Top Law Schools

Hello,
I am currently an undergrad with an eye towards becoming a lawyer at a BigLaw firm.
I was wondering:
1) How often might you might run into cases where you are forced to do something you know is wrong?
EX: defend a company or individual you know is guilty.
2) What specialty would best to avoid such an ethical dilemma? (currently want to go into international law)

While I think the job would be great, I really don't want to get into a profession that would force me to compromise my values.

Not looking for smart@ss comments; people with real advice appreciated.
Thanks

BigLaw is about making money and nothing else. Anyone who doesn't realize that right off the bat is doomed. Make whatever interferences you want from that.

In all seriousness, you know Michael Clayton was fiction, right?

Remember the West Wing episode that flashes back to Sam trying to get the oil company to buy safer tankers instead of just shielding itself from liability for the shitty tankers through a series of legal maneuvers and shell companies? It's more like that and less like Michael Clayton.

1) How often might you might run into cases where you are forced to do something you know is wrong?
EX: defend a company or individual you know is guilty.
2) What specialty would best to avoid such an ethical dilemma? (currently want to go into international law)

1) Defending a guilty client is not wrong. If you think it is, perhaps you should re-examine your desire to get involved with the legal profession. But it is extremely rare that a corporate client will have done something truly unethical. For litigation, it's usually two large companies squabbling over a deal that went bad. It's not a matter of who is "right" or who is "wrong", but how you resolve the dispute. Most big cases settle eventually.

2) International law is not a specialty. It's a description that could be applied to certain practices. To the extent you can call large-firm work "international", it's mostly deal-making type work. There's rarely much of an inherent ethical issue there unless you are of the "all large corporations are inherently evil" mindset.

The ethics that come up in a large-firm practice usually aren't because of the work itself, but how you approach it. Do you pad your hours? Are you stabbing someone in the back to make yourself look better? Are you telling half-truths to a client to make the firm look better? Those are decisions YOU make- not the firm. In the exceedingly rare case that you vehemently disagree with something the firm is doing, most firms would let you work on something else.

You are the poster child for someone who should NOT become a lawyer.

not looking for ethical gray areas but are almost certainly going to run into some during a legal career.

not looking for "smartass comments" on TLS but certainly going to receive them.

HTH.

nealric wrote:

1) How often might you might run into cases where you are forced to do something you know is wrong?
EX: defend a company or individual you know is guilty.
2) What specialty would best to avoid such an ethical dilemma? (currently want to go into international law)

1) Defending a guilty client is not wrong. If you think it is, perhaps you should re-examine your desire to get involved with the legal profession. But it is extremely rare that a corporate client will have done something truly unethical. For litigation, it's usually two large companies squabbling over a deal that went bad. It's not a matter of who is "right" or who is "wrong", but how you resolve the dispute. Most big cases settle eventually.

2) International law is not a specialty. It's a description that could be applied to certain practices. To the extent you can call large-firm work "international", it's mostly deal-making type work. There's rarely much of an inherent ethical issue there unless you are of the "all large corporations are inherently evil" mindset.

The ethics that come up in a large-firm practice usually aren't because of the work itself, but how you approach it. Do you pad your hours? Are you stabbing someone in the back to make yourself look better? Are you telling half-truths to a client to make the firm look better? Those are decisions YOU make- not the firm. In the exceedingly rare case that you vehemently disagree with something the firm is doing, most firms would let you work on something else.

Well said.

Even if your client is unethical, so what? That doesn't mean that you are for defending them.

Example- your client is accused of a multi-billion dollar ponzi scheme. You don't defend them because you know that they are probably liable. So they go to a different firm. Every firm, however, has a problem defending someone that they think is probably liable, so the client can't get represented. The entire premise of the legal system has now fallen apart because our system is based on two principles: 1) Everyone is entitled to counsel, and 2) Everyone is innocent (or not liable) until proven guilty (or liable).

You have to realize that we are just cogs in a bigger machine. We keep the system operating and act as the voice of our clients. If you are looking for altruism, you are in the wrong profession.

Now, it is one thing to represent a bad person and another to be a bad person. If you, yourself, are doing unethical things (filing untrue statements, misrepresenting things to the court, etc.), you shouldn't be an attorney and are likely to get disbarred. But there is a huge difference between being unethical and defending the unethical.

The examples given only really apply to a very narrow definition of the word "ethical." Most Biglaw firms are "ethical" as defined by a PE course. However, is advancing the interests of big multinationals ethical in the first place? It depends how those interests are advanced.

Another ethical fallacy that springs up in threads like these: Simply because someone else would do it, doesn't mean you should. That's not an adequate justification for why anything is ethical.

I think it's important to look at who a firm's major clients are and what sort of work they do. Everyone deserves a defense in a lawsuit, but not everyone deserves to set up an intricate liability shield.

It is certainly possible to encounter work at a law firm that makes you unhesitatingly uncomfortable -- it has happened to me in discovering the position my firm had been hired to take in certain cases that ran exactly counter to strong beliefs I hold regarding a particular issue (unfortunately, can't be any more specific than that). It is something you may need to just learn to deal with, especially if your aim is biglaw. I've heard that you might be able to beg off of an assignment if it rubs you the wrong way strongly enough, but I also can't imagine that looks good to your superiors.

Relevant: http://abovethelaw.com/2009/05/quinn-em ... n-victory/

In law school, ethics is discussed mainly as an aspect of "defending" a client. That's because law shool pretends that all lawyering is litigation.

In the real world, there are lawyers who will never step foot in a courtroom. Like me. We never "defend" our clients. But we face ethical challenges all the time--just not the ones that law students debate as part of MPRE prep. Ethics is not only about how and when to "defend" a client, but also (perhaps more so) about advising clients.

What do you say to a client who proposes to omit a required disclosure in a SEC filing? What do you tell the CEO who wants to fire an executive and then deny severance? What if your client is blatantly in breach of a contract and wants to use that as leverage to renegotiate the terms? What if the client says that complying fully with an arcane, useless regulation is too costly? What if the client is a fiduciary of another party and wants to increase its fees? In all cases, assume that the client is plausibly threatening to fire your firm if it doesn't like the advice?

Then, just to tighten the screws a little more, assume that you're no longer in Biglaw. Your'e the in-house lawyer, and your client is your employer. You have a lawyer's duty to the client, a fiduciary duty to a third party, and you have reporting obligations to the SEC under Sarbanes-Oxley.

Never assume that ethics is just a matter of observing the Rules of Professional Conduct.

thanks to those of you who had real advice to give, I really appreciate it.

MTal wrote:You are the poster child for someone who should NOT become a lawyer.

This is unfair. We should all consider ethics in the legal profession. I do think OP's definition of ethical behavior needs some modification, but considering these moral questions of right and wrong does not mean a person will be a bad lawyer.

legalease9 wrote:Considering the moral questions of right and wrong makes a person a bad lawyer.

Fixed that for you.

Good? Bad? We're the guys with the casebooks. Whoever is paying me is correct and I will expend myself in zealous advocacy of their position. You know, as long as they keep paying me (more than the other side offers).

Shades of grey, people.

clintonius wrote: Relevant: http://abovethelaw.com/2009/05/quinn-em ... n-victory/

I'm not sure what's more ballsy. Calling out a partner on a victory email, or emailing partners with openings such as okie dokie, telling baby stories, failing to use basic grammar (i.e. capitalizing the first letters of sentences), ending sentences with yo!, and eeek!. Good lord.

disco_barred wrote:

legalease9 wrote:Considering the moral questions of right and wrong makes a person a bad lawyer.

Fixed that for you.

Good? Bad? We're the guys with the casebooks. Whoever is paying me is correct and I will expend myself in zealous advocacy of their position. You know, as long as they keep paying me (more than the other side offers).

That's nice and tidy. Except when it's your job not just to advocate the client's "position," but to help the client form its position. This is the case more often than not, especially for Biglaw client matters.

nealric wrote that biglaw law firms might let an associate work on something else if there was an ethical/moral conflict with a project. Let's hope that the "something else" isn't finding a new job.
@yooasuka: Your vision of law & the US legal system is a bit unrealistic as suggested by your views on ethics, guilt & practice areas (international law). Try to get an internship in a legal clinic or at a law school to broaden your understanding.

nealric wrote that biglaw law firms might let an associate work on something else if there was an ethical/moral conflict with a project. Let's hope that the "something else" isn't finding a new job.

It's obviously going to depend on the matter and the objection. If you objection is: "I don't like representing 'the man'", then it's probably time to find a new job. If there is a serious and specific objection to a particular matter that isn't "all hands on deck" or you aren't essential to, I would be very surprised if a firm wouldn't let you work on something else. For example, there was a big fracas at Cravath a few years ago when they were representing the Swiss banks against Holocaust survivors who wanted their money/artwork/property back that was stolen by the Nazis. Cravath let anyone who didn't feel comfortable with the matter work on something else. It wouldn't even be in their interest to make someone work on something they were vehemently opposed to.

Of course, there may be a situation where someone senior to you is genuinely committing malfeasance and wanting you to go along- but that can happen at any job. There is always the possibility you could have to resign for ethical reasons. I had a roommate a few years ago who was doing an LLM because she had to quit due to malfeasance at her small firm.

yooasuka wrote:Hello,
I am currently an undergrad with an eye towards becoming a lawyer at a BigLaw firm.
I was wondering:
1) How often might you might run into cases where you are forced to do something you know is wrong?
EX: defend a company or individual you know is guilty.
2) What specialty would best to avoid such an ethical dilemma? (currently want to go into international law)

While I think the job would be great, I really don't want to get into a profession that would force me to compromise my values.

Not looking for smart@ss comments; people with real advice appreciated.
Thanks

Only example I've heard is that for many law firms who represent tobacco companies, you can reasonably refuse to work on tobacco cases within the firm and not have your job or career there screwed over.

Kochel wrote:

disco_barred wrote:

legalease9 wrote:Considering the moral questions of right and wrong makes a person a bad lawyer.

Fixed that for you.

Good? Bad? We're the guys with the casebooks. Whoever is paying me is correct and I will expend myself in zealous advocacy of their position. You know, as long as they keep paying me (more than the other side offers).

That's nice and tidy. Except when it's your job not just to advocate the client's "position," but to help the client form its position. This is the case more often than not, especially for Biglaw client matters.

In that case it's your job to maximize the client's profits. You run into the same issues.

Answer void for vagueness. Most client matters requiring legal advice are at most indirectly related to the client's "profits" (which of course assumes the client is a for-profit company), and the nature of the (indirect) relation is often difficult to discern. In any case, the client itself may think that profits are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Ethical dilemmas abound; one of the trickier aspects of legal practice is learning when and how to tell a client "no."

This whole thread reminds me of the ending of Billy Madison.

Kochel wrote:Most client matters requiring legal advice are at most indirectly related to the client's "profits"

Zuh?

Outside of individuals and governments/non-profit organizations (which are hardly the biggest BigLaw clients), I'm pretty sure every legal matter is about nothing but profits. if a corporation has a legal issue, it can be boiled down to dollars and cents. Happily, the dollars and cents tend to be so large that a sizable amount of money can be spent on legal fees while still being savy business for the company.