Big Law And The Second Amendment (Updated)

Big Law, those mega-law firms which have hundreds of associates slaving away to make partners even richer, doesn’t like guns. They freely donate their time and efforts to groups like Brady United, Giffords Law Center, and their joint Firearms Accountability Task Force. However, don’t ask them to defend guns.

The most recent case is point is mega-firm Kirkland and Ellis LLP. They are the largest law firm in the United States based upon revenues according to Law.com. Yesterday afternoon, fresh on the heels of their major win in NYSRPA v. Bruen, Kirkland and Ellis partners Paul Clement and Erin Murphy announced they were having to leave the firm due to a change in policy.

From Politico:

“We were given a stark choice: either withdraw from ongoing representations or withdraw from the firm,” Clement said in a statement. “Anyone who knows us and our views regarding professional responsibility and client loyalty knows there was only one course open to us: We could not abandon ongoing representations just because a client’s position is unpopular in some circles.”

Through a firm spokesperson, Kirkland confirmed its decision but did not explain its rationale for dropping gun cases. A key attorney at Kirkland, Jon Ballis, said he hoped the firm could continue to work with Clement and Murphy on matters not related to guns.

“We wish them the best of luck in the future and we look forward to collaborating with them in the future in matters not involving the Second Amendment,” Ballis said in a statement.

While the firm biographies of both Clement and Murphy appeared on the Kirkland website earlier this morning, they are now gone. Both Clement and Murphy had served Supreme Court clerkships. Clement was a clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia while Murphy served as a clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts. In addition, Clement was the 43rd Solicitor General of the United States.

As the Wall Street Journal put it in an editorial today, “You Won Your Gun Case. You’re Fired.”

They go on to say:

But these days gun-rights advocates are unpopular in the tony precincts of Los Angeles and New York where Kirkland represents business clients. When it comes to core constitutional rights versus corporate retainers that finance summer homes in the Hamptons, the Constitution is a second-class citizen…

Kirkland’s invertebrate abdication illustrates how progressive ideology dominates the commanding heights of American law, business and culture. If you want to know why a groundswell of opposition against this woke conformity is building in the provinces, this is it.

Clement and Murphy have their own op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal entitled, “The Law Firm That Got Tired of Winning”.

They point out the proper role of a good attorney:

A lawyer can withdraw from a representation for good reason, like a newly discovered conflict of interest. But defending unpopular clients is what we do. The rare individuals and companies lucky enough to be universally popular (for the time being) have less need for lawyers. And the least popular clients are most in need of representation, from the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre to the defendant in the Boston Marathon bombing.

Our adversarial system of justice depends on the representation of controversial clients, no matter which side has most of big law rooting for it. This is particularly true in constitutional cases. Many of our fundamental constitutional guarantees are designed to be countermajoritarian, and many have been vindicated by litigants who are deeply unpopular, but still have a right to march through Skokie, Ill., to confront witnesses against them—or to defend themselves from violence.

I am glad there are ethical attorneys like Paul Clement and Erin Murphy. I am even more glad they were on our side and will continue to be on our side.

UPDATE: Dave Hardy at Arms and The Law blog pointed out something about Kirkland and Ellis that I did not know. The firm thought defending Jeffrey Epstein was just fine but the 2A was icky. Hmm.

In addition, Kirkland lawyers sued the widow of Andrew Breitbart as a continuation of their suit against him back in 2013. What a classy bunch.

NYSRPA Starts The Day At SCOTUS

The oral argument in the NY State Rifle and Pistol Association versus City of New York is the top of the calendar today for the Supreme Court. This marks the first Second Amendment case to reach this stage since 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago.

The oral arguments are being recorded. The Supreme Court also will make transcripts available. Both will be available on Friday after the Court’s regular conference.

For a more contemporaneous report on the proceedings without the mainstream media slant, Tom Gresham of Gun Talk was given media credentials to cover the case and will be posting on Twitter. His Twitter feed is found here. Alternatively, his Twitter handle is @guntalk. He also will be doing a Facebook livestream before and after the session. You can find it here.

All I can say regarding the case is to keep your fingers crossed. The US government has taken the position that the case is not moot. Paul Clement who will be arguing on behalf of the NYSRPA agrees in his response.

SCOTUS To New York City – Motion Denied

The City of New York had filed a motion to hold the briefing schedule in NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York in abeyance. Their argument was that since the NYPD were proposing to modify regulations on transport for those with premises permits that the briefing schedule should be suspended. In other words, we say we are going to change the regulations in question which might moot the case so don’t make us go to all the work necessary to respond to the plaintiffs.

In the orders issued by the Supreme Court today, their motion was denied.

18-280       NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL.


The motion of respondents to hold the briefing schedule in
abeyance is denied.

Paul Clement is the attorney of record for the NY State Rifle & Pistol Association and opposed this motion to hold briefing in abeyance. He said that “a stay is neither necessary nor appropriate” and then went to note the case was over six years old.