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.”
As much as I despise Mark Zuckerberg it sounds like the professor is worse and talking through his Mangina. Lost me at toxic masculinity….
Professor being Lemley
Let the market forces give the verdict on this kind of maneuver carried out by Mark Lemley and, indirectly, Stanford Law.
Be practical! Would you hire a lawyer/law faculty with a known history of using his/her prior associations with clients as a tool to bludgeon those same clients for the purpose of his/her financial or political gain or acquisition of influence?
Would you recommend/attend/donate/hire a lawyer from a law school that that tolerated such activity on the part of their faculty?
This action by Lemley just throws more fuel on the pyre of schools that were once held in the highest esteem; Stanford, Harvard, Yale, etc. They are but a few of the places that have sacrificed ethics and merit in order to service the perceived needs of DEI, ESG and the financial pockets of their institutions and faculty. Let them suffer the consequences of such greed.
Ex-Dem: Excellent comment. I was thinking how Zuckerbird [intended] (like Phoenix Rising) could be the better man in his response to this silly affrontation. I think he should publish/post your comment.
Point well made. The traditional corporate client paying the bills for Big Law has a different background and political viewpoint than the Big Law lawyer. Lemley’s public criticism of his client will make a lot of clients consider a political test for his or her lawyer.
He seems the toxic one.
In San Francisco, isn’t it defamatory to call someone “masculine”?
Only if while defecating or using intravenous drugs on your doorstep. It’s an ordinance…if the victim is of color, it’s a hate crime.
Another traveler gem … he can’t get away from potty humor. What an intellectual!
Have you been to SanFrancisco?
Have you? If so, prove it. Receipts requested.
Have I told you about Mr. Floyd’s cats? He has several and sounds like they’re eating him out of house and home! He just got some firewood, I hear it’s like $300 for a third of a cord now, also known as a face cord. Floyd has a birthday soon, his Mom gave him a $100 coat, thank goodness cause he was going to cut a hole in his blanket to make a poncho. Meanwhile Upstate Farmer is doing his thing and Dennis/GiGi are still suffering from severe TDS. I wonder if they are from San Francisco? I think Floyd said he had a can of mackerel too…chew on that.
Traveler,
Great response!!
I try sometimes, can test your civility at times!
Thanks! The firewood was only $100, for about a third of a pickup truck full. And I have it lucky, in a lot of ways, because my poverty is self-chosen. If I got rid of all the cats, I could live decently, even though I only get about the average social security check. But, I live cheap, and I don’t have a car. I live in a mobile home, that is paid for. The lot rent is reasonable, unless some hedge fund buys the park. And, the park is safe, and clean.
The ones I feel sorry for are the non-rich people trying to raise a couple of kids, and pay the bills. The young people trying to rent an apartment for a reasonable amount. The people who have a car, and it breaks down, and the mechanic says that it will cost $2,500 to fix it. The people who do not have a guaranteed check coming in every month, and who worry from day to day if they are going to lose a job. The single parent who has to take care of things on their own, with no help, and no back up. etc.
We all choose our own path. Some get a leg up from the lucky sperm club, some don’t but each of us determine where we rank amongst the order towards the end of the ride. Money is paper, wealth is determined by how you have lived your life, honorably or otherwise. I don’t think there are many among us that didn’t have to go through the growing pains!
Floyd, you hit the nail on the head. Families must be protected, but the administration destroyed them. Assuming a 20% inflation rate, those heads of families who own small businesses cannot grow. They have to increase their prices by 20%, and when they try to take care of their kids, despite their price increase of 20%, they find that theirs is worth only 80 cents at home. We are destroying the entrepreneurship for the young with families.
There is no shortage of highly intelligent fools.
“This week, Lemley, a partner at the law firm Lex Lumina..” This sounds like the start of a Marvel comic. You cannot make it up!
The Senate confirmation hearings are great political theater. You can clearly see the schism underway among the Democrats — the moderates are focussed on issues where choices are yet to be made, where they still might have some influence. The woke progressives are brimming with speculative grievances, lashing out irrationally, and fantasizing that this will move the ball. A key political realignment is occurring daily on C-SPAN, and it’s called marginalization of the hysterical woke left by moderate Dems — a very healthy sign.
The “moderate” Democrats of today were the far left radicals who celebrated Obama fundamentally changing America with nothing but his phone and pen 16 years ago.
Ah yes, another “Red Hen” moment. Remember that restaurant in VA where Sarah Huckabee Saunders was openly shamed and refused service due to her part in the 1st Trump administration?
This is a typical snotty move (or tactic if you will). That the borg-left considers heroic and virtuous.
If our educational system needed an enema, Stanford would be the insertion point.
Prof. Lemley is on the ACTUAL Nazi side of an absolutely critical issue of constitutional law.
One should not have a law degree if one is This fundimentally wrong on something this critical,
By definition Prof. Lemley is unqualified to be a lawyer, He therefore can not be accomplished and respected
While the ethics question is interesting.
I am more concerned that someone who should not be able to pass the bar for failure to know basic constitutional law,
is teaching law at a top law school.
Prof. Lemley is entitled to his opinion – but we would not give an engineering license to someone whose opinion was that steel was 10 times stronger than it actually is.
Everything is not an opinion. The foundation of law is the agreement to the basics principles of law.
We should not give law degrees to those who unable to accept that you can not even have a system of law without some degree of freedom to speak.
John, this is the new world we live in with law schools teaching students that free speech is fascism, J schools teaching that objectivity is racist and medical schools teaching the need for some sort of racial triage when dealing with patients.
We knew the left was taking over academia and we did nothing, or we were helpless to do anything and yet here we sit watching as the left is taking over high schools, middle schools, elementary schools and even pre-K schools.
We have as one of our two major parties the Democrats that argued against banning BOYS playing against GIRLS and using GIRLS locker rooms by claiming that voting for such a bill would harm girls by forcing them to have a vagina exam to prove they are truly girls. THIS WAS THEIR ARGUMENT! Two issues with this rediculous argument, first we actually have BIRTH CERTIFICATES telling us who is a girl and who is a boy and secondly WE ALL HAD TO HAVE A DAMN PHYSICAL WHEN PLAYING SPORTS. I know I had to turn my head and cough along with my entire high school team.
Only TWO Democrats voted in favor of banning boys from girls locker rooms. My point is that this is the newest manifestation of the left taking over our schools.
hullbobby: Your first paragraph is really good!
HullBobby,
Well said and spot on! I posted a response to Floyd about how traditional JFK Democrats want the stupid and crazy off their side and out of their party. If Democrats want to win elections, they have got to give the woke leftists the boot!!!
Ha! Another rabidly hate driven Turley supporter. How shocking! I just don’t get why all conservatives are so fixated on spreading hate and violence against groups of people who have done them no harm. I understand that conservatives are all malicious, vicious, and mean-spirited people, but I don’t understand why.
A guy doesn’t want his daughter to play ball against a man and this ANONYMOUS person says it is spreading hate against groups of people that have done them no harm.
@John Say: We should not give law degrees to those who unable to accept that you can not even have a system of law without some degree of freedom to speak.
The JD degree is based on being able to pass exams testing the ability to prove competence in understanding American law and underlying theory. Felons in prison, many sentenced for crimes violating civil rights, pass those JD exams. That does not imply that those people adhere to standards of law or support our standards of law.
The bar associations are the ones who provide these people with the right to call themselves lawyers and practice law. These are the entities who allegedly ensure Americans that anyone who they allow to practice law is supposedly a professional in good standing who works in compliance with their professional standards of practice.
This vicious little legal fascist will not face even mild disciplinary action, much less be barred from practicing law.
Just as every one of the Democrat lawyers from the Washington DC Bar Association has been given a complete pass for the serial felonies they committed in public office in order to violate the civil rights of hundreds of American citizens by color of law.
These Democrat ran bar associations is how you encourage more lawyer malfeasance and outright criminality. Not how you deter it.
Old Airborne Dog
Yeah, I fire billionaires all the time and do so on the courthouse steps before a crowd. Who cares about ethics! A law degree is no guarantee of propriety.
Yeah, I fire billionaires all the time and do so on the courthouse steps before a crowd
Touché
That’s a tough break for Zuck. I imagine that there are only a few hundred thousand excellent lawyers lining up to replace this egotistical, preening Leftist virtue signaler.
When I was learning to ride a horse my instructor reminded me to “stop using the bit so much, constantly using the bit will make him inure to your control.” The left full of hate and envy still have not learned, they’ve overused the aspersions. If this administration is successful with the economy, free speech, control government spending, illegal immigration and peace, democrats will never have a place at the table.
Pretty disgusting. Has this lawyer thrown his oath under the progressive bus?
“I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution
of the State of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney and counse1or at
law to the best of my knowledge and ability.”
From his bio: “In his spare time, Mark enjoys cooking, travel, yoga, and video games (at this writing, Final Fantasy VII Rebirth).”
And he uses the phrase “toxic masculinity”, I believe coined by male-hating feminists, to describe a former client.
Where has the testosterone gone? What happens to a society that elevates demasculated men to the most high status, prestigious, elite positions?
Generally curious from a sociological perspective if he is another in the long list of over-educated elites who are 1) homosexual; and/or 2) has reproduced no children.
The fact that Zuk is practicing Ju Jitsu and has appeared at Mar A Lago and on the Joe Rogan Podcast probably account for the “Toxic Masculinity” comment. I don’t think you need to wonder if he is an over-educated elite, he is indeed!
Seems you have defined the criteria for current public service. Take a moment to evaluate how many of the elected officials are either homosexuals or lesbians.
It seems that Lemley is striking out in a new legal direction, which is to denigrate his own client from whom he has accepted money. It used to be that when you bought a lawyer for representation, that lawyer stayed bought, even if reluctantly so. Apparently, blind obedience to an unauthored narrative is more important to Lex Lumina and Lemley, in this case, favoritism to an anti-free speech position. Law students will learn, of course, the most negative lesson: to believe in your narrative against the traditional ethics of their profession.
The bubble so widely discussed about Washington DC has spawned mini-bubbles throughout the country. I liken this trend to a case of poison ivy, where the skin bubbles up from the toxic oil. There is no cure for these narrative bubbles; there is even no cortisone to relieve it. It heals slowly unless continuously aggravated. Stanford/Lemley is infected, and it seems to itch quite a lot – groaning out loud.
Precisely the point!
D
I
S
B
A
R
HIM …
Apparently Lemley slept through the course on ethics when he attended Boalt Hall….
Love this “Free Speecher” who can’t stand even their clients right to their opinion. Did he return The Zuk’s money?
Liberals are drama queens. Lemley, not content or confident in his own “morality,” clearly needs public approval. Wouldn’t it be nice if Zuckerberg now had a defamation case to pursue.
You state that “Professor” Lemley is a “respected and accomplished academic.” That is just part of any description of his reasoning ability. He is a fool from any other perspective, and his childish actions cannot be ignored due to his academic status. I cannot imagine retaining him or his firm for anything.
You state that “Professor” Lemley is a “respected and accomplished academic.”
Professor Turley has an ongoing chronic problem with whitewashing his fellow Democrat lawyers who he writes about as they are being given a pass by bar associations on their ongoing violations of their bar’s professional standards of practice.
He has a similar problem in his whitewashing of his fellow Democrat lawyers and Washington DC bar members like Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Jack Smith, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, Robert Mueller, etc.
All also “respected and accomplished” – and unindicted Democrat lawyer felons, every one of them.
This is where the words ‘respected’ and ‘accomplished’ come to lose their meaning and die.
Old Airborne Dog
Disbar him.