Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Leaving aside for now my take on the larger issue (if you get emotional satisfaction out of bashing lawyers for their clients, don't let me stop you), my frustration on this issue is the shoddy quality of the NYT article.  I read it carefully to glean the facts by which I could ascertain what work she did, and the facts aren't there.  There's lots of gushing about ambiguous facts -- a la, Gillibrand was so essential to the industry's defense that she actually wrote memos to partners recounting what the client said to her, and so on.  The NYT authors tell us that she "helped contend with prosecution demands for evidence and monitored testimony of witnesses before a grand jury."  Anyone vaguely familiar with private practice immediately realizes that those functions could be incredibly low level tasks.  That description could apply to someone in her first week of practice.  Can the NYT authors really be that unaware about how law firms work?

One of the low points of the article is this snarky, inuendo-heavy sentence: "The industry beat back the federal perjury investigation, a significant legal victory at the time, but not one that Ms. Gillibrand is eager to discuss." Is it possible that the NYT authors are unaware of why any lawyer, not just Ms. Gillibrand, wouldn't be eager to publicly discuss their former client's legal matters?  I can think of one excellent reason.  I bet you can too.  And, what do you know, nine paragraphs later, the authors tip their hand: they know the reason as well.  So let's go back and edit that sentence: "The industry beat back the federal perjury investigation, a significant legal victory at the time, but not one that Ms. Gillibrand is eager to discuss, because discussing it would breach her ethical and fiduciary duties as a lawyer."