Cancel culture has gone too far

Dang, 2nd amendment broskis getting cancelled. However you may feel about this amendment, seems f'd up. Ocho, what case these peeps got for wrongful termination?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/2nd-am...nd-ellis-rule-of-law-constitution-11656017031
The Law Firm That Got Tired of Winning
After our Supreme Court victory protecting the Second Amendment, we were told to ditch our clients or leave.

This time around, we received a very different message from our law firm. Having just secured a landmark decision vindicating our clients’ constitutional Second Amendment rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we were presented with a stark choice—withdraw from representing them or withdraw from the firm. There was only one choice: We couldn’t abandon our clients simply because their positions are unpopular in some circles.
 
Cuddles said:
Dang, 2nd amendment broskis getting cancelled. However you may feel about this amendment, seems f'd up. Ocho, what case these peeps got for wrongful termination?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/2nd-am...nd-ellis-rule-of-law-constitution-11656017031
The Law Firm That Got Tired of Winning
After our Supreme Court victory protecting the Second Amendment, we were told to ditch our clients or leave.

This time around, we received a very different message from our law firm. Having just secured a landmark decision vindicating our clients’ constitutional Second Amendment rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we were presented with a stark choice—withdraw from representing them or withdraw from the firm. There was only one choice: We couldn’t abandon our clients simply because their positions are unpopular in some circles.
More...


Partners can instruct lawyers to not take a case if they choose to represent clients that go against the interests or desires of the partners and what clientele they wish to represent. They were not terminated, they were told drop the clients or leave the firm. they chose to leave the firm. No case there.
 
El OchoCinco said:
Partners can instruct lawyers to not take a case if they choose to represent clients that go against the interests or desires of the partners and what clientele they wish to represent. They were not terminated, they were told drop the clients or leave the firm. they chose to leave the firm. No case there.
More...
I'm assuming this was a shift in focus by the partnership as the instruction appears to be after the SCOTUS case. Could they make the case that they were put in an untenable career position if a large amount of their billing hours were for such cases prior to policy change?

FWIW: this seems like a PR move to advertise a "new up and coming partnership for 2A folk".
 
Cuddles said:
I'm assuming this was a shift in focus by the partnership as the instruction appears to be after the SCOTUS case. Could they make the case that they were put in an untenable career position if a large amount of their billing hours were for such cases prior to policy change?

FWIW: this seems like a PR move to advertise a "new up and coming partnership for 2A folk".
More...

I mean they already billed those hours and it seems the case was resolved in favor for their client so not sure what additional business they would have anyway. But if policy change means they have to stop pursiong the line of clients they had developed then it could certainly be troublesome for the lawyers but not sure there is a case if the lawyers willingly left because they did not want to leave their clients. I assume the client would follow the attorney whereever they would go and several law firms would step up to hire those lawyers on the condition they brought those clients with them and parlayed their new fame into growing business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top