The “breaking” news caused waves of outrage among lawyers. It was outrageous that some male lawyer accused a female lawyer of getting pregnant to obtain a delay of trial. It was outrageous that he wouldn’t consent to an adjournment when the trial date coincided with her delivery. It was proof, conclusive proof. of how literally awful and sexist male lawyers were.
Christen Luikart of Murphy Anderson is due in October, and a product liability trial she’s been lead counsel on is set for the same month. Luikart asked for a continuance to accommodate the final weeks of her pregnancy and the birth of her child, and Reid, of course, objected — and boy, did he object. Not only did he say in his opposition that her parental leave wasn’t a “compelling circumstance” for a continuance, but you should check out the transcript from their appearance in court.
Not only did Reid compare Luikart’s pregnancy to an illness and suggest that she pass the case on to another attorney at her firm, but he alluded to the fact that she may have gotten pregnant in an attempt to further delay the proceedings. Reid says that his critics are taking his words out of context, but in any context, they are abhorrent.
The outrage was palpable. Who would so horrifying and exhausting as to doubt this conduct was abhorrent. David Bernstein at Volokh Conspiracy.
Staci Zaretsky of Above the Law publishes an outraged blog post on the situation, with the following headline and subheadline: Biglaw Partner Accuses Small-Firm Litigator Of Getting Pregnant To Delay Trial: No, a woman would not carry a pregnancy to term and bring a child into this world in a sick effort to delay a case. (The headline was later modified slightly to Biglaw Partner Accuses Small-Firm Litigator Of Using Pregnancy To Delay Trial.) Zaretsky claims, without providing any quotes from either the motion or the transcript (because there aren’t any?), that Reid “alluded to the fact that she may have gotten pregnant in an attempt to further delay the proceedings.” Zaretsky’s post is widely shared on social media.
Enjoying his male privilege, Bernstein “mansplained” to Zaretsky using the most powerful weapon of the patriarchy, facts. Reid was “disappeared” from Shook Hardy as a result of the mob outrage, and the firm disavowed its duty to its client in favor of its emotional bonding with a pregnant woman. But as David shows, Reid’s “crime” was putting his client first, as is his duty.
As for the mob, Zaretsky and Shook Hardy, not only has the duty to zealously represent a client become secondary to social justice, but rarely has a story demonstrated as clearly as this, particularly in juxtaposition to David’s post, how the outrage machine cares nothing for facts.
That David Bernstein wrote his post, called out the lies and distortions, was an incredibly bold move. One might hope that in the Legal Academy, there would be some desire, however small, for accuracy, even if it meant that a great story of horrific misogyny was lost. After all, these are professors, and a core aspect of their existence is the search for truth.*
It’s no longer the case. Indeed, lies and distortion within the academy has not only become normal, but valued. If any story can be twisted to fit the feminist, identitarian, or progressive narrative, it’s incumbent on academics to do so. That they’re compelled to lie is of no moment. It’s not just forgivable, but oblitatory. At the absolute least, they must remain silent in the face of their fellow** prawfs lying, not questioning, not challenging, and god forbid, not calling out their lies.
That Zaretsky and Above The Law offered a hysterical and factually false story will surprise no one who isn’t either intellectually challenged or a slave to their deepest feelings of self-serving despair. The once-snarky “judicial hotties” and biglaw layoffs blog has morphed into lawyer SJW central, seeking to milk the eyeballs of that contingent of young lawyers who passionately believe, as well as that substantial group of academics who enable them.
David Bernstein took a huge risk telling the truth. Facts are frowned upon. Facts are literally awful when in conflict with the narrative. But Bernstein’s credibility and boldness, not to mention tenure and that he’s the George Mason University Foundation Professor at the George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, Virginia, should protect him. The Antonin Scalia Law School is one of the few that hasn’t forsaken intellectual diversity.
Had he been a prawf at Harvard or Yale, would the same be true? Or more to the point, would Harvard or Yale have a professor more inclined toward the facts even if it meant disproving Staci Zaretsky’s story?
The profession is hardly awash in unduly passionate, as notably reflected in the impending bankruptcy of the ABA since it devolved into a wing of the progressive machine. But the shrieks of the baby lawyers, the unduly passionate, the dissemblers for the cause, are far louder than the vast majority of lawyers who still grasp why people entrust their lives to them. The SJWs believe themselves to be the majority, and mobs of them on social media believe they represent the profession. They don’t. At least not yet.
The law firm of Shook, Hardy and Bacon threw partner Paul Hardy under the bus for raising the cackles of the outraged children. They didn’t want to suffer the slings and arrows of the children’s crusade. Will David Bernstein suffer a similar fate for calling out the false narrative? Is there any hope for facts and reason to survive in the Legal Academy, even if it makes the unduly passionate furious?
Some of us feel compelled to remain faithful to facts and our duty as lawyers to zealously represent our clients, rather than adhere to the orthodoxy of social justice, and are willing to tolerate the outrage machine. Judge Kopf has taken more than his share of punches for it. And yet, the SJWs are as emboldened as ever to reject facts, deny their responsibility, and seek out witches to burn at the stake. What David Bernstein did here is remarkably bold. It should be utterly banal to tell the truth. This is what the legal profession is facing.
*Sure, there’s also teaching, but let’s not go down the trade school road again.
**Can the word “fellow” still be used?
No comments:
Post a Comment