Firms should instead aspire to environments in which people of radically different viewpoints can coexist in mutual toleration, respect, and maybe even admiration — for the deeply held, carefully considered views of their adversaries, even if they disagree vehemently with those views.
Turning to the practical, how can managing partners and other Big Law leaders combat this epidemic of intolerance? How can they promote ideological diversity and free expression within their organizations?
First, they should support politically diverse pro bono efforts. In the past, lawyers from large firms could be found representing both sides of contentious issues in their pro bono work, but today, there’s an overwhelming imbalance in favor of the left. As Clement noted in remarks last November, about two dozen Big Law firms filed amicus briefs in support of abortion rights in Dobbs — and zero filed on the other side. If managing partners give the green light to pro bono projects in defense of, say, religious liberty — and maybe even handle some of these projects personally, as lawyers — that would send a powerful message to rank-and-file lawyers about the firm’s commitment to viewpoint diversity.
Second, they should stop issuing statements weighing in on every controversy in the news, including statements condemning everything from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs. Yes, the Russian invasion of Ukraine deserves condemnation — but are law firms the ones to be doing it? Law firms are collections of lawyers — ideally, lawyers of diverse viewpoints — who have come together to practice law. They’re not think tanks, editorial boards, or Hollywood celebrities, and opining on the issues of the day is not their job. But when law firms issued statements condemning Dobbs — or even gave employees the day off after the ruling came down — they sent a message about which side they were taking in the culture wars.
Finally, if law firms are going to have diversity training — which may or may not be a good thing — and if they are going to encourage lawyers to “bring their whole selves” to work, then perhaps they should have training about respectful discourse. This fall, Yale Law School, which had significant problems last year relating to free speech, redesigned its orientation for new students “to center around discussions of free expression and the importance of respectful engagement.” Perhaps law firms should follow suit.
GROK:
Key Points
- Research suggests ideological diversity in Big Law benefits legal advocacy and the rule of law, but there’s debate over whether firms prioritize finances over ideology.
- It seems likely that Big Law firms lean left, potentially limiting conservative viewpoints, though critics argue decisions are profit-driven.
- The evidence leans toward client pressures influencing firm actions, with examples like Paul Clement’s departure from Kirkland & Ellis sparking controversy.
Overview
David Lat’s 2023 op-ed, “Big Law’s Cancel Culture,” argues that ideological uniformity in large law firms (Big Law) harms lawyers, firms, and the rule of law by limiting diverse viewpoints. He cites cases like Paul Clement and Erin Murphy leaving Kirkland & Ellis after pressure to drop Second Amendment cases and partners allegedly forced out for supporting Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Lat suggests this reflects growing intolerance, particularly for conservative views, in predominantly liberal Big Law.
Responses and Debate
The op-ed sparked debate, with Joe Patrice and Jay Willis challenging Lat’s claims. Patrice argues Big Law’s actions are financially motivated, not ideological, while Willis sees systemic issues like lack of diversity as more pressing. Lat’s follow-up piece defends his view, citing studies on Big Law’s liberal leanings and advocating for broader discourse.
Implications
This discussion highlights the tension between free expression, client interests, and firm profitability, with ongoing controversy over whether Big Law suppresses dissent or simply responds to market pressures. For more details, see Lat’s original piece (“Big Law’s Cancel Culture”) and follow-up (“More Thoughts On Intellectual Diversity In Biglaw”).
Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of Ideological Diversity in Big Law
David Lat’s 2023 op-ed, “Big Law’s Cancel Culture,” published in the Boston Globe on January 30, 2023, and later republished digitally due to his freelancer agreement, addresses the lack of ideological diversity in large law firms, known as Big Law. This analysis explores Lat’s arguments, the responses from critics Joe Patrice and Jay Willis, and Lat’s follow-up thoughts, providing a comprehensive overview of the debate as of April 13, 2025.
Background and Context
Lat’s op-ed, titled “Big Law’s Cancel Culture” by Globe copy editors (a title he notes he would not have chosen due to its baggage), argues that ideological uniformity, particularly a left-leaning bias, is detrimental to lawyers, law firms, and the rule of law. He highlights specific incidents to illustrate his point:
- On June 23, 2022, following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which upheld Second Amendment rights, Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, celebrated litigators, were asked by Kirkland & Ellis to withdraw from Second Amendment cases or leave. They chose to leave and start their own firm, as reported in the Wall Street Journal (“Winning Lawyers in Supreme Court Gun Case Leave Firm”).
- Lat also mentions at least two antiabortion women partners allegedly forced out for supporting Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, with one case detailed in his newsletter, Original Jurisdiction (“Biglaw’s Latest Cancel-Culture Controversy”).
- Other examples include lawyers criticized for expressing concerns about transgender rights, clerking for Trump-appointed judges, or working for faith-based organizations, suggesting a pattern of intolerance.
Lat notes that while Big Law has historically been liberal, as reflected in lopsided political contributions, the current intensity and job risks for holding “wrong” views mark a new level of groupthink, with exceptions like Jones Day, known for Trump-related work.
Lat’s Arguments and Proposed Solutions
Lat argues that ideological diversity is crucial for effective legal advocacy, as lawyers need to understand all sides, especially when arguing before conservative courts, including the current Supreme Court. He cites research suggesting ideologically diverse teams are more effective, though specific studies are not detailed in the op-ed. For the rule of law, he quotes Clement and Murphy from the Wall Street Journal, emphasizing the need to represent controversial clients in constitutional cases, which are often counter-majoritarian (“Winning Lawyers in Supreme Court Gun Case Leave Firm”).
He warns that suppressing dissent mirrors broader societal issues, like bans on teaching critical race theory or restricting literature, leading to a cycle of power abuse. To combat this, Lat proposes:
- Supporting politically diverse pro bono efforts, noting an imbalance (e.g., 24 Big Law firms filed amicus briefs supporting abortion rights in Dobbs, none on the other side, as per Clement’s remarks in November 2022).
- Avoiding firm statements on controversial issues, such as condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or Dobbs, arguing law firms are not think tanks or editorial boards.
- Implementing training on respectful discourse, inspired by Yale Law School’s 2022 orientation redesign to center on free expression (“Yale Law School Free Speech”).
Lat concludes by calling for a return to a time when lawyers could disagree without being disagreeable, for the sake of the legal profession and justice system.
Responses from Critics
The op-ed generated significant engagement, including detailed responses from Joe Patrice of Above the Law and Jay Willis of Balls and Strikes, as well as comments on the Globe website and X posts by Lat (X post).
- Joe Patrice’s Response: Published on January 31, 2023, in “Biglaw Isn't A Cancel Culture, It's A Business That Cares More About Money Than Your Feelings” (“Biglaw Isn't A Cancel Culture”), Patrice argues Big Law’s actions are financially driven, not ideological. He critiques Lat’s examples:
- Kirkland & Ellis’s decision on Clement and Murphy was about preserving client relationships, not ideology, referencing prior cases like King & Spalding’s 2011 decision on Clement’s DOMA work (“Paul Clement Quits King & Spalding”).
- Robin Keller’s termination at Hogan Lovells was due to racist remarks about abortion, not just Dobbs support, impacting firm-client relations (“White Partner at Biglaw Firm”).
- He refutes Lat’s Yale Law School free speech claims, clarifying disruptions were rule-based and the event continued (“Yale Law School Free Speech”).
- Patrice concludes Big Law focuses on Am Law 100 status through financial strategy, defending private actors’ rights to reject harmful ideas.
- Jay Willis’s Response: Published on February 2, 2023, in “Big Law’s Cancel Culture, and Other Obviously Fake Things That Do Not Exist” (“Big Law’s Cancel Culture”), Willis challenges Lat’s narrative, focusing on profit motives:
- Kirkland & Ellis’s decision post-Uvalde was client-driven, with Clement’s NRA ties known since at least 2013 (“Paul Clement, NRA File”).
- The Hogan Lovells case involved a conspiracy theory, not just Dobbs support, as per the Wall Street Journal (“No Dissent Allowed at Hogan Lovells”).
- Willis argues Lat ignores Big Law’s pro-corporate, conservative work, citing revenue growth (e.g., Kirkland & Ellis hit $6 billion in 2022, per “The 2022 Global 200 Ranked by Revenue”) and Eugene Scalia’s remarks at a FedSoc event (“Scalia Says Big Law Is Unwilling”).
- He highlights diversity stats, showing Big Law remains male and white (25% women, 9% people of color as equity partners in 2020, per “2022 NALP Report on Diversity”), suggesting systemic issues over ideology.
Lat’s Follow-Up and Defense
On February 17, 2023, Lat published “More Thoughts On Intellectual Diversity In Biglaw” on his Substack, Original Jurisdiction (“More Thoughts On Intellectual Diversity”), addressing critiques through an imaginary dialogue, emphasizing civil discourse over snarky “fisking.” Key points include:
- Ideological Uniformity: Lat cites studies to support Big Law’s left-leaning nature:
- A 2015 paper, “The Political Ideologies of American Lawyers” by Bonica, Chilton, and Sen (“The Political Ideologies of American Lawyers”), shows lawyers in private practice, especially at the top 25 firms, have “liberal-leaning distributions.”
- A 2021 analysis by Muller (“Ranking the Most Liberal and Conservative Law Firms”) found many Am Law 100 firms had less than 10% contributions to Republicans, a few ≥25%, and only 3 >50%.
- Conservative Firms: He acknowledges Jones Day, noting in 2015 it was the most conservative Vault 20 firm, with a score like Senator Joe Manchin (–0.13), but by 2021, over 75% of contributions went to Democrats, suggesting even exceptions shift left.
- Legal and Ethical Arguments: Lat opposes making political opinion a protected category, citing potential lawsuits and First Amendment issues, referencing an X post (X post) and a Wall Street Journal article (“The New Discrimination Demands a New Law”). He argues against firing for differing views, supported by examples like Clement’s case and quotes from Ralph Baxter and Clement on client influence.
- Client and Talent Pressures: Lat notes client pressures (e.g., Clement’s case after gun rights work) but argues firms shouldn’t cave, citing Cooley’s refusal to fire an associate for Elon Musk. He advocates for a broader discourse window, referencing Judge Learned Hand’s 1944 speech, “The Spirit of Liberty” (“The Spirit of Liberty Speech”).
- Empirical and Personal Insights: Lat cites his experience at Above the Law, noting diverse views sharpened thinking and improved dynamics, and mentions examples like Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick’s Legal Aid background enriching Young Conaway.
Synthesis and Implications
The debate reveals a tension between Lat’s view that ideological diversity enhances legal advocacy and the rule of law, and critics’ arguments that Big Law’s actions are profit-driven, with systemic issues like diversity and client pressures being more significant. Lat’s follow-up provides empirical support for his claims, but the controversy persists, with ongoing discussions likely as of April 13, 2025, given the complexity of balancing free expression, client interests, and firm profitability.
Aspect | Lat’s View | Critics’ View (Patrice, Willis) |
|---|---|---|
Driving Factor | Ideological uniformity, particularly left-leaning bias | Financial interests, client pressures, profit motives |
Key Examples | Clement/Murphy (Kirkland), Dobbs supporters, transgender rights concerns | Clement/Murphy (profit-driven), Keller (racist remarks, not ideology) |
Impact on Rule of Law | Undermines representation of controversial clients | Systemic issues (e.g., diversity) more pressing than ideology |
Proposed Solutions | Diverse pro bono, no firm statements, discourse training | Defends private actors’ rights to reject harmful ideas, focus on profit |
This analysis underscores the need for further research into Big Law’s culture, particularly as it evolves, with potential impacts on legal education, client representation, and societal trust in the justice system.
Key Citations
