Fred Thompson responds.

[Yonivore]

From Powerline.com blog

A lawyer who is a candidate or a prospective candidate for office finds himself in an interesting position because of the nature of the legal profession and the practice of law. This is true when the practice was as varied as mine, and it’s especially true when the office being considered is the Presidency of the United States.

The easiest and most generally used tactic when running against a lawyer is to trade off a general perception that most people dislike lawyers. Goodness knows that a lot of lawyers have earned disfavor but, as it turns out, folks understand our system better than a lot of politicians think they do. In my first run for the Senate, my opponent tried the old demagoguery route – “He has even represented criminals!” – to no avail.

A first cousin of this ploy is to associate the lawyer with the views of his client. Now-United States Chief Justice John Roberts addressed this notion during his confirmation hearings. “… [I]t’s a tradition of the American Bar that goes back before the founding of the country that lawyers are not identified with the positions of their clients. The most famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre.”

Roberts pointed out that Adams was actually vindicating the rule of law. Every person, unpopular or not, is en led to representation. He further said, “That principle that you don’t identify the lawyer with the particular views of the client or the views that the lawyer advances on behalf of the client, is critical to the fair administration of justice.”

Like Adams, the views of attorney Abe Lincoln would have been a little hard to discern from looking at the positions he took as a lawyer. He represented the big railroad companies and on other occasions represented farmers and small land owners against the railroads.

Likewise during the Roberts confirmation, the New York Times reported on August 5, 2005 that as an appellate lawyer in the mid-1990s, Roberts gave advice to a gay-rights group that helped them win a 1996 anti-discrimination suit. Chief Justice Roberts had no direct hand in the suit. Rather, colleagues at his firm were handling the case and sought advice from a number of partners, him included. The group said that Chief Justice Roberts provided “invaluable strategic guidance” formulating legal theories.

I’ve experienced another gambit of those schooled in the creative uses of law and politics: dredging up clients – or another lawyer’s clients – that I may have represented or consulted with, and then using the media to get me into a public debate as to what I may have done for them or said to them 15 or 20 years ago. Even if my memory serves me correctly, it would not be appropriate for a lawyer to make such comments.

This situation does however bring to mind my many years in the law, and the nature of law practice in a country such as ours that prizes independence and individual rights. Of course, these values could not be protected without lawyer-client confidentiality or if lawyers were identified with the positions of their clients.

As an idealistic teen-ager I could think of nothing more inspiring than the notion of representing a just cause against the most powerful forces in the country, including the government. I’ve had a chance to do some of that. It’s fair to say that not all of my clients have been so praiseworthy. Some were, in deed, accused of crimes. Some were convicted against my best efforts.

The practice of law is a business as well as a profession. It’s the way you support your family. And if a client has a legal and ethical right to take a position, then you may appropriately represent him as long as he does not lie or otherwise conduct himself improperly while you are representing him. In almost 30 years of practicing law I must have had hundreds of clients and thousands of conversations about legal matters. Like any good lawyer, I would always try to give my best, objective, and professional opinion on any legal question presented to me.

I’ve had great personal and professional satisfaction because of my decision to become a lawyer. I made a decent living, served the rule of law, and I believe I did some good. I’ve had the opportunity to help small farmers in Tennessee, the Chief Justice of the United States, previously mentioned, and several folks in between, as well as a half dozen or so lobbying clients.

I was a federal prosecutor at the age of 27, Watergate Counsel at the age of 30, and served as special counsel to both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. In Tennessee, I served on the Appellate Court Nominating Committee and, of course, I was elected twice to the United States Senate.

I went on to do other things, too. Before election to the Senate, I appeared in several movies. The movie work was always an avocation for me and I continued to practice law throughout my “movie days” while continuing to live in the Nashville, Tennessee area.

Actually, my legal career led to my movie career. I took the case of a woman who was Chairman of the Tennessee Pardons and Parole Board. She stood up to the then Governor of Tennessee, we sued him and ultimately it was determined that he was corrupt. He, his legal counsel, and others went to jail. A book was written, and a movie was made about my client and our case and I was offered the opportunity to play myself in the movie, which led to other roles.

I’m certainly not surprised that such a diverse career is being mined by others. As we get further into this political season we will undoubtedly see the further intersection of law, politics and the mainstream media. However I intend to keep in mind the appropriate distinction and separation between law and politics, and I do not intend to get sucked in to doing a disservice to either of them or to myself.

Not much there to nit pick, is there?

[George Gervin's Afro]

From Powerline.com blog


Not much there to nit pick, is there?

I always thought republicans hated lawyers.. unless they need one.

[Yonivore]

I always thought republicans hated lawyers.. unless they need one.

There you go demonstrating that collective "wisdom" of the "we" of which you spoke in the other thread.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think his fellow repub candidates will be the ones "nit-picking" over Thompson's legal career should he decide to run.

[Yonivore]

I think his fellow repub candidates will be the ones "nit-picking" over Thompson's legal career should he decide to run.

Really? Because, it was the L. A. Times -- no bastion of Conservative thought -- that tried to make a big deal out of his legal career while, ironically, ignoring the growing scandal surrounding their own Democratic Mayor.

You're probably half-right, candidates on both sides will be trying to make hay out of his legal career (even though the lawyers among them should know better). But, I think this piece is a nice pre-emptive shot across the bow.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's an interesting response from Senator Thompson to the allegations of his advocating for pro-choice organizations. I certainly agree with the general premise of his stance, but I don't understand why his camp was so vehement in denying his representation of that client.

I also don't think it's entirely correct for partner in a private-sector law firm to say that the matters that he advocated for don't represent his personal beliefs. That's certainly true in some cir stances. But Senator Thompson was not in any way obligated to accept the representation of a pro-choice organization if his views were pro-life views. It was always within his ethical bounds to decline such representation or to terminate it by complying with the controlling disciplinary rules.

[Yonivore]

It's an interesting response from Senator Thompson to the allegations of his advocating for pro-choice organizations. I certainly agree with the general premise of his stance, but I don't understand why his camp was so vehement in denying his representation of that client.

I didn't detect any vehemence.

I also don't think it's entirely correct for partner in a private-sector law firm to say that the matters that he advocated for don't represent his personal beliefs. That's certainly true in some cir stances. But Senator Thompson was not in any way obligated to accept the representation of a pro-choice organization if his views were pro-life views. It was always within his ethical bounds to decline such representation or to terminate it by complying with the controlling disciplinary rules.

I think that depends on your position in the firm. If you're a partner you can be selective of which cases you choose to take on. If you're a named partner, you can be selective of which cases your firm chooses to take on. If you're a hired hand, you take the cases that land on your desk or, you resign. And, in the legal profession, you'd be resigning alot if you refused to take cases over which you had an ideological difference.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It's an interesting response from Senator Thompson to the allegations of his advocating for pro-choice organizations. I certainly agree with the general premise of his stance, but I don't understand why his camp was so vehement in denying his representation of that client.

Why is he trying to justify something he claims he never did? It's an odd position to take: I didn't do it, but if I did I'm justified. Maybe he and O.J. can write a book about why they would have done something that they never did.

[Yonivore]

Why is he trying to justify something he claims he never did? It's an odd position to take: I didn't do it, but if I did I'm justified. Maybe he and O.J. can write a book about why they would have done something that they never did.

I think he's defending the legal profession in general.

Wow, nice tie-in with the O.J. reference.

[clambake]

Thompson likely didn't write this. It's widely known that he despises work. Give the credit to someone else, like his staff that does all the work for him.

[FromWayDowntown]

I didn't detect any vehemence.

There were vehement denials from his aides last week.

I think that depends on your position in the firm. If you're a partner you can be selective of which cases you choose to take on. If you're a named partner, you can be selective of which cases your firm chooses to take on. If you're a hired hand, you take the cases that land on your desk or, you resign. And, in the legal profession, you'd be resigning alot if you refused to take cases over which you had an ideological difference.

If, as reported -- and the report would seem to be the impetus for this missive -- Fred Thompson was lobbying the White House in the 1980's or early 1990's on behalf of pro-choice causes, he wasn't just some hired hand. If his partners wished to take on that representation and he decided that he didn't want to participate in any advocacy on behalf of that client, there wouldn't be any impact on his legal career -- trust me, if he was well placed enough to be a valued source of White House lobbying, I don't think it would have been very difficult for him to be very specific about what causes he would or would not represent; after all, if he was that well-placed, he would have had his choice of jobs with D.C. firms. It's not as if Senator Thompson was some low on the totem pole associate looking for whatever work he could find.

Frankly, I think he willingly undertook to advocate for pro-choice groups and has now decided that it's not politically expedient for him to admit to his pro-choice past, resulting in this blusterous tome that really says nothing of any import.

And, actually, you're quite wrong about your last point.

[Oh, Gee!!]

There were vehement denials from his aides last week.

I don't think Thompson himself has denied it. He was interviewed by Hannity to clear up the air on the issue, and he gave the whole "seperate the lawyer from the position he is advocating" speech. I don't think during the interview he said unequivocally that he did not advocate on behalf of an abortion rights group.

[Yonivore]

There were vehement denials from his aides last week.

I didn't see them. Regardless, I don't see how his article today would be at odds with a denial. Maybe he just felt like speaking on the subject because of what the L. A. Times article brought into the public arena.

If, as reported -- and the report would seem to be the impetus for this missive -- Fred Thompson was lobbying the White House in the 1980's or early 1990's on behalf of pro-choice causes, he wasn't just some hired hand.

Again, I believe he denies lobbying on behalf of pro-choice causes. The report is, according the Thompson, wrong. That doesn't mean that, as he also said, others in the firm didn't solicit him for a legal opinion on the matter.

If his partners wished to take on that representation and he decided that he didn't want to participate in any advocacy on behalf of that client, there wouldn't be any impact on his legal career -- trust me,

I'm sorry, trusting you is becoming harder and harder.

if he was well placed enough to be a valued source of White House lobbying, I don't think it would have been very difficult for him to be very specific about what causes he would or would not represent;

And, according to him, he didn't lobby on behalf or pro-abortionists.

after all, if he was that well-placed, he would have had his choice of jobs with D.C. firms. It's not as if Senator Thompson was some low on the totem pole associate looking for whatever work he could find.

You act as though he worked for the pro-abortion advocacy group and not the law firm. Weren't they merely one client of the firm for which he worked?

Frankly, I think he willingly undertook to advocate for pro-choice groups and has now decided that it's not politically expedient for him to admit to his pro-choice past, resulting in this blusterous tome that really says nothing of any import.

Well, that's what you think and, I suppose you're en led. But, absent some tangible proof, it's going to remain a partisan thought.

And, actually, you're quite wrong about your last point.

Really? If I get hired by law firm A and they want me to represent a client who holds a position I oppose and I refuse, I won't get fired?

[Wild Cobra]

It's an interesting response from Senator Thompson to the allegations of his advocating for pro-choice organizations. I certainly agree with the general premise of his stance, but I don't understand why his camp was so vehement in denying his representation of that client.

I thought I heard he "consulted" a client on a pro-choice item. Could this be what is everyone is talking about, and confusing it with "represented?"

If that's not the case anyway, a laywer is an advocate for the clients position. Not his own!

Such silly arguments to make anyway.

[FromWayDowntown]

I didn't see them. Regardless, I don't see how his article today would be at odds with a denial. Maybe he just felt like speaking on the subject because of what the L. A. Times article brought into the public arena.

There's no point, it seems to me, in insisting upon separating the lawyer from the person unless there's some reason for concern that some are not separating the lawyer from the person.

Again, I believe he denies lobbying on behalf of pro-choice causes. The report is, according the Thompson, wrong. That doesn't mean that, as he also said, others in the firm didn't solicit him for a legal opinion on the matter.

If so, then the piece makes little sense to me. If he didn't represent pro-choice causes and didn't lobby on behalf of those causes, all of the bluster about not viewing him politically based on his activities as a lawyer is largely pointless.

I'm sorry, trusting you is becoming harder and harder.

Yes, because I'm frequently offering up distrustworthy sources without attribution. I love that our political culture has reached the point that disagreements about policy choices become a basis for deciding whether someone is trustworthy or not.

In other words -- go screw yourself.

And, according to him, he didn't lobby on behalf or pro-abortionists.

See above.

You act as though he worked for the pro-abortion advocacy group and not the law firm. Weren't they merely one client of the firm for which he worked?

But that's the point. Thompson was most assuredly not some underling who was just told to handle files without having some say in the matter. In most law firms -- and I'd be shocked to learn that this isn't true with Thompson's job -- a partner is contacted by a potential client who is seeking representation. The partner (in this case, I suspect it would have been Thompson) decides whether to accept that representation on behalf of the firm or not. He could, of course, refer it to another partner in the firm. He could also decline the representation on just about any conceivable basis. In many instances, as long as there is no conflict of interest, the partner will accept the representation because it is good for the firm's bottom line to do so. But I would expect that a partner who holds a political view that is absolutely contrary to the ends to be achieved by the representation would have an ethical obligation to refer the case elsewhere.

Well, that's what you think and, I suppose you're en led.

Great -- thanks for according me a right to believe what I wish to believe.

But, absent some tangible proof, it's going to remain a partisan thought.

You assume it's partisan. I've never said one word here about whether I support or don't support Fred Thompson. Nice assumption.

Really? If I get hired by law firm A and they want me to represent a client who holds a position I oppose and I refuse, I won't get fired?

Not if you're Fred Thompson and are lobbying the White House on major policy issues. And if you're fired for that, you're going to have a blizzard of other opportunities because you are demonstrably in a position to be lobbying the White House on major policy issues. It's not like those lawyers grow on trees and are easily replaced.

Besides, partners in law firms aren't often fired, particularly if they choose to take a stand on a policy issue like that one.

You make a lot of incorrect assumptions about how law firms operate.

[Extra Stout]

Fred Thompson would be perfectly en led to hold the view that, while practicing as an attorney, providing competent legal representation to a client should take precedence over asserting his personal views on a particular political issue.

I can also see where it could get him into trouble with Republican primary voters, some of whom have a black-and-white perspective on such things.