Moral quandaries -- what if Associates face them @ firms?

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Moral quandaries -- what if Associates face them @ firms?

Postby d34d9823 » Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:14 pm

profs<3mycomments wrote:If you all don't have the same moral view as OP I'm don't have a problem with that, and if you think his moral stance is dumb and naive that's fine too, but if your attitude is that keeping your head down and abandoning your principles at the first sign of danger is what being an adult is all about, then it only takes a second to figure out who in the conversation needs to grow a pair.

You don't get paid to have moral principles - you get paid to do your job. If you don't want to do it, fine. Don't.

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Moral quandaries -- what if Associates face them @ firms?

Postby reasonable_man » Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:39 pm

disco_barred wrote:
reasonable_man wrote:Grow a sack. If you want to avoid moral quandaries... Take a job at romparoom supervising toddlers... Where you can exert moral exactitude in all cases. Once you move beyond pre-school, the lines of morality are forever blurred. Deal with it.

Thread/


RM for president of TLS!



While I am flattered, you'll note that per the TLS constitution, the president must be a native born citizen of TLS and alas, though I have obtained TLS citizenship and left JDU for good, I am not a natural born citizen and thus am not able to serve. However, if Ken is ever looking for a Secretary of Defense, or chief counsel or something of the like, I'm down.

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Moral quandaries -- what if Associates face them @ firms?

Postby reasonable_man » Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:50 pm

profs<3mycomments wrote:If you all don't have the same moral view as OP I'm don't have a problem with that, and if you think his moral stance is dumb and naive that's fine too, but if your attitude is that keeping your head down and abandoning your principles at the first sign of danger is what being an adult is all about, then it only takes a second to figure out who in the conversation needs to grow a pair.



Or not. Lets review. Opp wants to be a lawyer. Lawyer, like everyone else, need to eat food, wear clothing etc. In order to acomplish those things, you need to be paid. To be paid as an attorney, you need to provide a service to your firm's clients. Being a good advocate means being able to advance or defend a position; irrespective of your own personal belief system.

Every person, business, association, etc., is entitled to competent legal representation. Your job as an attorney is to provide that to the client's of your firm. That duty ends at the point where you are called upon to violate the applicable code of conduct in the jurisdiction in which you practice. That duty also ends if you are called upon to violate the law. The attorneys at the ACLU probably didn't like defending the KKK, but that was the client they were assigned to defend and thus, they did it. Ethically and within the confines of the rules. If they were unable to do that, then they asked to be reassigned (with the posibility of being dismissed).

I don't always like the clients of my firm, but you better fucking believe I represent them to the best of my abilities. Why? Because as an officer of the Court, I am required to do so.


In short. After the op figures out how to grow a sack, I hope that he will be good enough to pass that information along to you.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273582
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Moral quandaries -- what if Associates face them @ firms?

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:55 pm

reasonable_man wrote:
profs<3mycomments wrote:If you all don't have the same moral view as OP I'm don't have a problem with that, and if you think his moral stance is dumb and naive that's fine too, but if your attitude is that keeping your head down and abandoning your principles at the first sign of danger is what being an adult is all about, then it only takes a second to figure out who in the conversation needs to grow a pair.



Or not. Lets review. Opp wants to be a lawyer. Lawyer, like everyone else, need to eat food, wear clothing etc. In order to acomplish those things, you need to be paid. To be paid as an attorney, you need to provide a service to your firm's clients. Being a good advocate means being able to advance or defend a position; irrespective of your own personal belief system.

Every person, business, association, etc., is entitled to competent legal representation. Your job as an attorney is to provide that to the client's of your firm. That duty ends at the point where you are called upon to violate the applicable code of conduct in the jurisdiction in which you practice. That duty also ends if you are called upon to violate the law. The attorneys at the ACLU probably didn't like defending the KKK, but that was the client they were assigned to defend and thus, they did it. Ethically and within the confines of the rules. If they were unable to do that, then they asked to be reassigned (with the posibility of being dismissed).

I don't always like the clients of my firm, but you better fucking believe I represent them to the best of my abilities. Why? Because as an officer of the Court, I am required to do so.


In short. After the op figures out how to grow a sack, I hope that he will be good enough to pass that information along to you.


All of this should be pretty evident, and obviously if someone's uncomfortable with a whole practice area like white collar crime defense or employment discrimination defense, then they should just not do it (or do it and learn how to work for the opposite side in public interest later).

Anyway, I did meet a firm at a reception that was involved in major tobacco litigation on the side of the tobacco companies, and everyone who could have been involved (partners, associates, staff) were given the choice to stay out of it without any repercussions. I thought that was interesting.

User avatar
paratactical
Posts: 5961
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Moral quandaries -- what if Associates face them @ firms?

Postby paratactical » Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:00 pm

--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Moral quandaries -- what if Associates face them @ firms?

Postby reasonable_man » Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:38 pm

paratactical wrote:--ImageRemoved--


Excellent.... Mwaaahaahhaha

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Moral quandaries -- what if Associates face them @ firms?

Postby sundance95 » Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:47 pm

reasonable_man wrote:I don't always like the clients of my firm, but you better fucking believe I represent them to the best of my abilities. Why? Because as an officer of the Court, I am required to do so.


TITCR. FWIW, I also disagree with the 'STFU it's your job,' crowd. Professionals can and should act ethically and morally, and to argue that being a professional necessarily means throwing your ideals away is bullshit.

The rub here is that to be lawyer, you must believe in the adversarial system. The lawyer's job is not to find justice; it's to provide his client with zealous representation to the fullest extent permitted by the ethics of the profession. A lawyer who believes otherwise is usurping the prerogatives of judges and juries.

If you don't feel comfortable with this, you should be looking for a different career.

User avatar
profs<3mycomments
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:10 pm

Re: Moral quandaries -- what if Associates face them @ firms?

Postby profs<3mycomments » Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:53 pm

reasonable_man wrote:The attorneys at the ACLU probably didn't like defending the KKK, but that was the client they were assigned to defend and thus, they did it. Ethically and within the confines of the rules. If they were unable to do that, then they asked to be reassigned (with the posibility of being dismissed).


EDIT: I hate fighting on the internet.

I just thought OP had a valid question on whether or not he'd have a limited opportunity to pick his clients or cases in biglaw. Seems like most people would prefer not to talk about it, so we won't.
Last edited by profs<3mycomments on Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

lawyerliar
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Moral quandaries -- what if Associates face them @ firms?

Postby lawyerliar » Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:07 am

To the OP: Just out of curiosity, do you, or would you, have any problem defending a 'blue collar crime'?

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Moral quandaries -- what if Associates face them @ firms?

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:10 am

not in law school yet ----> what if white collar crime isn't for me?

you're worrying too far into the future my friend.

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Moral quandaries -- what if Associates face them @ firms?

Postby reasonable_man » Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:24 am

profs<3mycomments wrote:
reasonable_man wrote:The attorneys at the ACLU probably didn't like defending the KKK, but that was the client they were assigned to defend and thus, they did it. Ethically and within the confines of the rules. If they were unable to do that, then they asked to be reassigned (with the posibility of being dismissed).


So, OP basically isolated this issue, asked what the consequences would be, and then you told him that he was a woman, which was evidently an insult, and then 10 posts later you isolated the issue. Congrats. Thx for hijacking this thread so you could misspell insults at OP and me.



I had no idea we were being graded for spelling. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Its a friday morning and you're obviously a hapless 1L; shouldn't you be busy educating your classmates right now?

User avatar
paratactical
Posts: 5961
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Moral quandaries -- what if Associates face them @ firms?

Postby paratactical » Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:25 am

--ImageRemoved--




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.