Whoops! He did it, again!
January 25, 2011 11:55 AM Subscribe
This post was deleted for the following reason: If this is worth posting about someone can hopefully take the time to put together something more substantial than a small Wired writeup. -- cortex
I've often wondered how much stock we should put in a lawyer's former jobs, considering that most attorneys are hired guns. I'm sure that the RIAA paid handsomely and attracted several top legal minds to their inglorious campaign against their customers. Should we penalize lawyers who accept these positions, even if they are very bright and qualified? Are principals important when picking a legal mind?
posted by cell divide at 11:58 AM on January 25, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by cell divide at 11:58 AM on January 25, 2011 [3 favorites]
I'm not at J** B**** levels of haterade toward the POTUS yet, but things like this make me consider creating a "GODDAMNIT OBAMA" icon, even if I can only link to it here.
posted by Halloween Jack at 11:58 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Halloween Jack at 11:58 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
Ugh. I was hoping this nonsense wouldn't appear on the Blue. Verrilli is not an "RIAA lawyer." He was a litigator and appellate lawyer at Jenner & Block, one of the larger law firms in the US. At the Supreme Court level, Verrilli represented a wide variety of clients, including indigent criminal defendants, a federal employee who alleged he was discriminated against because of his age, insurance agent trade groups, wireless telecommunications companies (against the FCC), Coors Brewing Company (arguing against a state law forbidding the display of alcohol content on beer), citizens alleging violations of their voting rights, and the American Libraries Association (arguing against the Communications Decency Act of 1996).
From his Jenner & Block profile, courtesy of the Wayback Machine: "Mr. Verrilli concentrates his practice on Supreme Court and appellate litigation, telecommunications, and First Amendment and media litigation....Mr. Verrilli has argued many cases in the federal courts of appeals and in state supreme courts on a range of issues, including cases involving copyright, constitutional law (involving the First Amendment, the Takings Clause and the Bill of Attainder Clause), statutory construction, administrative law and criminal law....He is an adjunct professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he has taught First Amendment law for the past 14 years."
Copyright and media cases were a small part of a diverse practice, much of which involved civil litigation against the government, which is precisely what the Solicitor General is in charge of. Furthermore, this business of imputing an agenda to an attorney based on a small number of prior clients is absurd. As the SG, Verrilli would take his cues from the president. If the SG is doing his or her job, then he or she will argue the government's position regardless of his or her personal views or past clients.
posted by jedicus at 12:01 PM on January 25, 2011 [19 favorites]
From his Jenner & Block profile, courtesy of the Wayback Machine: "Mr. Verrilli concentrates his practice on Supreme Court and appellate litigation, telecommunications, and First Amendment and media litigation....Mr. Verrilli has argued many cases in the federal courts of appeals and in state supreme courts on a range of issues, including cases involving copyright, constitutional law (involving the First Amendment, the Takings Clause and the Bill of Attainder Clause), statutory construction, administrative law and criminal law....He is an adjunct professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he has taught First Amendment law for the past 14 years."
Copyright and media cases were a small part of a diverse practice, much of which involved civil litigation against the government, which is precisely what the Solicitor General is in charge of. Furthermore, this business of imputing an agenda to an attorney based on a small number of prior clients is absurd. As the SG, Verrilli would take his cues from the president. If the SG is doing his or her job, then he or she will argue the government's position regardless of his or her personal views or past clients.
posted by jedicus at 12:01 PM on January 25, 2011 [19 favorites]
Certainly a lawyer can work on both "good" and "bad" sides over their career. I think very few people agree with Ted Olsen on BOTH Bush v Gore and the Prop 8 stuff, for example.
posted by wildcrdj at 12:02 PM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by wildcrdj at 12:02 PM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
I think it's dangerous precedent to judge a lawyer based on former clients. Imagine needing a criminal defense lawyer, and people presuming guilt on your part because the one you hire previously defended a serial killer.
posted by explosion at 12:02 PM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by explosion at 12:02 PM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
My response to this is a resounding "meh."
posted by Mister Fabulous at 12:03 PM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Mister Fabulous at 12:03 PM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
I've often wondered how much stock we should put in a lawyer's former jobs, considering that most attorneys are hired guns.
Maybe a better idea is to just not hire legal mercenaries.
posted by Avenger at 12:04 PM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
Maybe a better idea is to just not hire legal mercenaries.
posted by Avenger at 12:04 PM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
Jedicus, I don't know if that will be enough to rescue this thread but, if not, it was a valiant effort and I salute you.
posted by mhoye at 12:04 PM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by mhoye at 12:04 PM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
> I've often wondered how much stock we should put in a lawyer's former jobs, considering that most attorneys are hired guns. [...] Are principals important when picking a legal mind?
The United States Solicitor General represents the Government of the United States before the Supreme Court. Are you telling me that principles are unimportant for this job!?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:04 PM on January 25, 2011
The United States Solicitor General represents the Government of the United States before the Supreme Court. Are you telling me that principles are unimportant for this job!?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:04 PM on January 25, 2011
"Verilli has argued ten cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to Grokster, these include two pro bono cases that were notable in the area of defendants rights. In Wiggins v. Smith, Verrilli successfully argued that his client had been denied effective assistance of counsel. In Montejo v. Louisiana, he unsuccessfully argued that his client's Sixth Amendment rights had been violated when he was questioned after having counsel appointed to him."
PURE EVIL, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Verrilli_Jr.
posted by Perplexity at 12:05 PM on January 25, 2011
PURE EVIL, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Verrilli_Jr.
posted by Perplexity at 12:05 PM on January 25, 2011
Are principals important when picking a legal mind?
Probably not.
posted by clockzero at 12:05 PM on January 25, 2011
Probably not.
posted by clockzero at 12:05 PM on January 25, 2011
Another misleading bit from the article: "Until recently, Verrilli also was leading Viacom’s ongoing and flailing $1 billion copyright-infringement fight against YouTube." Verrilli would have dropped out of that case back in early February of 2009 when he was appointed Associate Deputy Attorney General. That was a) almost two years ago (not really "until recently") and b) almost one and a half years before the case was decided. He was only involved for about half of the case's entire existence.
posted by jedicus at 12:06 PM on January 25, 2011
posted by jedicus at 12:06 PM on January 25, 2011
But I don't see much in this candidate specifically to complain about (or to be excited about), another corporate suit type. Yawn.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:06 PM on January 25, 2011
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:06 PM on January 25, 2011
C'mon, this is just silly tarring by association, this is not a good front page post.
posted by seventyfour at 12:06 PM on January 25, 2011
posted by seventyfour at 12:06 PM on January 25, 2011
arguing against a state law forbidding the display of alcohol content on beer
Wait, what? What is the rationale for forbidding the display of alcohol content on beer labels?
(The case is Rubin V. Coors, but I have to get back to work)
posted by dirigibleman at 12:07 PM on January 25, 2011
Wait, what? What is the rationale for forbidding the display of alcohol content on beer labels?
(The case is Rubin V. Coors, but I have to get back to work)
posted by dirigibleman at 12:07 PM on January 25, 2011
No Seventyfour, it's a tarring by profession, which is much more fun.
posted by Catblack at 12:08 PM on January 25, 2011
posted by Catblack at 12:08 PM on January 25, 2011
"Are principals important when picking a legal mind?" is pretty good, though, I'm going to steal that.
posted by seventyfour at 12:08 PM on January 25, 2011
posted by seventyfour at 12:08 PM on January 25, 2011
I'm more offended by the title of this post than which lawyers Obama hired.
posted by auto-correct at 12:08 PM on January 25, 2011
posted by auto-correct at 12:08 PM on January 25, 2011
Maybe a better idea is to just not hire legal mercenaries.
You mean lawyers?
posted by eugenen at 12:08 PM on January 25, 2011
You mean lawyers?
posted by eugenen at 12:08 PM on January 25, 2011
« Older Stay vigilant, Metafilter! | studying primitive cultures Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by blue_beetle at 11:58 AM on January 25, 2011