Same Crap, Different Post (4.00 / 2)

There are plenty of refutations, you just choose not to acknowledge them. You're cravenly clinging to your thesis, just like you do with your beloved "Uprising" idea, and you're now relying on ad homium remarks such as calling lawyers "self described."

Saying that a lawyer shouldn't necessarily be disqualified for representing awful criminals is like saying that a garbage man shouldn't necessarily be disqualified for taking out the trash.

---

by: ergotist @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 01:54:25 AM CST

It's not "Wrong"! (4.00 / 4)

Look, David is making a perfectly defensible thesis. I don't entirely agree with it, but it makes sense.

I think it's sort of telling that in the comments section, so many self-identified lawyers argued that when it comes to a top government position, it's totally off-limits to judge a lawyer on who he decided to represent.

This is because society tends to identify lawyers with who they represent. Lawyers resent that.

But, there's some truth to the fact that corporate lawyers do tend over time to take on a corporate attitude. They become part of the culture they're representing.

But, you see that most heavily with CORPORATE COUNSEL, NOT TRIAL LAWYERS, which is what I understand Holder was.

Some have tried to make that point, but it's been overlooked or ignored.

In reality, for a senior government position, you're going to get some kind of insider appointed.

They're not going to reach out and pick someone with no major experience running a large department of lawyers or having a big name as a successful litigator and possibly a politician. That's who gets picked for Attorney General every time going back to the Eisenhower Administration.

As for the specific charge of representing Chiquita, all that has to happen is for a Senator to ASK him that at the confirmation hearing. "Is it not true that many have alleged Chiquita hired mercenaries to terrorize their workers? Do you think that's ethical?"

He might fall back on the "Even a werewolf deserves a defense" theory, but we'd get to see his response.

Further, you could ask him pointed questions about the administration of justice for the poor, the "war on drugs," etc. That will tell you a great deal more about what his policies will be like than anything about Chiquita.

I would flat ask: "Barack Obama has talked about there being two standards of justice in America, one for the rich and one for the poor. How would you work to change that? And be specific. What programs or changes would you implement?

---

by: Cugel @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:08:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Do Some Reading Before You Type (0.00 / 0)

Have you looked into what Holder did in the Chiquita case at all? It's widely known among people who actually bothered to learn about the case that Chiquita's lawyers are the ones who got them to do the right thing in the end.

---

by: ergotist @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 12:13:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Principles (4.00 / 7)

I'm still disturbed by David Sirota's suggestion that lawyers should be tainted by who they represent. In a free country, Osama Bin Laden, Chiquita Banana, Union Carbide, Rod Blagojevich, and Nazis from Skokie all deserve vigorous defenses. And their lawyers uphold justice by defending them. This has always been a difficult principle for most Americans to accept, whether they be on the left or the right.

---

by: Cello @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:24:13 AM CST

All He Understands Is Guilt By Association (0.00 / 0)

---

by: ergotist @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:30:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Tainted? No. Judged? Sure. (4.00 / 2)

Automatically tainted? Absolutely not. Judged on the choices they make? Absolutely - just like everyone else in all the choices we all make.

Nobody is above their own personal decisions - not even lawyers, and especially not those who attempt to claim a constitutional amendment automatically makes their decisions pure. To quote commenter Lester: "Preferring an AG who didn't do such work is in no way to say such work should be done by no one."

---

by: David Sirota @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:34:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Right (4.00 / 3)

Ah, so now there are two different classes of lawyers. There are the ones who can defend criminals, and the ones who want promotions.

---

by: ergotist @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:37:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No, not really (0.00 / 0)

As I will say for the fifth time, it's not an automatically disqualifying factor. But it is a factor, just like everything else is. The idea that it's somehow off limits is silly.

The fact is, we are all judged on all of our decisions. Lots of people get ahead making lots of different decisions that are defended on the merits. But that's the whole point - they should be defended on the merits, rather than defended on the grounds that we cannot consider the decisions at all. That's just a cop out.

So, for instance, I think there might be a great case to be made that the ACLU lawyers who defended Gitmo detainees are eminently qualified to be AG, both because of other work they did, and because the work they did defending Gitmo detainees was clearly about the legal principle. I think someone could make the case that Holder is eminently qualified to be AG, both because of his entire career, and because (and I'm certainly not arguing this) because there was some values-based merit in his decision to defend Chiquita. I don't see that latter argument, but someone could make it.

What's interesting, though, is that NOBODY wants to make that latter argument. It seems people are AFRAID to make that argument because it's hard to make the argument that there was some higher calling in defending one of the most brutal corporations in the world. Instead, Holder defenders would rather simply say that it's unacceptable to even CONSIDER or think about his decision to defend that corporation. And again, that's just a pathetic cop out - an argument that's the last refuge of people who have no substantive argument.

---

by: David Sirota @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:43:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

But That's Not What You're Doing (4.00 / 2)

If you have some evidence of misconduct in the Chiquita case then bring it up! But you have no such evidence to present! All you keep doing is screaming Chiquita Chiquita Chiquita over and over again.

You're not making an argument. You're making an insinuation.

---

by: ergotist @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:48:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Nope (0.00 / 0)

Nope, what I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with preferring an Attorney General who didn't make the personal choice to defend a corporation as hideous as Chiquita. Just like there's nothing wrong with preferring a President who made the choice to use his legal degree not defending hideous corporations, but instead use that degree to defend civil rights plaintiffs.

So for the sixth time: All I'm saying is that it's perfectly acceptable to judge lawyers on who they choose to defend and not defend when considering them for public office.

Look, if you have no problem with Holder choosing to defend a hideous corporation, that's your right. And you should explain why you feel that way on the merits - why, for instance, you think it's a good idea to have an Attorney General who thought it was a worthy use of his time to defend such a hideous corporation. That is, not why you think the hideous corporation deserves a defense, but why you think it's a good thing for the U.S. to have an Attorney General who made the decision to be the defense. Make the case, counselor.

But because you may be uncomfortable with such a case, don't then try to say it's somehow out of bounds for people to even be allowed to consider what a lawyer decides to do with their legal skills. Barack Obama bragged to the country that he made one choice with his legal degree, and many people voted for him because of that, and many people at this site bragged about Obama's choice as a lawyer. But now that people are asking questions about an Obama appointee's very different choices, somehow that's supposed to be out of bounds? I don't think so.

---

by: David Sirota @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:58:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

In fact... (0.00 / 0)

In fact, I want to add one other thing. Obama HIMSELF effectively said we should judge such choices.

Remember when, during a Democratic primary debate, he made the distinction between his choices as a lawyer to defend civil rights plaintiffs and Hillary Clinton's choices as a lawyer to defend Wal-Mart? In effect, Obama himself was saying we should, in fact, judge lawyers on who they choose to represent.

---

by: David Sirota @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:04:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh Snap (0.00 / 0)

A politician said something rhetorically misleading once. My mind is blown.

---

by: ergotist @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:05:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You Know (0.00 / 0)

For as much as you love to deride anyone who disagrees with you by saying that they're just screaming "Barack Obama Is Teh Awesome!" you're putting an awful lot of stock in the misleading rhetoric he used during the campaign. It's almost as if you think his words are some gold standard of truth, especially about topics you clearly don't understand.

---

by: ergotist @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:19:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Give it up (4.00 / 3)

People didn't need a permission slip from Obama to judge his community organizing to be more praise-worthy than Hillary's position on the board of Walmart.

I am a lawyer.  I made choices with my career, just as Holder did.  And I have no qualms about judging AG candidates based on their career choices.

Holder chose to get rich by representing a sleazy client that paid paramilitary groups to murder union organizers.  Are we better off because someone is willing to do that (highly paid) job? Yes.  Is that who I want as AG?  No.

---

by: space @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:33:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually, you're completely wrong. Go figure. (4.00 / 6)

Clinton never served as Walmart's lawyer.  She served as a member of its board of directors.  And that's what Obama criticized her for in the SC debate

---

by: Adam B. @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:07:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What On Earth Is So Wrong About Being On The Defense? (0.00 / 0)

Why is this at all a questionable choice for a lawyer to make?

---

by: ergotist @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:04:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Because (0.00 / 0)

Because defending a known hideous corporation - whether Chiquita or the tobacco companies or someone else - is a decision to DEFEND them, to make - at some level - common cause with them in their defense. What the motivation is? Who knows - it's usually money. But it's fair to worry that someone who defended a company like Chiquita - someone who effectively WORKED for Chiquita (ie. was paid a lot by them) may not be as tough on the Chiquitas of the world as the top law enforcement official of the land...just like it's fair to worry that someone who worked for Halliburton (Dick Cheney) might use his government office to do favors for Halliburton.

---

by: David Sirota @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:08:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Wrong (4.00 / 2)

It's a very basic principle of law that lawyers do not work for their clients. Lawyers work for the law. This is Law 101 stuff here. It's not at all the same thing as working for Haliburton. You're drawing a comparison where none exists.

Lawyers do not exhibit common cause with their clients by taking their defense. Did John Adams have common cause when he took the defense of the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trial? Did Abraham Lincoln have common cause with the slaveholders he represented? Give me a break.

Your ignorance glows, David.

---

by: ergotist @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:13:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So you think there is no way to (4.00 / 1)

judge between my cousin who defends poor people (on criminal charges of which they're often guilty, which is her role in an adversarial system) and my other cousin who apparently doesn't work for Blackwater (okay, maybe Triple Canopy), but accepts them as a client and, y'know, does work for them?

I can't look at both my cousins and see the choices they made and come to a conclusion about who they are?

---

by: Joel @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:13:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Of Course (0.00 / 0)

Your one cousin sounds like a very charitable guy, and that's awesome. Many religions honor the idea of charity. However, there is no requirement for being Attorney General that the candidate be charitable enough. There's no reason to distinguish between someone who does good things for big money and someone who does the same good things pro bono when it comes to deciding who is the most skilled for being Attorney General.

---

by: ergotist @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 12:03:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And that's where you're at your wrongest. (4.00 / 4)

"Defend" doesn't mean what you think it does.  It is not "common cause". When I represented John du Pont, that didn't make me pro-killing Olympic wrestlers.  When I represented a pharmaceutical company accused of releasing a tainted product, that didn't make pre pro-people-getting-sick.  

You claim to have respected the debate last night but missed one of my key arguments: there's a big difference between counseling someone in how to commit bad acts, and in providing counsel on how to accept legal responsibility for those acts.  Holder did not do the former.

Who you represent can only be a one-way-ratchet upwards.  So long as it's done ethically, it cannot be a negative.

---

by: Adam B. @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 09:03:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't agree (0.00 / 0)

And I will give two examples:

As a young attorney I worked for a large firm that defended cigarette companies.  That defense was conducted "ethically" if the sole standard is the legal definition of the lawyer's canon of ethics.  But things were done  in those cases which resulted in the perversion of justice - and any big firm litigator knows precisely what I am talking about.  

Later, when I became a prosecutor I was given the case of man who had murdered his wife and his two year-old daughter.  I tried the case, and asked for death penalty, which I felt obligated to ask for under the laws of the State where the case was tried.  I oppose the death penalty, and have regretted the decision to take that assignment ever since.   Janet Reno made the same decision as a prosecutor in Miami Dade.

There is a difference between representing someone and being legal responsibility for the acts of those we represent.  But I have come to conclude that the idea that this frees us from any accountability for the clients we choose to represent is wrong.  

---

by: fladem @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:08:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

By that definition, the ACLU in Skokie made common cause with Nazis (4.00 / 3)

And we know that's wrong.

Because defending a known hideous corporation - whether Chiquita or the tobacco companies or someone else - is a decision to DEFEND them, to make - at some level - common cause with them in their defense.

David, this premise - is a threat to our civil liberties, whether it comes from the right or left.

---

by: tietack @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:29:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

dude (4.00 / 2)

there are many types of lawyers (i've worked for some ;) - to believe that the law is not part of a political and economic arrangement is absurd.  If you become a legal aid lawyer and defend low income people on court or get a job at CCR, that's very different from  working at a corporate firm.  Even if one were to accept the argument that the legal system as a whole is fair (which plenty of critical legal theorists would take serious issue with, not to mention a lot of people outside of the legal system), there's still plenty of room for the legal profession to stop defining public service in terms of anyone who upholds the legal system / the law.

I mean otherwise, we could just create a category of people (e.g. politician) and say that they're all the same and whatever they do, they're just upholding the political system and anyone who does that is fine and no one should be judged on anything except the standards the profession itself sets.  It would be a bit weird.`

---

by: dr anonymous @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:39:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's a factor, but (0.00 / 0)

how much weight should be given to it is another issue.  You're correct that Obama suggested that he should be "praised" or given support because he chose not to work for corporate firms, although he met his wife while he summered at one and his wife did for a while, and, therefore, it makes one's choices fair game.

Adam B. is right, at least the part you reference above (I did not read the first diary or his full comment), to say that we should look at Holder's entire career.  We also should look at his beliefs.  I find it unlikely that Holder will reflect Chiquita's interests.  Nor do I think he "believes" they are right.

In the end, the argument comes down to whether Holder's chocie to represent corporations, and this one in particular, a belief or whether representing "bad corporations" for money is bad in itself.  

It's worth discussing.  I have no major problems with the nomination of Holder.  It's a vast improvement over the last 8 years.  But I also think the discusion is useful.

   

---

by: Tom Wells @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 07:42:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

False equivalence (4.00 / 5)

While choosing to defend Chiquita shouldn't in itself be disqualifying, it's certainly something that needs to be looked at, and I don't buy the argument that holy principle means that we can never question a lawyer's choice of clients.  Rather, I'd say that we would want to understand the lawyer's motivations.  Is he choosing an unsavory client primarily because of principle, or primarily because of profit?

If I'm looking to hire a strong civil libertarian, the fact that the lawyer has defended the rights of racists to march, despite being a strong anti-racist (or even a member of a group that the racists hate) would be a strong recommendation. However, merely taking large amounts of money from a corporation to defend vile behavior is no indication of principle.  It's something that needs to be considered in figuring out whether you have the right person to be the country's head lawyer.

---

by: Joe Buck @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:39:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

You've summed it up more succinctly than I have.  

---

by: David Sirota @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:44:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I Know (0.00 / 0)

People who make a profit by doing a job that needs to be done are like, totally bad, man.

---

by: ergotist @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:44:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Nope (0.00 / 0)

Nope, they aren't automatically "totally bad." But it's fair to ask if they are the right person to occupy the top legal office in the land.

---

by: David Sirota @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:45:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You're Not Asking (4.00 / 1)

This discussion didn't begin by you saying, "Hey, does anyone know if there's any signs of misconduct in the Chiquita case?" Here are your words:

I mean, I believe that for the most part, a lawyer can't be held responsible for the clients they defend, and everyone deserves a good defense. But that doesn't explain away an individual lawyer's personal choices. Sure, who a lawyer defends shouldn't disqualify them for almost anything...but perhaps one of the very few things it might affect is, ya know, whether they should head the entire U.S. government's legal apparatus.*

You say, blatantly, that it should disqualify Holder for being the A.G. merely because he was on the defense in the Chiquita case. Your rhetorical insertion of the word "perhaps" is inconsequential. You're using it as a weaselword.

If there was misconduct, then that should disqualify him. But if there was no misconduct, representing Chiquita does not disqualify him. Not perhaps. Not even a little. Not at all.

---

by: ergotist @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:53:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ahem (4.00 / 1)

Objection, counselor.

The word I used is "affect" - not disqualify. Yes, who a lawyer chooses to defend should be factored into the overall consideration - ie. affect - whether that lawyer is appointed to head the U.S. government's legal apparatus.  

---

by: David Sirota @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:00:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not That Either (0.00 / 0)

It shouldn't affect, effect, or otherwise be involved in the decision. Lawyers defend criminals and then get paid money for it. If you want to find a good lawyer who has never defended a sleazy criminal, let me know when you find one of those.

---

by: ergotist @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:03:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

a good activist lawyer only defends the indigent (0.00 / 0)

of course lawyers should be protecting people from the state - but they shouldn't take into account who they're attempting to protect and why?  That's ridiculous.  Let the corporations have to use the overworked lawyers with the huge caseloads and let the indigent poor and Black people have the best lawyers in the country and enough of those best lawyers that each of them has enough time to spend to do justice to their cases.  

Of course that will never happen (i leave it to you to bother to think about the social and economic dynamics) but one could move closer towards such a system.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:44:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Pro Bono (0.00 / 0)

Pro Bono work is awesome. Defending the poor is awesome. It's a very charitable act. But I don't see how we've ever disqualified someone for public office before on the grounds that the candidate is not charitable enough.

---

by: ergotist @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 12:06:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i am NOT talking about charitable acts (0.00 / 0)

charitable acts and the concept of pro bono uphold the legal system's flaws.  Some of this is necessary but honestly, it should be the requirement of the state to provide this defense (and really all defenses where resources disallow a good defense...but how many legal aid lawyers get paid the same as lawyers at Paul Weiss? ;) )

In any case, I haven't made any arguments about disqualification - what this is an argument about EVALUATION of a public official to be and what grounds one can use.  You want to throw out several criteria (clients, positions taken, support/opposition/acknowledgement of the legal system's nature, what the atittude is towards social and economic dispairites and the chocies made, etc.).  In point of fact, politically, all of these are worth considering - not for disqualifying but for evaluating.  In the South Asian community, we are going through this with Sonal Shah, who is a transition team member of the  Obama administration and has served on organizations' leadership that are strongly tied to India's Hindu right.  

The appropriate stance, there, and here, I think, is to pose these questions to Holder and ask for some answers.  Why he chose to represent Chiquita (and it was a choice) as well as why he has chosen his respective jobs will allow us to come to personal opinions much more quickly and effectively than talking about this in good/evil terms.  We're beyond that.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 13:42:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Screw Off (0.00 / 0)

(as opposed to folks like commenter "ergotist" that dishonestly claimed the argument was that Holder should be automatically disqualified or that anyone opposed to Holder hates the Sixth Amendment)

I never said any such thing. I never said that anyone who opposes Holder hates the Sixth Amendment and I certainly don't think that's the case. There are plenty of reasons to consider Holder's merit, but the fact that he defended a criminal in court is not one of them. For you to oversimplify my position to the point of absurdity means means that you're either a simpleton or just a liar. Either way, you're not worth my time, or anyone else's.

---

by: ergotist @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:43:09 AM CST

Great point made by bmaz (4.00 / 1)

There is a big difference between zealously representing a charged person/corporation/entity while forcing the government to prove their case and covering up the commission of criminal acts:

I admire Glenn Greenwald's writing and respect his work immensely, but I take pretty big issue with this position. The key that Greenwald is putting in the wrong lock is that those ethical standards of guaranteed zealous representation, like the detainees at Gitmo and other defendants are entitled to, apply to formally charged actual criminal defendants.

Chiquita, their executives, offices and board, et al. were not. Instead, what you had here was a dirty as mud corporation that had been illegally and immorally playing both sides a third world country's violent terrorist/factional problem, sometimes clandestinely with the CIA, including drug running and attendant money laundering, but always for the benefit and profit of Chiquita. You then have this complicit company, whose powerful Board member Rod Hills (and his wife, Carla Hills, a powerful former DOJ official and significant voice with the Bush Administration) is a major friend, supporter and donor to the Bushies, conspiring with the Bush DOJ to whitewash and cover up all this muck. And that is what Holder and the DOJ, together, did.

...

Holder didn't represent a charged criminal with protected rights in relation to an active prosecution, he conspired with an unethical and corrupt Justice Department to cover up and conceal crimes. This is a far cry from the heroic zealous public defender type of representation Glenn Greenwald, and others, are painting for Holder.

No, Holder is a lot closer to a mob consigliere than principled defender of justice. He should be treated as such. And if you want the Department of Justice to get serious about business and financial fraud, which this country desperately needs, we sure need someone diametrically different than Eric Holder.

People need to understand that Holder's involvement with the Chiquita matter speaks directly to his likely interest in and motivation to reform the highly politicized and highly corrupt Bush DOJ.   It isn't just about removing the movement conservatives and Liberty University law grads.  It's about restoring a culture of ethics and high standards.  It isn't clear at all that this task would be a high priority of Holder's, much less something that he would be qualified to oversee.

---

by: space @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:09:04 AM CST

I disagree (4.00 / 2)

Perhaps there's information I'm unaware of, but what I see is this document, which is, quite simply a plea bargain on a criminal charge (not much of a cover-up, since they pleaded guilty, and paid 25 million dollars), and that he represented them in the civil suit.

I'm not seeing anything here which is unethical or illegal in Holder's behavior; please feel free to point out something I've missed. It's quite possible that the Justice Department should have pushed for a better deal, but Holder wasn't representing the Justice department at the time - so I can hardly blame him for that.

---

by: Xanaqui @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 06:54:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

that's crap. (4.00 / 3)

Based on that link, Roderick Hills shouldn't be AG.  There is no evidence that Holder "conspired with an unethical and corrupt Justice Department to cover up and conceal crimes."

---

by: Adam B. @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 09:06:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's good to know that encouraging your client (4.00 / 1)

to commit felonies does discredit you from being AG.

Personally, I don't want a guy as AG who has any desire to spend his time representing this slime.  Yes, we have a need for defense lawyers in this society. But that isn't the job of the AG.  The AG is the nation's "top cop" and, in my opinion, should be predisposed to pursuing criminality, not sweeping it under the rug.

Having said that, my post was unclear about Holder being complicit in "covering up and concealing crimes." It was the crimes of Rod Hills, not Chiquita, that I was talking about.

Holder had a duty to defend Chiquita, his client.  Rod Hills either was not Holder's client, or likely should not have been given the conflict between Hills and Chiquita.

I am not going to come to any armchair conclusions about Holder's ethics here, but there is an appearance that Holder was willing to let his client, Chiquita, settle for a $25M fine, rather than throw Mills under the bus, as a truly zealous advocate would be obligated to do.  

Between Chiquita and the Marc Rich affair, Holder has demonstrated a willingness to not do things by the book in order to please and accommodate those in power.  That makes me very uncomfortable.  

It makes me think that, should Holder encounter evidence of unethical, if not illegal, behavior in DOJ records from the Bush administration, rather than going by the book and turning it over to the appropriate oversight entity, Holder might choose to play "go along to get along" with those implicated for whatever reason.

---

by: space @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:05:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

this looks to be a detailed source (4.00 / 1)

Link.  It looks like former AG Richard Thornburgh represented Hills and the Audit Committee in these proceedings, and it was the US Attorney's Office which chose not to prosecute individual corporate officers.

---

by: Adam B. @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:15:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Adam, check (4.00 / 3)

out this comment and link in it:

http://openleft.com/showCommen...

Holder came in after the lawyers told the company to self report to DOJ.

This whle thing is a tempest in a teapot.  Not only did Holder do nothing wrong, the lawyers are the good guys in this.

Further, this is not about policy at all.  Holder is not "tainted" by his acts here.

I said earlier, that I'm okay with people considering his professional work as part of whether he should be AG, but I don't think much weight pro or con should be given to his work here.  Others may disagree.  

---

by: Tom Wells @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:33:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

the structure of your post really leaves something to be desired.... (4.00 / 7)

you suggest that you are impressed by the debate (implying a certain degree of humility), but then only highlight comments that support your original contention, even as you call out and disparage your primary critic.  the polemic implicit in your form is not lost on any of us, meaning that you might as well dispense with the magnanimous rhetorical gestures...  

that aside, what i would like to hear more about is your analysis of the larger political context re: the holder nomination, of which your post forms a small (though not negligible) part.  would a principled opposition to holder's nomination be worthwhile for the left?  or would it be counterproductive?  

---

by: seabrook @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:18:48 AM CST

this is about Rove (0.00 / 0)

Rove Reportedly Will 'Help Lead' GOP's Fight Against Eric Holder For Attorney General

---

by: AliceDem @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:41:52 AM CST

Scott Horton (4.00 / 1)

This is all about Rove securing the crime scene. Congratulations Rove, other than Think Progress, no one is noticing.

---

by: AliceDem @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 08:42:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And Leahy is giving them time ... (4.00 / 1)

to get their act together .. how dumb is that?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:14:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ignoring who a lawyer has represented in the past (0.00 / 0)

Ignoring who a lawyer has represented in the past is a fine principle for a law firm, but a bad principle for a politician.

Why?  Because these positions are not about fairness.  

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

---

by: transgenmom @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:34:23 AM CST

I'm not understanding your argument at all. (4.00 / 2)

Let's say, hypothetically, that there's someone everyone hates. Let's call them Hitler. In this hypothetical scenario, Hitler needs representation in court for, let's say, multiple genocides, starting multiple illegal wars, and enough war crimes to fill up a 100-page binder.

Are you suggesting that any lawyers of this hypothetical Hitler should be banned from future privileges (such as the ability to hold future offices)?

In your opinion, what separates this from suggesting that such an individual shouldn't have a defense (for if we applied this consistently to everyone, wouldn't this limit or possibly eliminate defense)?

How do you view this as differing from, say Adam's infamous defense of British Soldiers?

In your view, should John Adams have been judged by choosing to defend them, and thus been disqualified for, say Vice-President or President?

I'm not suggesting that Lawyers shouldn't be responsible for their actions - I just don't understand a mind-set suggesting that they are somehow responsible for their client's actions. In other words, show me something significantly unethical in the means and ways that Holder defended Chiquita, or in legal advice that he rendered to Chiquita, and I'll agree that he shouldn't be AG. Otherwise, I see nothing here.

Going back to one of your questions: "Should we, as a hypothetical, consider Osama bin Laden's defense lawyer for Attorney General?"

Yes. Absolutely. Assuming they are otherwise qualified, and have done no major illegal or unethical acts in so doing, it sounds like a great choice to me.

---

by: Xanaqui @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 06:31:07 AM CST

I don't believe that Sirota is claiming (4.00 / 1)

that lawyers are responsible for their clients actions - not in the sense you're mainly employing anyway.  Neither is  Holder necessarily here an exemplar of the hypothetical you present (the defense of horrible person "A" as a commitment to the principles of the legal system).  There is a difference between the use of one's legal training purely in the service of the legal system, and the use of that training in exchange for vast sums of money and power.  There are lawyers who choose to do the former, and lawyers who choose to do the latter.  It is not unreasonable to think that lawyers who do the former are morally preferable to those who do the latter.

---

by: JBen @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 07:38:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Okay (4.00 / 2)

Your explanation make more sense to me than David's; perhaps this is what he's trying to convey, and I'm mis-understanding him.

I have no objection to preferring lawyers who defend poor clients to those defending rich clients. However, relatively few of the former cases are going to be involved in, say the international legal issues and the terrorism issues that Holder would have been involved in in the Chiquita cases. Personally, I don't find representing rich clients to be enough of a negative for me to consider opposing the Holder nomination.

Personally, were I doing an Attorney General search, the first place I'd look is at the lawyers representing Guantanamo Bay clients.  

---

by: Xanaqui @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 09:05:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You Obviate All These Questions (0.00 / 0)

by picking someone like Patrick Fitzgerald, someone with demonstrated killer instincts.  Obama should have picked a career prosecutor.

---

by: bob h @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 07:24:34 AM CST

Which Holder was for 25 years. nt (4.00 / 7)

---

by: Adam B. @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 09:07:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A lawyer's choices are not "off-limits," but are usually pretty darn trivial (4.00 / 2)

I don't think any career choices are "off-limits" when evaluating a prospective Attorney General.  But on the other hand, I also think that the fact that a lawyer represented an unlikable or even reprehensible client is almost always so incredibly trivial that it says virtually nothing at all about what kind of Attorney General the person will be.

Did anyone really claim that this was "off-limits" - rather than merely unimportant - in the first place? That sounds like another straw-man argument, invented to make us concede the obvious.

---

by: Jim Neuman @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 07:29:59 AM CST

There's a simpler explanation (4.00 / 4)

Frankly, I am not comfortable with the Holder nomination on a host of grounds. But in the instance of his defending Chiquita, I think this was simply a matter of a law firm taking the case of a wealthy client out of simple profitability. It happens every day.

Is this ethical? I wish I had an answer for that. Surely there must be some threshold at which defending a particular client, no matter how much their fees will enrich a law firm, becomes too hot to handle. David's example of Bin Laden is a prime one. Although he is wealthy, I don't know if any American law firm would voluntarily touch him out of concern for the firm's repuation. Yet I'm sure that, were he to be apprehended and brought to the US for trial, someone would defend him.

Now, I honestly am torn about the question of whether lawyers should be judged or otherwise held politically accountable for the clients they choose to represent. But for the sake of our system of justice, which few Americans really understand, I would in general have to defer to the answer "no." I think there are already far too many attacks against defense attorneys for the clients they handle - as if the attorney personally endorses whatever the client may have done.

I hate resorting to movie quotes on a topic of such gravity, but I am reminded of the classic line from the Godfather, "It's not personal. It's strictly business." (probably also not a good idea to quote from a gangster movie, but well, there it is.)

---

by: Helzapoppin @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 07:35:13 AM CST

Just as a quick follow-up (4.00 / 1)

I think Obama faces the same issues that an attorney does in choosing whether to represent a particular client or not. As I said, there must be some threshold at which a client is too hot to handle. This is even moreso for a President selecting a political appointee, where the threshold is even lower. Because a President is most certainly judged by the choices he or she makes in political appointments.

In this instance, I think - fairly or no -  that Obama should avoid the whole mess and select an AG without so much potentially damaging baggage. That is not an ethical judgment upon Holder, but merely a political decision.

So I would have to say that judging an attorney on their selection of clients in general is questionable. However, making judgments on political appointments is an entirely different matter. And I think taking Holder's former clients into account is entirely appropriate for those purposes.

---

by: Helzapoppin @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 07:48:23 AM CST

Please stop the gimmicks--Obama is the Awesome (4.00 / 7)

It's a cheap tactic: start of by accusing anyone who disagrees of believing that Obama is the Awesome.  Then if someone chooses to disagree with you that peson is a believer in personality cult.  

---

by: Historian @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 08:47:36 AM CST

Representation (4.00 / 1)

is part of our adversarial system and embraced by lawyers.  If lawyers are going to be judged by their clients, then the solution is:  No Lawyers.

That might not be a bad idea.  :)

---

by: AnninCA @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 08:49:02 AM CST

After two days, my two cents (4.00 / 3)

Reality, and our perceptions of it are often more complex than our emotions admit. Consequently, the fundamental principle of any system of justice worthy of the name, not just our own, must be that every defendant is entitled to the best defense available. Period.

We all know how this works in practice. Folks with money have access to an adequate defense, folks without money find themselves in far more jeopardy, and the consequence is more often than not a miscarriage of justice. We're right to express contempt for what actually happens in our courts.

That said, and despite his disclaimers, David's attack on Holder is structured as a smear job, not unlike the stuff I used to hear about those horrible civil rights lawyers who defended the Nazis' right to march in Skokie. I don't buy any of it.

If we want justice to be properly served, casting aspersions on lawyers is one of those cures which may well be worse than the disease. What's wrong with the Chiquita case is the laws which govern it, and the advantages which those laws confer on the defendant. The only genuine and lasting cure for its ills lies in the legislative branch of government, and in the political process which influences our lawmakers.

Holder may be as callous and as amoral as David claims, but frankly I don't find the evidence that he presents to be compelling. It's far too self-serving, and smacks of the kind of demagoguery which has already made a mockery of our system of justice. More of the same is hardly what we need.

---

by: William Timberman @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 09:03:09 AM CST

While I'm sure David believes in defending Civil Liberties (4.00 / 2)

By his argument, the ACLU should never defend Nazis, Communists, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

I believe in Civil Liberties. Arguments like those made by David are effectively an attack on those who defend our Civil Liberties.

It doesn't matter whether the defendant is Chiquita, Osama Bin Laden, or Adolf Hitler. All deserve a vigorous defense.

---

by: tietack @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:33:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't put words in my mouth (4.00 / 1)

Wrong. I didn't say the ACLU should never defend Nazis, etc. Had you bothered to read the post, you would have seen that I said (or excerpted):

Preferring an AG who didn't do such work is in no way to say such work should be done by no one.

This isn't about whether the Nazis or anyone else has the right to defense counsel. Not at all. It's about whether people applying to be in the government - to be representing all people - can be judged on their decisions about who to represent, and whether those decisions and clientele make them qualified or unqualified to serve as the People's lawyer.

---

by: David Sirota @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 12:18:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Indeed it is about judgment (0.00 / 0)

And the basis of that judgment is exactly what I've called it -- self-serving -- in that it claims that the failures of our society can be attributed to individuals who work within its confines without compelling evidence that they're uniquely culpable for the crimes which you believe that it has committed.

Such a judgment is, in fact as well as in theory, guilt by association, and as such, is worthy of condemnation. If you don't like the Nazi comparison, how about a Soviet one -- the disqualification of folks for party membership whose parents were members of the bourgeoisie?

---

by: William Timberman @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 12:32:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mark Penn (4.00 / 1)

Hillary Clinton took a LOT of shit for hiring Mark Penn because his PR firm helped companies with their union-busting agenda. I don't remember very many people vigorously arguing that he shouldn't be judged by his clients.

Is being a lawyer for a union-busting company that much different? Everybody has a "right" to hire a PR firm, too.

To construe the act of going to work for a law firm like this as being in the public interest, just because companies have the legal right to representation, is IMO an incorrect characterization of what is going on, for several reasons:

1. Chiquita Brands International is in no danger of going without representation. There's a steady stream of corporate lawyers coming out of the best law schools in the country representing clients like this. This is not like a public defender representing an indigent murder suspect.

2. Lawyers who work for corporate firms are not doing it because of principles, but because that's where the money is. It's possible that there are exceptions to this, and that Holder is one, but the chances are small.

3. Chiquita Brands International does not "deserve" representation in any moral sense. Yes, as the law stands, they have the right to hire a lawyer. But a corporation is a creation of the law itself. In theory, we could define corporations such that they do not have the same rights as persons, if we so chose. So when a lawyer decides to represent a corporation, they are not acting under any moral obligation whatsoever. There would be nothing intrinsically unjust about a world where corporations did not have the right to counsel.  

---

by: Jason C. @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:00:17 AM CST

Adding (0.00 / 0)

that I don't think this disqualifies Holder, just as I didn't think Mark Penn's work should disqualify him. (Penn should be disqualified from polite society in general, but that's just because he's a loathsome SOB.)

The point is just that I don't think you can say the choices a lawyer makes as far as who he represents are absolutely off-limits when it comes to assessing his character.  

---

by: Jason C. @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:02:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Once again, I see a failure to take into account any actual representation (4.00 / 3)

That Holder rendered.  Let me ask this: if someone is asked to defend a killer whose guilt is basically acknowledged and realistically the only two options for that person are prison or the chair, and the lawyer is requested to "DEFEND" the killer by negotiating a prison deal, what exactly is the moral culpability?  By the time Holder came onto the Chiquita case, the company had already disclosed its wrongdoing to the federal government and as a result I suspect that his primary role was as an investigator and negotiator.

There really is no analysis of the facts here, other than the simplistic "Chiquita = evil; therefore Holder + Chiquita = evil."  I suspect it's because the people here do not understand the cases at issue and/or don't have access to material on which to weigh in.  There's not even an analysis of his decades of prior experience, which one would think people would be able to find on Wikipedia and Google.  Really, it's quite amazing that this debate focuses on a single issue that people lack the tools to discuss adequately.  It's not just that people are defining an attorney by his clients; it's that they're not even bothering to acknowledge that there are many different types of representation which serve many different purposes, some of which in fact serve the common good (for example, a company's attorney may direct the government to culpable employees or provide information to aid a larger investigation), and that doesn't change even if one puts "DEFEND" and "WORKS FOR" in caps.

---

by: rfahey22 @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:02:42 AM CST

Works both ways though (0.00 / 0)

Most of those opposed to D. Sirota's original post were not arguing that the work Holder did was not objectionable; they were arguing that a lawyer should never be judged by the clients he takes, period, as a matter of absolute principle.  

---

by: Jason C. @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:07:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't see how that, if true, undermines my criticism (0.00 / 0)

Contrary to popular belief, it takes a lot of information to judge someone fairly.

---

by: rfahey22 @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:16:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You're right (0.00 / 0)

I'm just saying that the crux of the disagreement earlier that D.S. is referring to was over the question of whether lawyers should be held accountable for their choices.

---

by: Jason C. @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:25:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Wrong (0.00 / 0)

Nobody is saying that Holder = evil.  What they are saying is Holder = wrong for the job.

Aside from the tangential issue of whether Holder did in fact zealously represent his client (as opposed to help get Chiquita execs off at the expense of the shareholders), this simply is not the background that I want to see in the head of an organization that is tasked with investigating and prosecuting corporate wrongdoing.

Do I think that murderers and drug dealers are entitled to a vigorous defense?  Yes.  Do I want someone who has made a career out of defending murderers and drug dealers to be the District Attorney where I live?  No.

---

by: space @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:19:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And I have a rather different opinion (0.00 / 0)

Specifically, that such a defender of alleged criminals is exactly the type of person I'd like to see as Attorney General.

Moving on to more productive territory, who would you like to see as Attorney General?

---

by: Xanaqui @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:28:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I am far from qualified from proposing a list (0.00 / 0)

But, generally, given the need to re-establish a culture of professionalism and competence after the Bush years, I would like to see someone who has experience with the DOJ, but was not present during the Bush administration.

The best suggestion that I have seen was this endorsement of Napolitano.

Janet Napolitano is the right person, the best qualified and most suited, by far, to meet the daunting challenge ahead at Attorney General.

Napolitano is well versed and experienced with constitutional law and civil rights, having been mentored as the hand picked protege of one of the country's great Constitutional scholars and authorities, John P. Frank, one of the two legal fathers of the Miranda decision. She has sizable long term experience not only as the Arizona Attorney General (a huge office), but also as chief executive of an entire state government as Arizona Governor. Of critical significance, she was the US Attorney for the District of Arizona for six years under President Clinton, prior to her terms in state office as Arizona's AG and Governor.

The job ahead is going to, in addition to the legal skills, require someone with Federal experience and the established ability to manage a giant bureaucracy. Janet Napolitano has a very rare combination of background and experience to fit that bill. The attention to bureaucratic detail, not just in Washington DC, but in all of the 93 US Attorney district offices is going to have to be immense. Wholesale institutional change needs to be implemented, and malefactors rooted out.

Unfortuantely she was already tapped to head DHS.

---

by: space @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:38:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

At least in that I like Janet Napolitano, and think that she'd be a good choice for Attorney General (however unlikely that is at this juncture). However, unlike you, I'd state the same thing for Holder, who is a former Deputy Attorney General.

---

by: Xanaqui @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:44:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Facts NOT mentioned - Did anyone read the referenced links? (4.00 / 5)

After reading the linked stories, I come away with a completely different opinion. Basically,  it was Chiquita's lawyers who turned out to be good actors in this case. So, I'm not sure how Eric Holder is at fault in any way.

Here are some highly relevant facts NOT mentioned in David's diary about the Chiquita case:

1. Chiquita Brands self-reported their payments to the AUC to the Justice Department. Other corporations, such as Dole and Delmonte, still deny them.  This self-reporting was on the ADVICE of ITS LAWYERs.

[A] company lawyer surfing the Web ran across the A.U.C.'s terrorist designation and alerted the company's general counsel, Robert Olson, for the first time. [...]

After Olson heard about the A.U.C.'s terrorist designation, he consulted Laurence Urgenson, the company's powerful Washington attorney. [...] Urgenson's assessment was swift. Chiquita, he told the company, was breaking federal law, and it needed to stop. In notes dated the next day, he set a take-no-prisoners tone that he would maintain throughout the ordeal: "Must stop payments."

On April 3, Hills and Olson finally told the full Chiquita board about the company's payments in Colombia. The board recommended that the two executives go to the Justice Department and confess the wrongdoing, in the hopes that self-disclosure would earn the company leniency.

Hills and Olson did confess, but told the Justice Department that if they stopped making payments to the AUC that they would be risking the lives of thousands of their employees. They got a long-delayed ruling from Justice, and continued making payments to the AUC. That was in 2003.

"People were gonna die, so you protected them," says one former company executive. "This was no secret to anyone in the 1990s." In fact, Chiquita dutifully reported the A.U.C. payments as "security" to its auditor, Ernst & Young.

By February 2004, Chiquita's new C.E.O., Fernando Aguirre, had finally stopped the payments.

After the payments had stopped, Eric Holder, as a partner in the law firm Covington and Burling, represented Chiquita in negotiating a plea deal. Chiquita pleaded guilty, agreed to pay a fine of $25 million, and cooperate with the Justice Department on further investigations. In 2007, the Justice Dept decided to go after Chiquita's executives on criminal charges, and Holder defended them on the grounds that:

"If what you want to encourage is voluntary self-disclosure, what message does this send to other companies?"... "Here's a company that voluntarily self-discloses in a national security context, where the company gets treated pretty harshly, [and] then on top of that, you go after individuals who made a really painful decision."

So, to sum up, it was the LAWYERS for Chiquita who brought this to the attention of everyone, including the Justice Department. By bringing it to the attention of the Justice Department, they GOT CHIQUITA to STOP MAKING PAYMENTS to the AUC-- and called attention to the wider problem, which they agreed to help the Justice Department investigate.

Also, Holder had been hired after the payments had stopped.

Meanwhile, the companies who still deny the payments, Dole and Delmonte, have never come forward nor have they been penalized in any way.

Chiquita was a bad actor, but it seems their lawyers got them to do the right thing. Not sure I'd crucify Eric Holder for that.

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:21:48 AM CST

Judging a Lawyer by his Job (Firm) versus his Clients (4.00 / 3)

As a lawyer, it seems to me that it is more fair to judge a lawyer/politician by his or her choice of jobs rather than the individual clients he represents.  It seems like the correct question is whether we should hold it against Holder that he took a job at Covington and Burling - not whether he did particular work for a particular client once he was at the firm.

So, it speaks volumes about his character that Barack Obama chose to turn down a big NYC law firm salary and go to the South Side of Chicago to work for a Civil Rights firm and involve himself in community organizing.  Would it soil that choice in our eyes if it turned out that one of the clients Obama represented at that firm turned out to have done something bad, and Obama had helped the client, for example, negotiate a plea bargain or something?  It seems to me that this wouldn't fundamentally alter the noble character of Obama's original choice of jobs.

The practical reality of working for a big law firm like Covington and Burling is that the firm represents a myriad of clients.  And it is somewhat in the nature of big defense-oriented firms that some of those clients will have done bad things.  And if one of the firm's clients needs legal assistance in an area for which a particular lawyer has special skills that will assist the client, then it is definitely expected that the lawyer will assist the firm's client in the matter.  It would be an exceptionally extraordinary event for a lawyer to say "you know what, this client's actions were so reprehensible that I just can't use my special legal skills in this area to help this client."  This just isn't done in big firms.

Now, all of this is precisely the reason that many lawyers such as myself choose not to work at big defense firms.  And, all things being equal, I would much prefer a Attorney General who did not come from a big defense law firm.  But I also think it would be a radical notion, even on a progressive website like this, to suggest that any lawyer who has been a partner a big defense firm is automatically disqualified from being AG.

To reframe the discussion, shouldn't we ask whether there was anything wrong with Holder's decision to work at Covington and Burling in particular?  And if we can't fault him for that choice, then I don't think it is fair to criticize him for work he did for one particular client of the firm after he got there.  If he had gone to a firm that specialized in union-busting, that would be different. But I don't think that is the case with C&B.

---

by: TexIPMan @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:24:35 AM CST

two notes (4.00 / 2)

1.  Recall that Holder only joined C&B after twenty-five years in government service, service that wasn't going to continue once Bush was elected.

2.  Davis Miner, where Obama worked, isn't a South Side law firm.  They're a downtown firm, focusing on plaintiff's civil rights and the like, but I hear some guy named "Tony Rezko" was a client of theirs, and Obama may have briefly worked on his file.  Problem?

---

by: Adam B. @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:33:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry. Wrong (0.00 / 0)

link.  I read something here that said that the attorneys told teh company to self report.  I'll try to find it.

---

by: Tom Wells @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:53:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's the link. (4.00 / 1)

http://openleft.com/showCommen...

The data does not support David's argument.  

---

by: Tom Wells @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:54:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Lawyers, Guns and Money (0.00 / 0)

Eric Holder worked as an attorney at Covington & Burling, which is an international law firm that advises a who's who list of multinational corporations.  It's rather naive to argue that an attorney at such a law firm has a say in who they represent and who they don't represent.  But if you choose to make such a thin argument in holding Holder responsible for who he represented while employed at Covington & Burling, then shouldn't you also give him credit for all of the pro bono work done at Covington & Burling as well?

Perhaps a quote from the link you provide is helpful:

"Unless there's some suggestion that they did anything inappropriate in those client relationships, that's what lawyers do," said Benjamin Wittes, research director of public law at the Brookings Institution. "Lawyers in private practice represent all kinds of unsavory people. In a society with right to counsel, I don't see how it could be otherwise."

---

by: Kane @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:42:54 AM CST

It is a reasonable inquiry (4.00 / 1)

of any lawyer seeking to become AG to ask about the causes he has represented.

Working at a large law firm (and I did for years) is not the sum total of an attorney's life.  They is more than ample opportunity in any large firm to devote a substantial amount of time to pro-bono work.  This isn't necessarily easy in a world defined by billable hours, but I would expect some evidence of commitment to the public interest out of anyone seeking to become the people's lawyer.  

Having said that, I wouldn't want someone whose only practice has been at a  big firm law in a senior position in the Justice Department.  

---

by: fladem @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:56:30 AM CST