Top Law Schools

As someone planning to go into public interest law, I've noticed that a lot of people who go into biglaw are also liberal (many aren't, sure, but many are). Maybe it's just that I'm not sure about what exactly biglaw is and does but, given what seems to be its emphasis on corporate law (I could be wrong?), I was hoping to hear from liberals/progressives/etc who are interested in biglaw how that interest and their political views interact. Do you see a conflict, and how do you resolve it? Is there even a conflict to begin with?

most lawyers are democrats/liberal/what have you

Why can't liberals work for law firms? Is doing due diligence when one company buys another somehow illiberal?

i think that OP is conflating being a political liberal (whatever that means in this day and age) and hating on corporate culture.

Corporate law is not primarily the "dirty" work (white collar and corporate defense) that you probably associate with it. Some biglaw firms and boutiques do specialize in those fields, and within most big law firms there are usually a few specialists who deal with them, but the vast majority of biglaw lawyers will never work on a corporation's personal injury defense or an insider trading defense, for example.

Most corporate law has no associated political connotation. It deals instead with interaction between companies--mergers, contracts, sales--all of which does not involve moral or political judgment (although you may find it boring).

Remember_Alderaan wrote:As someone planning to go into public interest law, I've noticed that a lot of people who go into biglaw are also liberal (many aren't, sure, but many are). Maybe it's just that I'm not sure about what exactly biglaw is and does but, given what seems to be its emphasis on corporate law (I could be wrong?), I was hoping to hear from liberals/progressives/etc who are interested in biglaw how that interest and their political views interact. Do you see a conflict, and how do you resolve it? Is there even a conflict to begin with?

Team | Score
Wallet: 1
Beliefs: 0

BenJ wrote:Most corporate law has no associated political connotation. It deals instead with interaction between companies--mergers, contracts, sales--all of which does not involve moral or political judgment (although you may find it boring).

Eh, disagree. Big Business in general, which is what most Big Law deals with, is associated with conservatives.

bk187 wrote: Team | Score
Wallet: 1
Beliefs: 0

Again, I'm not sure how being employed makes you conservative. Look at the major donors for all kinds of lefty political organizations and you're going to see more than a few Biglaw firm names.

Granted, you might be really unhappy at an energy firm, or a management-side labor firm, but what political/moral difference does it make if the name on the side of a factory is Merck or Johnston & Johnston? How does helping a company issue stock oppress the poor huddled masses?

deadpanic wrote:

BenJ wrote:Most corporate law has no associated political connotation. It deals instead with interaction between companies--mergers, contracts, sales--all of which does not involve moral or political judgment (although you may find it boring).

Eh, disagree. Big Business in general, which is what most Big Law deals with, is associated with conservatives.

This just ain't so. There are liberal firms and conservative firms.

Lawyers are overwhelmingly liberal. Structuring IPOs and/or litigation/arbitration between giant companies doesn't really involve your politics too often.

Renzo wrote:Again, I'm not sure how being employed makes you conservative. Look at the major donors for all kinds of lefty political organizations and you're going to see more than a few Biglaw firm names.

Granted, you might be really unhappy at an energy firm, or a management-side labor firm, but what political/moral difference does it make if the name on the side of a factory is Merck or Johnston & Johnston? How does helping a company issue stock oppress the poor huddled masses?

It was a joke . I agree with your point of view.

This thread is getting off course in its focus on conserativism. The problem is that liberalism in its contemporary form in the US is a coherent set of principles based on a kind of reasonable contract (Rawls, Dworkin, etc). But conservativism in its contemporary form in the US is not: rather, it is an amalgamation of mutually inconsistent principles (libertarianism, nationalism, and religious fundamentalism). If we can't pin down the conservative position, then we cannot assess whether conservativism is consistent with biglaw. But we still can return to the OP's central concern about liberalism and biglaw.

sumus romani wrote:This thread is getting off course in its focus on conserativism. The problem is that liberalism in its contemporary form in the US is a coherent set of principles based on a kind of reasonable contract (Rawls, Dworkin, etc). But conservativism in its contemporary form in the US is not: rather, it is an amalgamation of mutually inconsistent principles (libertarianism, nationalism, and religious fundamentalism). If we can't pin down the conservative position, then we cannot assess whether conservativism is consistent with biglaw. But we still can return to the OP's central concern about liberalism and biglaw.

Go turn your head inside out.

Renzo wrote:

sumus romani wrote:This thread is getting off course in its focus on conserativism. The problem is that liberalism in its contemporary form in the US is a coherent set of principles based on a kind of reasonable contract (Rawls, Dworkin, etc). But conservativism in its contemporary form in the US is not: rather, it is an amalgamation of mutually inconsistent principles (libertarianism, nationalism, and religious fundamentalism). If we can't pin down the conservative position, then we cannot assess whether conservativism is consistent with biglaw. But we still can return to the OP's central concern about liberalism and biglaw.

Go turn your head inside out.

Done.

You said something very interesting Sumo. Its what Ive suspected for a while. Conservativism is influence by so many different things its tough to pinpoint what it actually really is.

In any case, your political leanings shouldnt be all that important if you decide to go into biglaw. You have to step outside your comfort zone sometimes. People that refuse to work or an organization because "people there are liberal or conservative" is just stupid. Do what you need to do and forget about political affiliation. Keep your mouth shut and most people will do the same.

I loathe all who lump libertarians in with conservatives.

deadpanic wrote:

BenJ wrote:Most corporate law has no associated political connotation. It deals instead with interaction between companies--mergers, contracts, sales--all of which does not involve moral or political judgment (although you may find it boring).

Eh, disagree. Big Business in general, which is what most Big Law deals with, is associated with conservatives.

Just because you're associating with the extremely wealthy doesn't mean squat.

A corporate merger is a corporate merger... do liberals think corporate mergers are inherently evil? Do conservatives think corporate mergers are inherently good? No. Neither has an opinion one way or another. And so it goes for most of that of which corporate law consists. The vast majority of business interactions are totally apolitical. Sure, there are some on which liberals and conservatives would find themselves on opposing sides, but these sorts of cases are very rare, and the average corporate lawyer will never encounter one.

I suppose one could feel uncomfortable even representing, say, Phillip Morris or Halliburton, but I don't really see why that would contradict a liberal viewpoint unless the case had to do with the actual harm that those companies cause (when it is far more likely that the case is a dispute between that company and some other company in which there is no moral high or low ground).

MartianManhunter wrote:Lawyers are overwhelmingly liberal. Structuring IPOs and/or litigation/arbitration between giant companies doesn't really involve your politics too often.

Yeah, until they start working dehumanizing hours and the government takes half their paycheck and redistributes it.

Problem with this thread is that it umps liberals and progressives together. Liberals can work for large companies. Progressives or radicals / anti-capitalists can't without undermining their beliefs. My law school experience has been: lots of liberals not too many progressives.

habaptist wrote:Problem with this thread is that it umps liberals and progressives together. Liberals can work for large companies. Progressives or radicals / anti-capitalists can't without undermining their beliefs. My law school experience has been: lots of liberals not too many progressives.

That's the problem. We haven't used enough labels.

sumus romani wrote:This thread is getting off course in its focus on conserativism. The problem is that liberalism in its contemporary form in the US is a coherent set of principles based on a kind of reasonable contract (Rawls, Dworkin, etc). But conservativism in its contemporary form in the US is not: rather, it is an amalgamation of mutually inconsistent principles (libertarianism, nationalism, and religious fundamentalism). If we can't pin down the conservative position, then we cannot assess whether conservativism is consistent with biglaw. But we still can return to the OP's central concern about liberalism and biglaw.

Name 10 average-joe liberals who know that Rawls is not a English car manufacturer and that Dworkin is not a character from Lord of the Rings. Kids you met in your political philosophy class who happened to actually read the assigned chapter of A Theory of Justice do not count.

habaptist wrote:Problem with this thread is that it umps liberals and progressives together. Liberals can work for large companies. Progressives or radicals / anti-capitalists can't without undermining their beliefs. My law school experience has been: lots of liberals not too many progressives.

Problem with Fox News is that is has convinced you that progressive=radical anti-capitalist.

Renzo wrote:

habaptist wrote:Problem with this thread is that it umps liberals and progressives together. Liberals can work for large companies. Progressives or radicals / anti-capitalists can't without undermining their beliefs. My law school experience has been: lots of liberals not too many progressives.

Problem with Fox News is that is has convinced you that progressive=radical anti-capitalist.

Really? You've moved onto Fox News? I thought everything was Bush's fault?

GettingReady2010 wrote:

MartianManhunter wrote:Lawyers are overwhelmingly liberal. Structuring IPOs and/or litigation/arbitration between giant companies doesn't really involve your politics too often.

Yeah, until they start working dehumanizing hours and the government takes half their paycheck and redistributes it.

--ImageRemoved--

habaptist wrote:Problem with this thread is that it umps liberals and progressives together. Liberals can work for large companies. Progressives or radicals / anti-capitalists can't without undermining their beliefs. My law school experience has been: lots of liberals not too many progressives.

There aren't many anti-capitalists, period. Genuine socialism is almost non-existent in the US, not just in law schools. So your point is moot, although I imagine genuine socialists would have moral issues with working for a big law firm.