Comments on: The Stimson Fuss http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/01/the_stimson_fus.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:31:00 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Joseph Slater http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/01/the_stimson_fus.html/comment-page-1#comment-55606 Joseph Slater Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:58:41 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/01/the-stimson-fuss.html#comment-55606 Carolyn: The difference is that Stimson was acting as a *federal government official*, not a private party, in calling (yes, he was calling) for CEOs to boycott firms who were representing clients in cases against the *federal government.* That's quite different than Joe private citizen choosing to replace firm A with firm B because firm A represents somebody I don't like. Carolyn:

The difference is that Stimson was acting as a *federal government official*, not a private party, in calling (yes, he was calling) for CEOs to boycott firms who were representing clients in cases against the *federal government.*

That’s quite different than Joe private citizen choosing to replace firm A with firm B because firm A represents somebody I don’t like.

]]> By: Fred Flint http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/01/the_stimson_fus.html/comment-page-1#comment-55605 Fred Flint Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:13:11 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/01/the-stimson-fuss.html#comment-55605 Stimson was clearly arguing that CEOs of large law firm clients should put pressure on their law firms to stop representing Gitmo detainees or should threaten to take their business elsewhere. Any other interpretation is absurd. It is quite obvious if you listen to the actual interview. He did not say "And we want to watch that play out," as you and others have quoted him. In fact, he said "It would be FUN to watch that play out." His glee at the prospect of these firms being pressured to drop these cases was obvious. He should be fired immediately, but of course that'll never happen. Stimson was clearly arguing that CEOs of large law firm clients should put pressure on their law firms to stop representing Gitmo detainees or should threaten to take their business elsewhere. Any other interpretation is absurd. It is quite obvious if you listen to the actual interview. He did not say “And we want to watch that play out,” as you and others have quoted him. In fact, he said “It would be FUN to watch that play out.” His glee at the prospect of these firms being pressured to drop these cases was obvious. He should be fired immediately, but of course that’ll never happen.

]]> By: Carolyn Elefant http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/01/the_stimson_fus.html/comment-page-1#comment-55604 Carolyn Elefant Tue, 16 Jan 2007 05:07:13 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/01/the-stimson-fuss.html#comment-55604 Frankly, I don't understand all the fuss about this. I personally don't think Stimson's remarks were as bad as they're being portrayed, but even if they were, this kind of intimidation happens all the time without any uproar. When I was a baby lawyer, I represented a homeless client as part of a legal clinic pro bono program. The client sued a major hotel because it kicked him out of its restaurant even though he had money to pay for his meal. The hotel was represented by a big firm that also did work for the clinic and threatened to pull its support if the suit wasn't dropped. So the clinic dropped me, and I handled the case on my own. Big deal. Right now, I represent clients who are suing a municipality 3 hours outside of DC, where I practice. My clients couldn't find a local attorney because all were afraid to touch the case for fear of reprisal. Even think of Atticus Finch - he too was ostracized. This is all part of being a lawyer. Lawyers make tough choices. The biglaw firms who took on representation of Gitmo detainees now face a choice: continue their representation, as they are ethically bound to do and possibly lose a client. We solos and small firms make those hard choices everyday. That's what being a real lawyer is. Frankly, I don’t understand all the fuss about this. I personally don’t think Stimson’s remarks were as bad as they’re being portrayed, but even if they were, this kind of intimidation happens all the time without any uproar. When I was a baby lawyer, I represented a homeless client as part of a legal clinic pro bono program. The client sued a major hotel because it kicked him out of its restaurant even though he had money to pay for his meal. The hotel was represented by a big firm that also did work for the clinic and threatened to pull its support if the suit wasn’t dropped. So the clinic dropped me, and I handled the case on my own. Big deal. Right now, I represent clients who are suing a municipality 3 hours outside of DC, where I practice. My clients couldn’t find a local attorney because all were afraid to touch the case for fear of reprisal. Even think of Atticus Finch – he too was ostracized.

This is all part of being a lawyer. Lawyers make tough choices. The biglaw firms who took on representation of Gitmo detainees now face a choice: continue their representation, as they are ethically bound to do and possibly lose a client. We solos and small firms make those hard choices everyday. That’s what being a real lawyer is.

]]> By: Ben Davis http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/01/the_stimson_fus.html/comment-page-1#comment-55603 Ben Davis Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:26:17 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/01/the-stimson-fuss.html#comment-55603 Stimson knows what he is doing. It is an old patrician dirty trick that the Skull and Bones types have been doing from time immemorial. He is trying to make pressure on law firms about this a permissible action by the WASP elite (his social club) with control of corporate budgets. As many, he is willing to sell out American principles for his employer. He can go to hell after he watches the Good Shepherd. Best, Ben Stimson knows what he is doing. It is an old patrician dirty trick that the Skull and Bones types have been doing from time immemorial. He is trying to make pressure on law firms about this a permissible action by the WASP elite (his social club) with control of corporate budgets. As many, he is willing to sell out American principles for his employer. He can go to hell after he watches the Good Shepherd.

Best,

Ben

]]> By: Dave<HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:35:14 GMT Server: Apache X-Pingback: http://www.concurringopinions.com/xmlrpc.php Last-Modified: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:31:00 GMT ETag: "01094650e6b562a3046082b60b1391d9" Connection: close Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>200 OK

OK

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, support@supportwebsite.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Apache/1.3.33 Server at www.concurringopinions.com Port 80