Every Lawyer Needs an Unpopular Client! I have found that many influential life experiences did not seem significant at the time they occurred in my life. Such was the case in my mother’s work as a c

Every Lawyer Needs an Unpopular Client!

 I have found that many influential life experiences did not seem significant at the time they occurred in my life. Such was the case in my mother’s work as a court reporter in a southern Indiana Circuit Court. Many times, during my high school years, when an interesting jury trial was being conducted, I would go to the court room after school and observe the court proceedings. My mother was revered by almost every attorney that practiced before the court largely because she went out of her way to assist them and make their work in court as easy and problem free as possible. My mother’s work ethic and servant’s heart were exemplary. I like to think I learned something from her example.

I certainly took full advantage of the good will capital my mother generated with the attorneys and at appropriate times asked them numerous questions about their work. One of the attorneys was quite accomplished as a criminal defense attorney and quite naturally represented some clients most of us would not wish to be associated. I asked him one time how he handled this challenge. His answer was simple: Every individual is entitled to receive legal representation to ensure the protection of their constitutional rights. And something this lawyer did not say, but I will say, is that lawyers should be free to undertake cases even if the case or client is unpopular in many quarters of society. I have learned all too well over the years that popularity is a very fickle commodity. A hero today can easily be a villain tomorrow! This experience in the foothills of southern Indiana surely factored in my decision to become an attorney.

In many ways the issue of client representation has been implicated in the Executive Orders issued by President Trump against several elite “white shoe” law firms. President Trump was upset because of legal actions previously undertaken against him personally or against his family business by the firms or by attorneys currently or previously associated with the firms. For example, President Trump’s Executive Orders suspended law firm security clearances with the federal government; restricted access to federal buildings, courthouses, and federal agencies; and in some cases, would result in the cancellation of contracts between federal agencies and the clients of certain firms unless the firms’ representation of the clients was terminated by the client.  A few of the firms reached settlement agreements with the President to rescind the executive orders while other firms have challenged the executive orders in federal court and at least 3 firms have won some form of relief from the Executive Orders from federal district judges. To date, President Trump has not yet undertaken an appeal of any of these decisions. Most legal scholars (liberal and conservative) believe other firms will have similar success if they initiate legal challenges against the Executive Orders.

Just to level set, it is my view that one of the reasons President Trump was reelected President, as only the second U.S. President to be elected to non-consecutive terms, was the fact that many voters believed that he was unfairly targeted in two impeachment proceedings as well as with civil and criminal proceedings initiated against him personally and against his family business by state and federal prosecutors after his first term as President concluded. The American people have largely disfavored what they consider a “piling on” or lawfare campaign against a current or former President. Does anyone remember the impeachment and other various legal proceedings initiated against former President Bill Clinton and the rather surprising strong measure of public support he received? The American voters rendered their unambiguous verdict on November 5, 2024, in favor of President Trump. So, does it make sense for President Trump to just take both the election win and the high road and move on?

For the record, I am opposed to President Trump’s Executive Orders against the law firms. I firmly believe lawyers should be free to represent clients and pursue cases even if a particular client or case is unpopular with many constituencies, including a U.S. President. If lawyers are not free to do this, we will soon be no better off than China, Russia, or Venezuela in terms of allowing attorneys to freely practice law and protect the constitutional rights of individuals. Is this the direction we want for our country? In my view, the right to counsel must include unpopular individuals and unpopular causes. Moreover, is it possible that President Trump’s Executive Orders may provide a roadmap for a future President Newsome or President Pritzker to issue Executive Orders sanctioning law groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom or Becket Law because of their legal work to protect their clients’ First Amendment religious liberty rights? Speaking as an Evangelical Christian, attorney, and a political conservative, I believe this would be a tragic development.

But I do have a few questions for the managing partners and executive committees of the firms targeted in President Trump’s Executive Orders. In the spirit of providing competent legal counsel to clients deemed unpopular in certain quarters, would you allow one of your partners to represent a crisis pregnancy center or a home school consortium in the cross hairs of a state regulatory agency if a partner wished to undertake this representation and your firm cleared conflicts?  Similarly, would you allow a partner to represent a group of Christians lawfully and peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights to protest outside an abortion clinic who were unlawfully arrested and then prosecuted? What about representing a group of Jewish college students in a lawsuit against an elite university which failed to protect the Jewish students from antisemitic attacks which threatened their personal safety and disrupted their ability to pursue their academic education? If you allowed a partner to undertake “unpopular” representations such as these described above, would you take appropriate steps to ensure that she lost no social or economic standing in the firm?  I eagerly await your response and your answers to these questions.

God bless you, and thanks for the privilege of your time in reading my blog.