Ethics

Supreme Court Specialists and Cause Lawyering

The NYT this morning has an interesting article by Adam Liptak about Supreme Court advocacy specialists (or would-be Supreme Court specialists) who sometimes volunteer for high-profile cases that can be headed for the S.Ct., in order to add to their experience and credentials.  One thing specialists can do is increase the chances of getting cert.  However, sometimes having those particular cases before the S.Ct. is inappropriate or premature from the perspective of cause-oriented lawyers, who are trying to change the law relating to, e.g., the death penalty or immigration.

Having been involved for some years in selecting which cases for the ACLU to take on, in an effort to advance civil rights and civil liberties, I?m sympathetic with the cause lawyers who object going forward with cases that, either on the facts or because of timing, run the risk of making bad law.

On the other hand, the individual clients in those case are entitled to take their own best shot.  Their cases might not justify the use of, say, the ACLU?s limited resources, but they are certainly entitled to maximize their own chances for a day in court, indeed, in The Court, even if the odds are against their prevailing.

There?s an interesting tension, therefore, for those of us who favor access to justice and client-centered representation, and who, at the same time, are interested in advancing certain causes.

Full post as published by Legal Ethics Forum on October 10, 2010 (boomark / email).