Do biglaw associates ever feel guilty (when you know your client is harming people), and how do you deal with it? Forum

[avenuem]

I don't mean when it's not clear who is wrong, or when guilt or liability under the law is unclear or unresolved.

I mean when you are aware that your client, as a matter of fact, is harming or has harmed other people.

[cavalier1138]

I think this probably comes up a lot less than you think. Unless you're working in products liability (or in a very narrow range of white-collar cases), you're rarely directly representing the client in connection with the kind of harm you're imagining. Outside of those contexts, the aggrieved party is usually the US government, another large corporation, or shareholders. At present, the opioids litigation is basically the only thing I can think of that's squarely in the realm of "evil corporation knowingly profits off harming people" without any grey area, and even in that case, it really depends which defendant(s) you're talking about.

But when you're in those situations, I imagine you have to figure out what the specific facts are and gauge your own comfort level representing that particular client.

[PrinterInk]

I think this probably comes up a lot less than you think. Unless you're working in products liability (or in a very narrow range of white-collar cases), you're rarely directly representing the client in connection with the kind of harm you're imagining. Outside of those contexts, the aggrieved party is usually the US government, another large corporation, or shareholders. At present, the opioids litigation is basically the only thing I can think of that's squarely in the realm of "evil corporation knowingly profits off harming people" without any grey area, and even in that case, it really depends which defendant(s) you're talking about.

But when you're in those situations, I imagine you have to figure out what the specific facts are and gauge your own comfort level representing that particular client.

Chemical or resource extraction companies spinning off assets to avoid environmental or asbestos liability is another obvious one.

OP didn’t say he was working for a big corporation though. Sometimes big corporations do bad things and sometimes plaintiffs suing corporations do bad things. In both cases, this is usually with help of lawyers. It’s evil to bring meritless litigation to shake a person or corporation down, for example, and this is a lot firms’ bread and butter.

[nealric]

I think this probably comes up a lot less than you think. Unless you're working in products liability (or in a very narrow range of white-collar cases), you're rarely directly representing the client in connection with the kind of harm you're imagining. Outside of those contexts, the aggrieved party is usually the US government, another large corporation, or shareholders. At present, the opioids litigation is basically the only thing I can think of that's squarely in the realm of "evil corporation knowingly profits off harming people" without any grey area, and even in that case, it really depends which defendant(s) you're talking about.

But when you're in those situations, I imagine you have to figure out what the specific facts are and gauge your own comfort level representing that particular client.

Chemical or resource extraction companies spinning off assets to avoid environmental or asbestos liability is another obvious one.

OP didn’t say he was working for a big corporation though. Sometimes big corporations do bad things and sometimes plaintiffs suing corporations do bad things. In both cases, this is usually with help of lawyers. It’s evil to bring meritless litigation to shake a person or corporation down, for example, and this is a lot firms’ bread and butter.

I agree with Cavalier that these sorts of situations really don't happen as much as you might think.

Spinning off assets to avoid environmental or asbestos liability isn't something I have ever encountered. You generally can't just jettison assets to avoid liability, and you generally can't spin off a company that would clearly be insolvent post-spin to avoid liability. One exception may be where a third party buyer purchases an asset and takes on liabilities. I've been involved in transactions where a subsidiary was purchased by a third party for a negative price due to various liabilities, but the purchaser fully assumed the liability in the process, and there was no significant likelihood that the liability would remain unfulfilled.

No biglaw firm I am aware of files "meritless" litigation as a shakedown tactic as its "bread and butter." Knowingly filing a meritless suit is contrary to the rules of professional responsibility, and can get you and your firm sanctioned by the court. If you are a litigation-heavy biglaw firm, your bread and butter will be general commercial disputes where liability has at least some degree of ambiguity.

If you are a litigator, you certainly may defend a company that has done harm (especially if you do toxic tort defense), but even that doesn't necessarily present the big ethical dilemmas you may be afraid of. Often, there will be no question that the company is going to pay something- it's more about agreeing to the amount. Or, it may be ethically factually ambiguous as to whether the company really should be liable because it may have only played an ancillary part of whatever harm occurred.

A more realistic scenario may be a firm taking on a client or case you disagree with politically (which may have ethical dimensions). For example, if your firm takes on a political campaign you disagree with or a non-profit whose mission you disagree with. But even that isn't that common, and it would be even less common that you'd be expected to participate directly in a matter like that if you have such misgivings.

Personally, I've been practicing for 10 years now in both biglaw and in-house, and I've never encountered a serious ethical dilemma related to my practice.

[Anonymous User]

My practice group (I wasn't on this matter, thankfully..) was doing the work for financing the company to deal with all the cages that children were held in at the border. Lots of grumbling among the associates, but the partners involved seemed to find it kind of funny ("look, the cages are in the news again. Are we the baddies? lololol") and the grumbling didn't stop the associates from doing the work. So to answer your question: I guess people just shrug it off.

[purplegoldtornado]

Also, let’s remember that everyone deserves legal advice.

[Anonymous User]

No reputable law firm will help companies do truly and indisputably illegal things. But there are a lot of "gray areas" and in those instances, there's at least some law or regulation supporting the conduct. To the extent that I ever have feelings about the work that I do, it's that the company is intentionally doing something bad, but because there's some law or regulation that allows the company to do the thing. For example, tax liability. Yeah, there are tons of loopholes for corporations, but people (and companies) are going to do what they can to limit their tax liability, so that's on the legislators, not me.

[blair.waldorf]

I’m not going to lie. As long as I’m being paid a six figure salary, I genuinely don’t care at all.

[Anonymous User]

You learn to compartmentalize to be honest. And it isn't just biglaw.

I was a process server prior to passing the bar, and then did a lot of appearance work after that (not "biglaw" by any stretch in the begining).

During those times I represented debt buyers against people who couldn't afford it, including making arguments to seize bank accounts of people on disability (legal since comingled funds, shared accounts, etc). Did Mortgage evictions, low income housing evictions, seen people cry about how they would be homeless, etc. A few times that I saw unethical arguments I either refused the case, but that isn't always possible in a firm.

I have also represented criminal clients that I KNEW BEYOND ANY DOUBT WERE GUILTY, and although I never let any lie on the stand or do anything else illegal/unethical, I did see the victim crying and their family clearly viewing me as a monster. Life goes on. I felt some satisfaction that many of the criminal clients that I won for later went to prison anyways for fucking up on small stupid stuff unrelated to my case. I'd have felt bad if they had more true victims, but getting caught with a small amount of drugs and driving barely over the limit without license 5th offense........that's on them. Good luck beating that scumbag. Thanks for the money from the last case, and best of luck with the public appointed defender on the new stuff.

As a lawyer, or even someone helping lawyers (process server, paralegal, etc) your job is to stay ethical and obey the law. Beyond that, compartmentalize or find different work I guess. Its not just big law, and there are no sides that I can imagine as a lawyer that is the "good" guy on everything. I've seen prosecutors and Injury Plaintiffs Attorneys (who sue corporations) who THINK they are.........but they are narcassists who very often end up with character and fitness violations a few years down the line. Don't be them is the main thing to remember.

The closest that I can imagine to being the "good" guy the majority of the time might be social security advocate. Just weed out the BS clients. You only get paid if they win, and the fakers lose you money anyways (and make you lose face, you don't want that). Just take clients over 50 that used to do heavy work and grid rule the hell out of it. Social Security initially denies almost anyone who applies (yes, even in wheelchairs and on oxygen, I've seen it more than once) so just easy walk those in for your percent of their backpay. They view you as their hero. You authentically helped them (they have no idea what SGA, SVP, and stuff mean on their own). That's my advise to be the "good" guy. But ANYTHING adversarial or litigant style......you are the bad guy to some one. Don't let those after school specials and Disney movies lies to you. Hell, even Disney wasn't a Disney style goodguy...............

[purplegoldtornado]

I’m not going to lie. As long as I’m being paid a six figure salary, I genuinely don’t care at all.

Also this ^

[Anonymous User]

I’m not going to lie. As long as I’m being paid a six figure salary, I genuinely don’t care at all.

Also this ^

As long as it doesn't rise to character and fitness violations level, but I presume that we all mean that when we say that to be fair (just saying for the benefit of any pre-laws reading this thinking us monsters)

[blair.waldorf]

I’m not going to lie. As long as I’m being paid a six figure salary, I genuinely don’t care at all.

Also this ^

As long as it doesn't rise to character and fitness violations level, but I presume that we all mean that when we say that to be fair (just saying for the benefit of any pre-laws reading this thinking us monsters)

Yes, I obviously would never violate the law or do something objectively unethical.

[Anonymous User]

I don't mean when it's not clear who is wrong, or when guilt or liability under the law is unclear or unresolved.

I mean when you are aware that your client, as a matter of fact, is harming or has harmed other people.

I posted earlier (the long rant) but wanted to add that this question kind of accidentally contradicts itself a bit.

Guilt and Liability are not always the same thing (although I can see how they could be conflated)
And "is harming other people" is a lose term. Are they "hurting" the side that is at fault?

If OP is ok with some follow-up it might help add clarity. Maybe some real life example of what they mean?

[Anonymous User]

I think less so than the direct harm issue - which has yet to come up in my practice (mostly PE M&A) - it's more of an issue for me to actually find a fuck to give about the work I'm doing knowing that it's completely meaningless and the only thing it's really accomplishing is helping obscenely wealthy people become more obscenely wealthy. And for the most part, the legal aspect of the underlying transaction is even more meaningless since, for most deals, it's the business folks whose work is actually consequential. We're mostly just checking boxes and having the same argument in track changes about a rep that will never be relevant in the real world and that both sides knew from the very beginning would come out in precisely the way it ended up.

[2013]

I’m not going to lie. As long as I’m being paid a six figure salary, I genuinely don’t care at all.

Also this ^

As long as it doesn't rise to character and fitness violations level, but I presume that we all mean that when we say that to be fair (just saying for the benefit of any pre-laws reading this thinking us monsters)

Yes, I obviously would never violate the law or do something objectively unethical.

Yeah, as long as it isn’t illegal/unethical, I will do whatever the overlords who pay me ask of me.

[purplegoldtornado]

Also, maybe this is a logical leap, but a lot of people like to run their mouths about big law attorneys, but how often do people say the same thing about public defenders? Sure, what they do is great, but at times, they represent some likely very guilty clients.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Also, maybe this is a logical leap, but a lot of people like to run their mouths about big law attorneys, but how often do people say the same thing about public defenders? Sure, what they do is great, but at times, they represent some likely very guilty clients.

Most people accept that everyone, even opiod companies or pedophiles or whoever, deserves adequate legal representation. The difference between biglawyers and PDs is that the former get paid so much to do the work. Soldiers vs. mercenaries.

ETA: To be clear, I'm not anti-biglawyer by any means, but there's a meaningful ethical difference.

[purplegoldtornado]

Also, maybe this is a logical leap, but a lot of people like to run their mouths about big law attorneys, but how often do people say the same thing about public defenders? Sure, what they do is great, but at times, they represent some likely very guilty clients.

Most people accept that everyone, even opiod companies or pedophiles or whoever, deserves adequate legal representation. The difference between biglawyers and PDs is that the former get paid so much to do the work. Soldiers vs. mercenaries.

ETA: To be clear, I'm not anti-biglawyer by any means, but there's a meaningful ethical difference.

That is definitely a distinction between big law and PDs, but would they (I understand you aren't making the argument yourself) really be successful in arguing that their work is more noble because they are paid less? I don't buy it.

[Anonymous User]

Also, maybe this is a logical leap, but a lot of people like to run their mouths about big law attorneys, but how often do people say the same thing about public defenders? Sure, what they do is great, but at times, they represent some likely very guilty clients.

I can say safely that I have run my mouth about public defenders.........often..........

[nealric]

Also, maybe this is a logical leap, but a lot of people like to run their mouths about big law attorneys, but how often do people say the same thing about public defenders? Sure, what they do is great, but at times, they represent some likely very guilty clients.

Part of the reason why guilty people should be properly defended is because it legitimizes their sentence when they are convicted. If everyone was just railroaded, you could never be sure who was truly guilty and who was just a victim of circumstance. And even if you know someone is guilty in advance, you don't necessarily know the sentence.

I don't see any ethical dilemma at all in defending guilty people, so long as it is done in an ethical manner.

[purplegoldtornado]

Also, maybe this is a logical leap, but a lot of people like to run their mouths about big law attorneys, but how often do people say the same thing about public defenders? Sure, what they do is great, but at times, they represent some likely very guilty clients.

Part of the reason why guilty people should be properly defended is because it legitimizes their sentence when they are convicted. If everyone was just railroaded, you could never be sure who was truly guilty and who was just a victim of circumstance. And even if you know someone is guilty in advance, you don't necessarily know the sentence.

I don't see any ethical dilemma at all in defending guilty people, so long as it is done in an ethical manner.

To clarify, I don't think there is anything wrong with defending guilty people. I was just trying to illustrate the hypocrisy in giving legal advice to those who may have committed something very morally wrong, yet scrutinizing big law attorneys.

[nixy]

Also, maybe this is a logical leap, but a lot of people like to run their mouths about big law attorneys, but how often do people say the same thing about public defenders? Sure, what they do is great, but at times, they represent some likely very guilty clients.

That’s their job. Public defenders are there to keep the government honest, not to protect the innocent.

The biggest difference between criminal defense and biglaw is that the constitution guarantees rights to criminal defendants and that’s why you need defense attorneys. There aren’t the same constitutional rights at stake in the vast majority of biglaw civil litigation. So go for it (and everyone deserves legal advice etc), but biglaw civil defense isn’t the same because it’s not about making sure the government doesn’t take away someone’s liberty without following the rules.

[nealric]

So go for it (and everyone deserves legal advice etc), but biglaw civil defense isn’t the same because it’s not about making sure the government doesn’t take away someone’s liberty without following the rules.

It's obviously not at the same level, but civil litigation still implicates due process. It's about making sure the government does not take away someone's property and give it to someone else without following the rules.

[nixy]

That’s fair. I was thinking about private litigation.

[nealric]

No reputable law firm will help companies do truly and indisputably illegal things. But there are a lot of "gray areas" and in those instances, there's at least some law or regulation supporting the conduct. To the extent that I ever have feelings about the work that I do, it's that the company is intentionally doing something bad, but because there's some law or regulation that allows the company to do the thing. For example, tax liability. Yeah, there are tons of loopholes for corporations, but people (and companies) are going to do what they can to limit their tax liability, so that's on the legislators, not me.

As a corporate tax person, I find it's pretty uncommon that a corporate taxpayer is truly exploiting "loopholes" in the sense of engaging in some complicated scheme to avoid tax. Far more time is spent trying to avoid foot faults that trigger additional tax or accidental recognition events that would disproportionately harm the client. Most of the time, you are just trying to allow the client to do business the way they want without a massive or unexpected tax event. To the extent I've planned complicated transactions, it's to allow a client to do something they really should have been able to do simply, but were prevented from doing due to an interaction of various different provisions in the law that likely wasn't anticipated when the laws were created.

As you intimate above, most of the huge tax windfalls that do occur are explicitly intended by Congress. For example, when the corporate AMT was eliminated, making outstanding AMT credits fully refundable was a huge windfall for some companies, but Congress intended that windfall. Similar things could be said about allowing carried interest for PE principals to be taxed at capital gains rates or allowing tax free property exchanges for real estate investors.

Most of the truly shady stuff in tax (and I suspect most areas of the law) occurs in the small business and individual realm. They aren't subject to complex reporting requirements and are more likely to seek self-serving advice from unqualified practitioners. That's not to say large businesses can't engage in corruption, but it's much more rare because it requires systemic coordination that is difficult achieve even if it were your goal.