As lawyers, we often take a series of steps to protect the interests of our clients when it becomes necessary to sever or end representation. The dropping of a client can have a damaging impact on the reputation or standing of a client. That is why it was surprising to see Mark Lemley, a Stanford law professor publicly denounce Mark Zuckerberg as part of social media tirade. It is a deeply concerning lesson for students at a law school already rocked by prior controversies over intolerance for opposing viewpoints.
When we take on a client, we are closely identified with their interests and their case. That creates a deep professional obligation not to use that relationship for our own benefit against the interests of our client. Thus, a lawyer cannot sever an unpopular criminal defendant by denouncing him as morally reprehensible.
We continue to shoulder that obligation even after we end our representations. (I have had to sever clients in the past and avoided any public statement on the reasons or critical comments tied to the cases).
Professor Lemley did not represent Zuckerberg in a criminal matter. However, he was counsel in the high-profile representation of Meta in 2023 after comedian Sarah Silverman and other authors sued the company for alleged copyright violations.
After Zuckerberg recently pledged to restore free speech protections on Meta, many on the left went positively berserk.
This week, Lemley, a partner at the law firm Lex Lumina, decided that he was not content with simply severing the representation without fanfare or embarrassment to his clients. Instead, he decided to publish a tirade on LinkedIn to denounce Zuckerberg’s “descent into toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness.”
He declared “While I think they are on the right side in the generative AI copyright dispute in which I represented them, and I hope they win, I cannot in good conscience serve as their lawyer any longer.” He further declared that he deactivated his Threads account because he did not want to “support a Twitter-like site run by a Musk wannabe.”
Rather than expressing concern over the trashing of a former client, Rhett Millsaps, managing partner of Lex Lumina, stated, “Money can’t buy everyone. We’re proud to be a firm that doesn’t sell out our values. Sadly, it seems this is becoming a rarer and rarer quality in America today.”
The incident raises a question that can be uncertain and difficult for many lawyers. I do not believe that Professor Lemley should be forced into a life of monastic silence over Meta policies unrelated to his litigation. Zuckerberg is a public figure and Lemley often engages in public commentary.
What concerns me is the nexus drawn by both Lemley and Lex Lumina to their representation of Zuckerberg to magnify their message of opposition. They could have simply severed representations without comment while Lemley could have continued his commentary in opposition to the new free speech policies. Frankly, while Professor Lemley is a respected and accomplished academic, it is doubtful that such criticism would have generated significant media attention. It was the connection to severing representation that amplified the message and caused the criticism to go viral.
Instead, the media is aflame with stories of how even Zuckerberg’s own lawyer and law firm cannot abide him. That was the obvious result of the public statements made by Lemley and the firm in demonizing their former client and citing their severance as morally compelled by his policies.
This can clearly be a gray area for many lawyers. The rules expressly prevent a lawyer from representing a client in an adverse case against a prior client or using information derived from the prior case. That is not the case here. Indeed, Professor Lemley appears to stand by the merits of the earlier case. The question is whether lawyers should use their prior representation as a type of cudgel in a public denunciation of a former client, using their prior representation to elevate their own voices.
None of this sits well with me, but I may be “old school” on such professional conduct issues. I would feel the same way if a lawyer attacked an anti-free speech figure like Hillary Clinton by emphasizing their prior representation. Once again, I am not suggesting that representation bars lawyers from criticizing former, high-profile clients. Professor Lemley has free speech rights and strong opinions in this area. However, the use of the severance or termination of representation as part of that criticism is deeply problematic in my view.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
I always love how liberals throw the word “Nazi” at those they disagree with. Do they have any idea of what the Nazis did? If they studied history, they would have found that many Nazi critics ended up in Dachau concentration camp(opened in 1933) well before major hostilities started in World War 2. It seems to me people like Stanford law professor Mark Lemley are not a proponents of free speech and the truth, but rather, an adversary of free speech and the truth.
It may have something to do with the fact that all conservatives are rabidly hate driven and would absolutely be exterminating groups of people if they had a chance. Comparing U.S. conservatives to Nazis is more than appropriate, they are exactly the same type of people.
Your despicable comment speaks volumes of the successes that democrat propaganda has had.
Meanwhile, In Alternative Universe
I made an out-of-body trip to Earth 2, arriving on January 21, 2025. Donald Trump, in that Universe, did NOT move the Inauguration indoors, and these were some of the headlines:
Trump’s Toxic Masculinity Kills Several Police Horses!
There Was A Negative Wind Chill! Trump Should Have Known Better!
Jim Acosta’s Lips Freeze To His Microphone!
Protestors Die Of Frostbite! Shame On You, Trump!
Trump Is Hans, From Frozen!
How Dare Trump Become President On MLK Day!!!
Trump’s Presidency Gets Off To A Chilling Start!
Floyd,
Good one!
I knew one day I’d have to watch powerful men burn the world down – I just didn’t expect them to be such losers
Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg’s desperation to be cool as they suck up to Donald Trump is so cringe it makes my skin crawl
By: Rebecca Shaw – TheGuardian.com Opinion Technology ~ Jan 16th 2025
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/16/i-knew-one-day-id-have-to-watch-powerful-men-burn-the-world-down-i-just-didnt-expect-them-to-be-such-losers
It’s weird how leftist authoritarians who OPENLY demonstrate their intolerance and disdain for the rights of others always think they’re good guys. Ok, it’s not weird. I’m 63 and grew up in SF before it became a hell-hole. It’s been like this for whole life. The real change is that before there were still many principled liberal who’d push back. Now they’re silent or joining in.
I’m no expert in the finer points of how lawyers should behave, but this case shows quite clearly how the whole matter of “free speech” doesn’t exist in some sort of Platonic ideal space. The whole point of free speech seems to be to attempt to get your voice heard, and heard as loudly as possible. If you say that everyone should be allowed to shout as loudly as they can, where are the limits? What about the fact that wealthier people are in a position to shout a lot louder? Or is the point of free speech to give more weight to those voices that are fainter through circumstances and no fault of the merits of their arguments, while cutting down on voices that are naturally excessively loud (like, for example, the very human inclination to hate people that don’t look like yourself)?
Wow you hit race and wealth but you missed gender… As Monica told Bill, close but no cigar!
* it is true people prefer those people with similar physical appearances. Children in schools do or perhaps they’ve learned to.
It has to do with family. It’s instinct. There’s a crowd and your child wandered away. You’re searching and your eyes skip over white people with blond hair as your child is brown with black hair. Just instinctual…
A law firm’s value should include a willingness to take on unpopular clients and fight for them with exact same force as if the client were wildly popular. Barristers in the UK have the cab rank rule as an ethical standard. Lawyers in the US should not preen about their moral superiority when they depart from a rule which binds our British cousins.
Why would anyone who is not part of the Radical Woke now hire Lex Lumina to represent them?
I hear Marc Elias is seeking new employment!
In re: Trump moving the inauguration inside: the low that day is 8 degrees Fahrenheit, not even accounting for the wind chill. There is a valid concern for all the people and animals (service dogs, police horses) being out in such temps for hours on end.* Reagan did the same thing in January 1985 due to extra-cold temps.
Some juvenile troll commenter is making ridiculous comments about Trump not being “man enough” notwithstanding that he has survived and overcome more attempts on his life and freedom than practically any human in history. This clown anonymous commenter then answers his own comments with equally childish responses.
*There is also a valid concern for another assassination attempt, a threat of which is known to exist. More assassination attempts have been made against Trump than any politician in American history. There have been at least four that we know about in just the last six months. The Secret Service that has had a lackluster performance preventing those is the very same agency that is being entrusted to prevent one while Trump would be exposed outdoors during the inauguration.
“Trump moving the inauguration inside:”
The DC government issued a hypothermia alert. Safety precautions: stay indoors.
If Trump had chosen to remain outdoors, the Left would wail: He’s cold, heartless. Only a fascist leaves people outside in the frigid cold.
It’s been the same mindless, tired smear campaign since 2016.
OldManFromKS,
They are desperate. They know Trump won, they lost and continue to lose. So in their desperation, they have to make up things, tell lies.
Incoming DHS Secretary Noem says she plans on allowing no murderers into America during the next four years. This is in contrast to the 12,000 murderers, 16,000 rapists, 600,000 criminal convicts, and 400 people on the terror watch list, that her predecessor, Secretary Mayorkas, knowingly allowed into America to rape, kill, and destroy Americans.
She also said that, in contrast to the 700,000 individuals on private jets that Mayorkas paid for to come into America, she would discontinue the private-jet program. She additionaly stated she would – get this! – enforce the immigration laws on the books, as well as the US Constitution. That is positively revolutionary compared to the last four years.
The brightest of the brightest answers everyone’s questions about the Gaza ceasefire. Go to the article to get the full picture.
—
Douglas Murray: A real cease-fire deal must ensure the destruction of Hamas
By Published Jan. 16, 2025, 6:19 p.m. ET
“Bring them home” has been the slogan of the hostage families in Israel since October 7, 2023.
But when Hamas murdered 1,200 people, including 46 Americans, and when it took 254 people hostage, including 12 Americans, there should have been a different slogan: “Give them back. Now.”
Since that day, so many opportunities have been missed.
On October 8, Joe Biden could have called up the governments in Qatar, Iran and other rogue states and told them to get their friends in Hamas to hand over the hostages now.
Or else.
With the leverage the US has in the Middle East, a hardball approach against the Qataris, Iranians and Turks could have solved this mess 15 months ago.
continue: https://nypost.com/2025/01/16/opinion/douglas-murray-it-is-time-to-eliminate-hamas-and-bring-our-hostages-back-home/?utm_campaign=israelwarupdate&utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20250117&lctg=62680bbe38a279b1870b18c5&utm_term=NYP%20-%20Israel%20War%20Update
Suppose a lackadaisical babysitter is allowing the children to mess up the house. Now the parents call in and tell the kids that the house better be clean by the time they return home, or there will be a spanking. Reacting to that message, the kids clean up the house.
Some low-IQ commenter the other day was suggesting the babysitter deserves all the credit for the clean house, because the house was cleaned up while she was still on her shift.
@S. Meyer: About the only reason I can think of for Trump helping Biden to coerce Netanyahu into agreeing to release dozens of Arab terrorist murderers in exchange for the bodies of murdered hostages is this:
Trump and Netanyahu are agreed that those sub-human hajji terrorist murderers are safer in the Israeli jails where they are serving their life prison sentences than anywhere else in the world.
HOWEVER, Once they’re released to run free back in the terrorist rich environment of Gaza, they are one Israeli 5.56mm pill away from finally getting their chance to meet with Allah’s Virgin Distribution Committee.
No more terrorist recidivism. AND… think of the savings for the Israeli taxpayers!
Live safe in Israeli prisons; die screaming back in your Gaza environment.
Other than that, I can’t see why either Biden’s Mad Mullah friends in Iran or the anti-Semitic genocidal neo-Nazis in Hamas or Hezbollah would think it was worth it to play Russian Roulette with President Trump as the gun they’re pointing at their heads.
Old Airborne Dog
* It’s common. Take a look at the prototypical occurrence of Jesus and Peter. Peter denied knowing him three times that night.
It’s what happens when a gun is to your head. The identification is complete. Happens all the time.
Oh, and again, Professor: you are not ‘old school’, just sane. There is nothing about any of this that bespeaks ‘progress’. Rest assured, many of us feel the same. There isn’t anything sustainable about what the modern left espouses. The biggest joke is that this is true for them as well, they are just too full of hubris and privilege to see it. We have said here Robespierre 2.0 before, it has not ceased to be apt.
Sigh. I guess the modern left, who are themselves generational aristocrats (some the inheritors of plantation wealth) and actual fascists are just going to keep running with it, thinking we are that stupid. Really: anyone that thinks they have a leg to stand on with the formerly ‘liberal’ party is whistling in the dark. The difference is that this time literally none of us outside of their milieu are listening or care. Really: stuff like this goes through my consciousness with the same gravitas as
I do not believe in one party systems, but it is over for the dems, they have gone too far and *well* overplayed their hand. Again, nobody cares, and nobody is listening. Some of us are old enough to recall what real despotism looks like, and in 2024 America, it is spelled ‘D.N.C.’. Unless they find miraculous new ways to cheat (and we had better be on guard regarding that), they will never hold power again.
You’d think that would make smart and compassionate people strive to create a better party. So far there has only been tripling down on the insanity. RIP, DNC. I hope whatever rises from your ashes is worth supporting.
Mistyped my info. Sorry. I actually work.
Those zany Democrats are at it again! An excerpt, and there is a great deal more at the link. While only a proposal at this point, who knows how far this will go in Illinois???
“As if America needed any more proof that Democrat-ruled Illinois is the worst state in the union, that Democrats don’t care about the suffering of women and children, and that Democrats have no interest in the common good, Illinois Democrats have announced that they will be proposing legislation to “decriminalize sex work.” In other words, they plan on moving step by step toward legalizing prostitution. If successful, Illinois would have the dubious honor of being the first state to decriminalize prostitution.
The instigators of this offense against women are Chicago Democrat State Representative Will Guzzardi—a product of an Ivy League education—and State Senator Celina Villanueva. They are collaborating with crossdressing man and former prostitute “Reyna” Ortiz and homosexual Brian C. Johnson, another Ivy grad and CEO of Illinois’ infamous LGBTQ+ activist organization, Equality Illinois.
Ortiz admits to “living under the fear and threat of violence” during his twenty-year stint as a crossdressing male prostitute.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/illinois-poised-become-even-worst
Doesn’t Nevadahave legal prostitution?
In some counties, but not across the whole state.
Jury just found CNN guilty in defamation case!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/01/17/cnn-defamation-afghanistan-withdrawal/
$5 Million in damages
Sounds like a pretty low number.
That doesn’t include punitive damages.
Better link, no paywall:
A Florida jury on Friday found CNN guilty of libeling a U.S. Navy veteran in a 2021 story about people paid to rescue endangered Afghans following the Taliban takeover of that country.
The jury in Panama City, Florida, deliberated for more than eight hours starting Thursday before ruling in favor of Zachary Young, who blamed CNN for destroying his business by showing his face onscreen in a story about a “black market” of smuggling out desperate Afghans for high fees.
The jury has awarded Young $5 million in damages and is now being asked to determine whether CNN must pay additional punitive damages.
https://www.cbs42.com/entertainment/ap-entertainment/ap-cnn-found-guilty-in-florida-trial-of-libeling-navy-veteran-in-afghan-story/
What an age we live in, where people who are otherwise intelligent refer to someone as a “neo-Nazi” because he supports free speech . . . when in fact the Nazis suppressed the speech of their critics. This can only mean that the person has a mental disorder or mental illness.
Second, Professor Turley’s concern with “monastic silence” is misplaced where the rules of professional responsibility are concerned. Nobody forced Professor Lemley to represent Meta in the first place. But by willingly representing Meta, and assumedly getting paid handsomely for that representation, Professor Lemley volunteered to act in his client’s best interests, even if that means not publicly criticizing his client. Nobody forces anyone to get a law license, but if they willingly do so, they have to abide by the rules of professional responsibility.
Finally: a jury just now made CNN liable for $5 to a person CNN defamed; I wonder if Professor Lemley has opened himself up to defamation liability, and perhaps his law firm as well.
Yes, and the $5 million is BEFORE any punitive damages! Which, I bet there will be some!
He was seeking &15M
If he gets triple damages, then he will get it.
“After Zuckerberg recently pledged to restore free speech protections on Meta, many on the left went positively berserk.”
Really? And how did trump sycophants react when trump gave an unhinged speech on Jan 6, 2021? Did they go “positively berserk”
Fair and balanced? My A$$
Wait, you’re suggesting that Trump’s Jan. 6 speech in which he told people to protest “peacefully and patriotically” was unhinged? How so?
Your emotional reaction to the phrase “positively berserk”, reflects that it must have hit-a-nerve with you. Grasping at false-equivalents just make you yourself sound “unhinged” – standard fare for the left.
How many of Biden and Harris’s Anonymous pervert groomers did anything other than cheer in encouragement when their fellow Democrat street thugs stormed the White House in an attempt to gain access to murder Trump and his family weeks before Jan 6, 2021?
You? Any of your groomer friends?
Before then Senator Harris, now VP DEI Hire told Americans “They will not stop rioting, nor should they stop rioting” – as she organized money to quickly bail them out to return to rioting IF they were arrested.
Anonymous Democrats who aren’t pervert groomers would like to know that.