all the main newspapers ever went down, then all we'd have left, with any credibility, would be bloggers, or people like Ann Coulter - you know, those people who only write unbiasedly about everything.
great post, I'm glad to see someone calling the Times out on this.
"since Gillibrand is now a Senator and tobacco is 'evil,'
Turning into Lat now, Elie? Maybe your many enemies here will give you a break, if you can only turn Asian or white as well.
Wasn't HRC on the board at Wal-Mart? The horror, the horror.
It is right to call her out for daring to perform work for Big Tobacco assigned to her by god-like partners and self-important senior associates who basically told her to work or die.
BTW, aside from Big Tobacco, there are so many other totally respectable fortune 100 clients that she should have been working for instead. Especially the oil companies, agricultural/chemical companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the mortgage companies, the health insurance companies, etc... They are all great!!!!
Anyone defending this naive hatchet job either hasn't worked a day in Biglaw or is a complete moron.
Gallion
Holy shit 19 for the win.
I'm laughing so hard right now.
Well done Mystal.
64 - Fail
#60 wrote:
"But really? Liberals are so dumb!!! Our Republicans are always right!!! Anyone who questions a conservative is a traitor!!! But Obama could kill a baby and MSNBC would love him for it. Really?"
No one said any of those things, but thanks for letting us know where you stand.
Yes, the NY Times article is too much.
Yes, DPW's "moral grounds" objection is laughable. If you want to succeed at a big firm, you work your politics and succeed.
Now, to defend NY Times: Democrats are against big tobacco and for health and safety regulation. If you're a junior senator from NY and come out and decry "big tobacco," but you made hundreds of thousands of dollars from (and have important connections to) defending tobacco companies and their policies, the voters have a right to know about that.
Problem is, has this new senator come out against "big tobacco"? Has she acted hypocritically, or is the NYTimes just guessing that she will? THAT is the bad journalism here.
This, by the way, is proof that most of the paper is not significantly biased one way or another. Like most MSM, it looks for scandal, wherever it can find it. Toppling a politician sells papers and wins awards, whether they deserve it or not.
I agree 60 = fail
I didn't turn down tobacco work outright in the late 90s during my BigLaw stint, but I did manage to avoid it. Instead, I spent a few years as an associate defending medical device manufactuers sued in mass tort cases. Is the hell in which I will burn, according to the NYT, less hot than the hell that awaits tobacco lawyers? Just wonderin'.
Obama could in fact curb stomp a baby, in front of it's mother, during a press conferemce. on the Whitehouse steps, and MSNBC would figure out a way to say that the baby had is comming, without lying of course. "Terrorist Baby?" See if you put a question mark on the end it isn't completely made up bullshit any more, it is a legitimate question.
Winner: Comment #5. I wonder who HRC repped in private practice?
Runner Up: Comment #19. Outstanding. And BHO is a smoker . . .
Not to sound trite, but one of the fundamental premises of the adversary system is that every litigant is entitled to vigorous representation, even unpopular people or entities. If you think murderers, Gitmo prisoners, child rapists, Madoff etc. deserve representation then you have to concede that unpopular companies (who often do extremely scummy things) do as well -- and vice versa. If you've got no problem defending Phillip Morris, asbestos makers, etc. don't criticize criminal defense attys.
that said, all adovocates have ethical obligations that trump obligations to their clients -- candor to tribunal, etc. You can't lie, help your clients lie, destroy or withhold discoverable evidence, etc. To the extent attorneys cross the line, it is fair to criticize, which seems to be some people's point about the way the tobacco litigation (and yes, lots of other cases) was conducted. But it is still not fair to imply everyone who touches such a case was somehow involved in the shady dealing -- even young associates might have been, of course, but you can't just make that assumption.
Elie, haven't been the biggest fan but this was a good post.
74, the headline would be "Downs Syndrome Baby?" since it's suddenly now kosher (after March 20) to mock the mentally handicapped.
Yes, it's right to say that it would have been career suicide to turn down that work, but Elie's not right to say that one can't learn anything about a person from their work in BigLaw.
That she chose that path is evidence of something. Not necessarily positive (and I work in BigLaw).
The most interesting aspect of the article tho is that the American legal system encourages--in fact requries--lawyers to be amoral in their practice. Again, why is this an unalloyed good?
Along these same lines . . . it's like this senior associate in the employment law group I sometimes work for: she's never seen an employee claim that is anything other than patently absurd, and, conversely, never come across an employer practice that wasn't clearly within Title VII's (or whatever relevant regulation) safe confines.
Kool-aid anyone?
@19: good good stuff . . . post more . . .
Yes, it's right to say that it would have been career suicide to turn down that work, but Elie's not right to say that one can't learn anything about a person from their work in BigLaw.
That she chose that path is evidence of something. Not necessarily positive (and I work in BigLaw).
The most interesting aspect of the article tho is that the American legal system encourages--in fact requries--lawyers to be amoral in their practice. Again, why is this an unalloyed good?
Along these same lines . . . it's like this senior associate in the employment law group I sometimes work for: she's never seen an employee claim that is anything other than patently absurd, and, conversely, never come across an employer practice that wasn't clearly within Title VII's (or whatever relevant regulation) safe confines.
Kool-aid anyone?
@19: good good stuff . . . post more . . .
Gallion is back! It's been a while. You young whippersnappers won't know, but Gallion was an ATL commenting force back in the days of the original FRAT STUD, and well before the current crop of Dow is Up jackasses.
We have a guy named Elie in charge now, Gallion. You will be horrified by the result.
- V6 midlevel
Gallion is back! It's been a while. You young whippersnappers won't know, but Gallion was an ATL commenting force back in the days of the original FRAT STUD, and well before the current crop of Dow is Up jackasses.
We have a guy named Elie in charge now, Gallion. You will be horrified by the result.
- V6 midlevel
She was what? A fifth year associate, maybe, when the big settlement was reached? And the defense efforts were masterminded by Shook Hardy; not her firm. So we're supposed to believe that she was somehow the mastermind behind Big Tobacco's nefarious plot to exploit the proletariat by selling them cigarettes???
I know a lot more about the litigation than the pitiful NYTimes and I can tell you that this woman was not on the radar screen of any of the real players.
As a dog returns to its vomit, the NYTimes can't help but return to the bogus stories it peddled in its glory days.
I worked at DPW litigation dep'. When it comes to big clients even a junior partner have very little to say about anything and certainly not a mid-level or senior associate. They review documents and maybe rarely asked to write a small part of a brief (the junior partners are there to actually do most of the writing).
this article is ridiculous
Gillibrand could have turned down the tobacco work. Her other options were asbestos, toxic tort, insurance fraud, or doing mock re-enactments of the wrong side of the Brown v. Board of Ed case for the first year training program.
Love,
DPW
Seriously, people are going to bash the the journalism in the NY Times at the same time they praise Elie for a relatively goof-free post? Just because he didn't misspell senator in the headline doesn't make this insightful analysis, even if you disagree with the left-leaning Times. ATL< go back to making up layoff rumors to drive traffic, that's what you're good at these days.
rumors of even more philly layoffs very soon. elie get on it!
I would nail her with all 10" of my girthy prestige.
SkaddenNYC
"She clearly wants to hand out free cigarettes in elementary school."
Beautiful line.
Elie,
Good article! This was pithy and readable. I like you. (All the time...even with your adorable spelling errors.)
Lat--keep him!
Anyone else notice that one of the Lateral Link ads says that Micheal Allen has a "Harward Law School J.D."?
79/80 - it's really sad when people guzzle the kool-aide, for the obvious reasons. It's also not a mark of a good lawyer -- we're supposed to evaulate facts, advise the client, etc. How can you effectively do that if you think all [insert claim;defense type] are bs? You won't pick up on the bad facts if you've got yourself convinced that there are no bad facts. How do you defend what you don't recognize? How do you anticipate opposing arguments? How do you tell a client, "practiice X really should be modified as it's treading close to /is over a legal line"?
I had a debate w/ a client recently about a position he wanted to take that I thought was pretty damn ill-advised and would make us lose credibility w/ the judge. Client's dislike for this particular plaintiff and counsel appears to have clouded his thinking so that he thinks everyone should see the case as he does.. It's his attorneys' job to talk him down. Not rubber stamp his ideas.
92 - "Micheal" Allen? Really? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Jackass.
I agree with the posters who say "who cares." I find it funny to see the reverse engineering of a superstar mid-level/sr. associate and an assertion that BigLaw firm work is meaningful early in one's career.
Now that she's a senator, of course she was a "superstar" at DPW, whatever that might mean. Would anyone at the firm really say "oh she was an average midlevel I'm kind of shocked." No, instead, DPW truly recognized her greatness. Yay, big firms are a natural meritocracy where the best and smartest get promoted and recognized. Or maybe....she was like most mid-levels in BigLaw who are "successful": an undistinguihed, opportunistic ass kisser with no authentic voice because BigLaw firm drones paid to do what they are told, not to think. That truth would certainly take the wind out of the NYT's breathless reportage.
Let's all remember how average Gillibrand actually is. She was in danger of being poured out of her house seat in 2010 because her district is pretty much Republican, and will probably revert in the mid-term elections. In 2008, a year in which almost any Democrat with a pulse could win a house seat, she still had to run to the right to *barely* win her seat.. She didn't stand on convictions, buy just (shrewdly) played the local Albany politics just right for the particular moment she found herself in (be a local Democrat with NY political roots but espouse enough Republican views and portray yourself as an outsider in your own family to muddy the waters during election season,).
Had she not been tapped by David Patterson she would be a nobody. Remember most people concede NY's selection process was wildly idiotic and only looked sane compared to Illinois' catastrophe going on at the same time. For Christ Sake, SNL did a skit on the NY selection process. That tells you how much respect it garnered. But for Patterson's throwing darts (ahem, blindly), she would have faded into NY provincial political obscurity following her loss in 2010. Maybe she would have even gone back to being a faceless drone at DPW.
But somehow, she hit a lotto ticket and is a senator and suddently the NYT has discovered in the minutae and trivialiry of her life experience Great Meaning and Formative Life Experiences.
But as a senator she has no authentic voice. Rather, like most dutiful BigLaw midlevels of semi-competence or more, she is merely a collection of marketing demographies. A woman. A working woman. A working mother. A pro-gun rights supporter. A fiscal conservative. Etc.
I was disgusted when I read this article while eating breakfast. Good post.
well done elie
You all lack souls.
How did the NYTimes get all this information about the substance of her work for a client? Isn't that like, privileged or something? Did it come out in the perjury or later racketeering suits?
I have no personal problem with defending big tobacco, but Elie and all of you idiots piling on are idiots.
"Oh if you knew anything about biglaw you'd know that she didn't have any choice in the matter and was only a cog in the wheel, not the mastermind." Really? No, really? Choosing to work for a firm, and keep working for a fim that does something you think is wrong, is wrong. This is how people think about things. It is not "poorly understood."
Now, again, I don't think it's wrong to defend big tobacco. But that's not the track all of you geniuses took. If I thought defending big tobacco was wrong, I'd think she was wrong for doing so.
None of you eat breakfast and read the NYT
Beyond all the sensical and correct comments about everyone deserving a legal defense, what about the merits here? Haven't there been warnings on cigarrettes since the 1970s? Haven't people thought that inhaling smoke was bad for you, since, well forever? Haven't cigarettes, despite all this, been legal?
Not saying the companies don't share any culpability, but people have known smoking is bad from them for a long time and they voluntarily encountered the risk. If I were a tobacco lawyer, this knowledge would comfort me in my battles against all the auxiliary theories that the government and plaintiffs' lawyers have come up with in order to further their claims against companies that made a legal product that everyone thought was, at best, not very good for you.
Uhh . . . 100, sweetie . . . Elie and and all of the idiots piling on think defending tbig obacco is just fine. Can you read?
She was a non-law review student at UCLA who graduated without honors yet she managed to get a 2nd Circuit Clerkship with someone who was on HW Bush's shortlist for the Supreme Court and a job at DPW. That should be the story.
Then, after leaving DPW after not making partner she snagged a position with HUD and somehow was offered a partnership with Boies despite having a relatively non-prestigious HUD position and not making partner at DPW.
101, that's not true. Obviously, at least Elie reads the NYT. And he eats 4 breakfasts.
Uhh . . . 100, sweetie . . . Elie and and all of the idiots piling on think defending tbig obacco is just fine. Can you read?
uh ... 106 ... sweetie, did you read elie's post. it's about "lolololol if you knew what being a superstar at a firm means you'd know you do what you're told lolololol you have no choice lolololol."
instead writing a thoughtful post about WHY it's okay to defend big tobacco he ignores that shit and writes a bunch of irrelevant hogwash. who cares whether you have any "choice" in turning down the work? if it's wrong, it's wrong. if it's not, it's not. that's the point.
Hey 43 - That's right, Phillip Morris has a bunch of people walking around on the street knocking people unconscious with clubs, dragging them to the convenience store and forcing them to buy and smoke cigarettes.
News Flash: Smoking is a choice.
You're very stupid if you choose to do it but last time I checked being stupid isn't against the law.
the point of the story was not just that she repped big tobacco, but that she lied about her involvement when first asked. Had she given an honest accounting of her role in the first place, there never would have been a story in the Times about it.
There have been warnings since 1964. That's why the litigation was bogus. To this day the NYTimes tries to convince its readers that no one knew smoking was bad until Dickie Scruggs uncovered the big secret.
By the way, here's a little inside info, the NYTimes shills quite consciously for some of the country's wealthiest plaintiff lawyers. The drafts of some of their Op pieces have been outlined by plaintiff lawyers.
One of my clients is Burger King, which we all know sells dangerous products and forces people to get fat, so I sure hope this doesn't come back to haunt me when I become a senator in 2020 and the NY Times does an expose on my document review work.
94, I'm not publishing advertisements for my company; I'm just tapping out comments on an anonymous blog, jackass. A spelling mistake like that is downright embarrassing and reflects poorly on all those associated with Lateral Link.
"Harward"? Really?
@74: Barack Obama would never advocate curb stomping a baby. That involves messing up your shoes. It's much better to use a vacuum or forceps.
NY TTTimes
70/72 - I hope you do research better then you comment on boards. I think you meant #61, not #60. I know, it's a nitpick, but c'mon, numbers aren't hard.
Harward is an excellent school. Not as good as Dortmouth, where I went undergrad, or Yhale, where I went for l-school, but WAY better than UPHENN.
115, you must be a blast at parties.
115, I think you meant "than" not "then." C'mon, one-syllable words aren't hard.
Glass houses...glass houses...
117 - Considering that you're "zinging" a flame on this message board, I'm going to go right ahead and assume that you're NOT the cool guy, right? Not 115.
69 Posted by PeTTTer | Permalink
Friday, March 27, 2009 12:28 PM
64 - Fail
__________________________________________
True. There's no way Elie can turn Asian or white.
104: Extremely, extremely well-put.
""Choosing to work for a firm, and keep working for a fim that does something you think is wrong, is wrong. This is how people think about things. It is not "poorly understood.""
Thank you. A cog in a wheel? This isn't somebody desperately trying to unionize who is working at minimum wage. Given her (questionably obtained) credentials, Gillebrand nee Rutnick could've gone just about anywhere. She chose the white shoe law firm that protects corporate interests - just as I did when I graduated. I did so because I wanted the money and the name, presumably just as she did. She took on the tobacco work either b/c she didn't want to make a scene by turning it down or b/c it was high-visibility work that would bring her recognition in the firm. That's her prerogative. That being said, that she was an advocate doesn't make her choices somehow above criticism. She reaped the benefits of her choices and now she's bearing the burden. You can't have it both ways.
Most of the comments on this board, as did the original ATL piece, miss an important point: lawyers need to have integrity. If Gillibrand really believed that defending tabbco was the right thing to do, then she needs to come out and say that. If she thought it was right at the time, and since changed her mind, she can say that too (although its somewhat less believable). But to muddle somewhere in the middle and say “I just did what I was told” is pathetic.
Of course, from the looks of this board, that lack of integrity is the hallmark of a typical soulless politician, biglaw associate (and the law students who seek to emulate them) who populate this board. You people do the entire profession, and nation, a disservice.
Most of the comments on this board, as did the original ATL piece, miss an important point: lawyers need to have integrity. If Gillibrand really believed that defending tabbco was the right thing to do, then she needs to come out and say that. If she thought it was right at the time, and since changed her mind, she can say that too (although its somewhat less believable). But to muddle somewhere in the middle and say “I just did what I was told” is pathetic.
Of course, from the looks of this board, that lack of integrity is the hallmark of a typical soulless politician, biglaw associate (and the law students who seek to emulate them) who populate this board. You people do the entire profession, and nation, a disservice.
123 -- Should criminal defense attorneys then only represent defendants who they truly believe are innocent?
124- Criminal defense lawyers only need to believe that their defense of the accused vindicates fundamental, constitutional rights. There is no right to counsel in civil cases, so the entire question of “belief” is very different. A civil lawyer can believe anything they want, my point is that if they have integrity and principals, they will actually believe in the position they are asserting. Otherwise, they are soulless at best, unethical at worst.
I'm really surprised at the paper's shoddy and biased reporting on Gillibrand. The Times is one of the top four daily papers in the city and number five in accuracy.
I'm really surprised at the paper's shoddy and biased reporting on Gillibrand. The Times is one of the top four daily papers in the city and number five in accuracy.
If Gillibrand was such a super-star midlevel, why after being there nine years (plus gaining the additional class year from having a clerkship) did she not make partner at DPW?
125: Exactly. To compare civil defense to criminal defense is ridiculous. People are throwing around the "entitlement" to a defense. You have no such "entitlement" in civil cases.
The only typo in this post is "by Elie Mystal" -- this post has Lat written all over it.
123/125/129, so when I work for Legal Aid I should only represent civil defendants who are completely blameless?
131: Oh, my God - you are such a moron.
125/129 -- Your entire distinction between civil and criminal lawyers rests on constitutional niceties. Everyone sued in court would like a defense, regardless of whether the Supreme Court thinks a civil defendant is owed the right to counsel.
Most people in this country hold firm to the view that the adversarial system is best and that system requires advocates. Advocates must pursue credible positions for their clients in litigation, but the advocate need not have some sort of devotional connection with her client's stated positions on legal issues. It is sometimes the case that lawyers become true believers in their clients' righteousness, but that's typically inadvisable, if the client is interested in true legal counsel. Guess that's hard for PETA-types to understand though.
131 = right on.
132 is not only a moron, but not very eloquent.
131- you managed to miss the point, again. If you’re a civil litigator, you don’t need to believe your client is “blameless” you just have to believe in what you’re advocating – namely that the client did not do what they are accused of doing or has a viable defense.
132- thanks.
133- I’m not a “PETA type,” so your ad hominem is not only senseless, but baseless too. As to the substance of your post, when you say "the advocate need not have some sort of devotional connection with her client's stated positions on legal issues” you’re confusing a bunch of things. The client has little to nothing to do with legal matters and if your client demands you to adopt a legal position that is unsupportable (“claim the statue of limiation expired!”), you can’t because a lawyer is ethically bound not to advocate frivolous legal positions.
My unassailable point is that what an advocate needs to have to maintain their integrity – and note that this is not an ethical requirement – is a belief in the facts of the case. I.e. Gillibrand needed to have some belief that the tobacco companies had a factural basis to assert a legally supportable defense to the claims. All I’m asking for is that she either say she did, say she did and changed her mind, or own-up to being a soulless corporate drone.
I'm surprised the NY Times did such a biased, unresearched, and agenda-filled profile. They are one of the top four daily papers in the city and number five in accuracy
I think 123 was saying that you should believe that what you are doing is the right thing, not that you should believe that your clients are perfect people. If she believes it is right to represent corporate interests, fine. But don't excuse it by saying "everyone in Biglaw does that." A lawyer can defend accused criminals without endorsing murder, can represent an evicted tenant without supporting all of his actions. You can represent a big corporation without agreeing with everything they do. But don't just say "I only represent an evil corporation because that's the only way to be a big firm lawyer." If you really agree that it's evil, DON'T BE A LAWYER.
Nicely said, 133.
But I also agree w/ the "intergrity" comments to the extent they mean integrity = owning up to the representation -- if you thought it was a good idea at the time, say so. "Following orders" doesn't work well as a defense. She seems to have been pretty significantly involved with these cases, well beyond a little doc review.
"A civil lawyer can believe anything they want, my point is that if they have integrity and principals, they will actually believe in the position they are asserting. Otherwise, they are soulless at best, unethical at worst."
But is this really possible for lawyers?
"A civil lawyer can believe anything they want, my point is that if they have integrity and principals[sic], they will actually believe in the position they are asserting."
Obviously all those homeowners really believed that the interest rates on their ARM mortgages can never go up, and were forced into those loans under duress, which is why Legal Aid and other non-profits are helping them sue the banks and brokers.
As an associate, especially a "superstar" associate as Gillibrand appears to have been, you work for the partners and represent the clients they tell you to represent. It's really not that complicated.
--
As an SS general, you work for the officers higher than you in the Third Reich and perpetrate war-crimes they tell you to commit. "It's really not that complicated."
In fact, I will give more leeway to those generals, because they did not have many exit options. Future Senator Gillibrand could have always found other gainful employment. Nobody held a gun to her head to work at DPW.
I am a superstar associate but I only represent kittens
Hatchet job by people on a deservedly-sinking ship. She cannot defend herself due to her obligations as an attorney. The "sources" the NYT quotes are a non-lawyer ideologue opponent, and a former colleague who sounds like he may have invoked the DPW "conscience clause" and found himself outside looking in. Are his comments, detailing what she did and for whom at his former firm, even ethical? Don't know the Senator, don't much care, but am offended that such a stupid story got into print in the once-prestigious Times.
My officemate said he do her till the juicy ran out her eyes. Me, I just don't see it.
135 -- 133/124 here. I'm unclear on your position. You seem to think that a lawyer with intergrity must have a good faith belief that there are facts to support his client's legal defenses. Frankly, I agree with that, but mostly for reasons that are not normative, i.e. a good lawyer (setting aside questions of integrity) requires credible factual support to establish nearly any legal defense. Doubtless, the tobacco companies had some workable legal defenses supported by credible facts -- they won the perjury suit that Gillibrand worked on! I believe that's mentioned in the article. I can't tell you whether she had a subjective, good faith belief in her client's factual story and legal defense, but her side WON, so I'm guessing she did.
So, even according to your own standards, she seems to have had integrity.
Another thing that puzzles me about your posts is that she hasn't flip-flopped on this issue, she just isn't highlighting her work defending tobacco companies, which is understandable for an elected Democrat. She's basically just saying that this work was a part of her first real legal job that she had a long time ago, which also appears to be true.
123 -- The funny thing is that I generally agree with you. If Gillibrand actually thought Big Tobacco was "evil" it would have been awesome if she quit her job, quit biglaw, and done something that she was truly passionate about, like defending victims of spousal abuse. Of course, she'd be broke, unknown, and in absolutely no position to actually affect the laws governing spousal abuse, but I think you are saying that such a life is a small price to pay for having your soul.
But I think *you* miss the point of what the NYT was doing here. The paper was not attacking the paradigm where young law students "sell out" for money and prestige. The paper was not attacking adversarial system where sometimes great attorneys are compelled to defend less than savory interests (and are well compensated for their "jurisprudential service."
No. The NYT was implying Senator Gillibrand would be "in the pocket" of Big Tobacco JUST BECAUSE of some work she did as a mid-level associate at DPW. That is patently ridiculous.
Let's not forget that Gillibrand's liberal bona fides are far from clear (she's a conservative, pro-gun Democrat from upstate, and Dems in the city, like Carolyn Maloney, are already lining up to challenge her). I can only assume that this was an attempt by the Times to get around her left flank.
The NYT was not saying that she failed the "character and fitness" test as a lawyer. And the paper wasn't saying that lawyers are "soulless.' Either of those statements would have taken balls. Instead, the Times said "Wanna know more about your new Senator? Check out all this 'shady' shit she did fighting for Big Tobacco. Should the female Trent Lott really succeed HRC?" That's simply unfair, and the NYT should know better.
--Elie
It took until 123 for someone to finally talk some sense. Yes, if she'd objected to working for big tobacco she might lose her job and probably wouldn't make partner. But voters might expect a politician to be willing to put ethics in front of professional advancement. I understand most of you are so caught up in your careers that the suggestion of doing something that would put your chance at partnership at risk sounds ridiculous, but you're not running for office.
I agree with 146 that the implication that she's in big tobacco's pocket because she did some work for them is silly. On the other hand, it's not nearly as silly to think that her willingness to put career over principles will manifest itself again and affect her judgment as a senator. She had the choice of either representing big tobacco or reducing her chances at partnership, and she chose the former. In the future she'll probably have the choice of giving someone a kickback in exchange for a big contribution or reducing her chances at reelection. What's she gonna do? Someone who reads this article might assume she'd make a similar choice again, and they'd probably be right.
Not saying I personally hold it against her or wouldn't do the same thing she did, but I'm a lawyer who has bought into a system that a lot of people think is broken and unethical. The article was written for them, not for me.
147 -- You think that because she represented a manufacturer of a legal product in a lawsuit where the defenses that her and others pursued were ultimately successful, she is more likely to participate in an illegal scheme to increase campaign contributions? You've fallen into the exact trap to which the NYTimes led you.
148 - Yes, I think that if she had ethical issues with defending big tobacco but did so anyway because she didn't want to lose her old job, she's more likely to once again do something she views as unethical because she doesn't want to lose her current job. Is that really such a stretch?
If you're trying to make the distinction that representing tobacco companies is legal and kickback schemes are not, I'd say two things. One, people don't want politicians to just follow the law, they want them to be ethical. If people find representing big tobacco to be unethical, they really don't care if it's legal or not, and they are likely to think that a person who does one unethical thing will do another.
Two, only express kickback schemes are illegal. Politicians routinely accept contributions with the understanding that favors are expected in return and then proceed to return those favors. It's part of the job just like representing a firm's clients is part of an associates. Voters who aren't either politicians or lawyers have a problem with both. Nobody wants to elect a politician who puts their career over their principles. Of course all of them do, but that doesn't mean people aren't entitled to know about it and the NY Times isn't entitled to report on it.
Now if she never had ethical issues with representing big tobacco, that's another story, but voters are entitled to know that and make their judgment about that too.
149 -- You've dodged the issue again. What ethical issues are involved with the successful defense of a company who sold a legal product? You've just asserted, and then accepted as true, the notion that it could be unethical to successfully represent a tobacco company, without addressing the first question: why is what she did unethical?
The only thing I can glean, and this is what Elie was complaining about, is that it's unethical because tobacco companies are generally viewed, at least by some, as slimy.
I don't think the burden is on her to explain her and her law firm's successful defense of a tobacco company in a perjury lawsuit. The burden is on you and the NYTimes to come up with an actual story about something she might have done that's unethical or legally questionable, rather than to smear her with vague generalities about her association with disfavored corporate interests.
Moreover, doesn't she owe her former client a pledge of confidentiality? A public discourse about her defense work for that client would likely breach that pledge.
150 - There's nothing for me to dodge because I don't personally think what she did was unethical. But other people do. The NY Times is entitled to print the story and let readers decide what they think.
If you want to know what people find unethical about it, you should ask someone who finds it unethical. I'd guess that, like you said, they find any work on behalf of a company that sells people poison and has a long track record of unethical and deceptive behavior to be inexcusable.
You're still hung up on the legal/illegal distinction, but again, voters aren't only concerned with whether their representatives follow the letter of the law, they're concerned with whether they feel their representatives are ethical people. If readers don't find what she did unethical, fine. But a significant number of people will find it unethical, and they're entitled to know about it.
The confidentiality she owes her client is her responsibility and her problem, not the media's. Are you saying newspapers should never print dirt on people who are restricted in their ability to defend themselves because of confidentiality? I guess that means no stories about crooked doctors, lawyers, or accountants. No more investigations of what we're doing in the middle east if the government would have to reveal confidential info to tell its side. No more stories about ongoing litigation since the parties have been advised not to talk.
Yes, people who are ignorant about the way the law works might misunderstand the article. But it's not the media's job to protect biglaw/big tobacco/senators etc. The idea that the media should refrain from printing a story because people who aren't industry insiders might not understand the industry norms is downright dangerous. All those guys have big PR departments that they can utilize if they're concerned that people don't understand what they do.
The interesting point in the article, which was hidden at the end, was whether Gillibrand helped Phillip Morris commit a fraud with murderous consequences. Phillip Morris had internal documents that showed the danger of its products. It did everything it could to hide these documents. If Gillibrand abused the attorney/client privilege to hide these damaging documents as part of an ongoing fraud, then she is partially responsible for the deaths of many people. If she only invoked the attorney/client privilege where it was legitimate, then she was doing her job.
151 -- You think that she did nothing wrong or unethical, and have no proof to the contrary, yet you persist in smearing her for representing a company that sold "poison." Do you write for the NYTimes?
"The confidentiality she owes her client is her responsibility and her problem, not the media's." Uh ok, I understand that the media (and you) don't like the A-C privilege when it applies to disfavored corporate interests, but I think her CONTINUING ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS force her not to speak in anything but the broadest of generalities re: her tobacco work at DPW. That's more than a good reason for her to not say much, it's pretty much a legal command.
All of the other words in your fourth paragraph are non-sense. We're talking about the obligations of an attorney who represented a former client in litigation. The attorney can't talk about prior her work, ever. That's an entirely different scenario than where the media investigates the actual wrongdoing of tobacco companies. I hope you can see the distinction. And, the public in most certainly NOT entitled to learn about these A-C confidences.
Anyone who worked with the Senator knows she wasn't a superstar at DPW and left because she didn't make partner.
154: I know. That couldn't be more apparent and, yet, everybody's crowing about what a "superstar" she must've been.
153 - I'm not smearing her at all, I'm saying that people have a right to make their own judgment. The NYTimes article is only a smear to people who perceive wrongdoing. What are you missing?
Of course it's her ethical obligation not to talk about her client matters. But it's not the NYTimes obligation to help her fulfill that ethical obligation. In fact, it's the NYTimes obligation to dig for all the information it can find, especially confidential information. Its the attorney-client privilege, not the attorney-newspaper-client privilege. Get it?
The media's job is to report stories of interest to their readers, and if she can't respond because of her ethical obligations, that's her problem. The public is not entitled to learn of confidential information FROM HER, but it is entitled to learn about it from the newspaper.
It's funny that you guys want to give the NYTimes all this shit for supposedly not understanding how law firms work when you're exhibiting such a limited understanding of how newspapers work.