Notes
- Other articles discussing some professional responsibility issues implicated by interference in law clinic client selection and representation are: Adam Babich, Controversy, Conflicts, and Law School Clinics, 17 Clinical L. Rev. 469 (2011); Robert R. Kuehn, Undermining Justice: The Legal Profession’s Role in Restricting Access to Legal Representation, 4 Utah L. Rev. 1039 (2006); Nina W. Tarr, Ethics, Internal Law School Clinics, and Training the Next Generation of Poverty Lawyers, 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1011 (2009).
- Copies of many of the legal ethics opinions cited in this chapter can be found at https://sites.wustl.edu/clinicinterferenceresources/. The relevant ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including many references to the Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers and other legal ethics authorities, are cited in the excerpted Kuehn and Joy article that begins this chapter.
- Sherrilyn Ifill, former president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, has drawn a parallel between attacks on civil rights lawyers in the 1960s and President Trump’s attacks on law firms, in Trump’s Attack on Lawyers and Law Firms Takes a Page out of the Southern 1950s Playbook, Substack (Mar. 24, 2025).
- Cynthia Fountaine argues that “lawyers and judges are uniquely responsible” for protecting the rule of law, and that failure to do so leads to “subversion of the basic lawyer client relationship, the abrogation of the lawyer’s role as an advocate, and the elimination of judicial independence. Cynthia L. Fountaine, Complicity in the Perversion of Justice: The Role of Lawyers in Eroding the Rule of Law in the Third Reich, 10 St. Mary’s J. on Legal Malpractice & Ethics 198 (2020).
- Additional articles about a lawyer’s professional responsibility to represent unpopular clients and causes, the following articles also address the legal ethics involved: Monroe H. Freedman, Henry Lord Broughham – Advocating at the Edge for Human Rights, 36 Hofstra L. Rev. 311 (2007); Stephen Gillers, The “Charles Stimson” Rule and Three Other Proposals to Protect Lawyers from Lawyers, 36 Hofstra L. Rev. 367 (2007); Stanley M. Jones, A Lawyer’s Ethical Duty to Represent the Unpopular Client, 1 Chapman L. Rev. 155 (1998); Abbe Smith, The Lawyer’s “Conscience” and the Limits of Persuasion, 36 Hofstra L. Rev. 553 (2007): Michael E. Tigar, What Lawyers, What Edge?, 36 Hofstra L. Rev. 159 (2007).
- Several bar associations have issued statements in professionalism codes or codes of civility that admonish lawyers not to criticize other lawyers for the clients or causes the lawyer represents by stating: “We will not impugn the integrity or professionalism of any lawyer on the basis of the clients whom or causes which a lawyer represents.” See, e.g., D.C. Bar Voluntary Standards of Civility in Professional Conduct; Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) Standards of Professionalism; Philadelphia Bar Association Principles of Professionalism; Philadelphia Bar Association Principles of Professionalism.
- In response to attacks on Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers who represented Guantanamo Detainees, some bar associations issued statements condemning such attacks as an assault on the rule of law and the duty of lawyers to represent even unpopular clients. See, e.g., City Bar Statement Condemns Attacks on Department of Justice Lawyers Who Represented Guantanamo Detainees , New York City Bar (Mar. 8, 2010). When the DOJ proposed restrictions limiting lawyers access to their Guantanamo detainee clients and evidence, the ABA issues a statement condemning restrictions. See ABA Condemns Proposed DOJ Restrictions on Guantanamo Lawyers, Jurist News (Apr. 28, 2007).