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.
This sort of behavior by law firms should and must lead to their immediate forced dissolution and disbarment of the firm's partners and principals.
Because if it doesn't we will inevitably wind up shooting each other.
Why do drug dealers shoot each other over a corner? Because they can't sue.
It's not that shooting is preferrable; it's not. As soon as the guns come out you might get shot, where if you sue and lose you may get hit with a money judgment -- but you don't die. Once violence is all you have death is part of the equation and since you can only sentence someone to die one time, no matter how many other people they kill, all the rest after the first one are free.
That are very uncomfortable and inconvenient facts -- but they are facts.
Our adversarial process only works when competent representation is available. When groups of attorneys -- not individuals but firms representing dozens, hundreds or thousands of legal professionals blackball particular positions because they disagree with them socially that destroys the adversarial process and acts as a judiciary without exposition of the evidence or trial.
If you want to know why nobody has brought suit over what appears to be blatantly fraudulent data mishandling with the jabs, this is likely why. Now we have law firms doing so for Second Amendment cases, which is tantamount to lawyers deciding among themselves that the Second Amendment is void, of no effect and will not be litigated or defended.
An attorney is an officer of the court -- not a mere private businessperson. This sort of interference with the bringing of legitimate cases, and in this circumstance the case which led to the issue was won, and therefore by the highest court in the land found to be virtuous, is not only outrageous its un-American.
There is only one resolution that does not lead to violence: The firms involved in this sort of thing, in each and every instance, must be ejected from the courts and their partners and participating members disbarred.
If we don't insist on that and make it happen in this case and all similar others legitimate litigants with a valid beef are effectively denied any and all legal options for redress. If someone cannot find recourse to the law due to deliberate collusive action of this sort then their decision to find recourse via all that remains available to them is both legitimate and expected.
If these people turn into analogs of the gang-banger on the corner when their beef should legitimately be heard in a courtroom, but they are unable to find competent representation to bring said suits, it is the direct responsibility of firms like this, along with we who refuse to demand their dissolution and disbarment, that caused it to occur.