Maybe Shakespeare had a point about the lawyers

It’s a mark of how old fashioned I’ve become that I have failed to adapt to the new mantra of the legal profession, “I may disapprove of what you say, and if I do, you’re fired.” Hence this story from a few days ago about the (previously) reputable firm, Hogan, Lovells. The story is spelled out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed …

Where to start? First, when I retain and pay a law firm, it’s not for the purpose of its using work time to have a “safe space” for its marvelously well-paid attorneys to moan to each other about how much they detest a Supreme Court case that has nothing to do with the work I (and 99% or their other clients) hired them to do. The juvenile self-indulgence of it all is precious.

Second, even if convening a debate about a SCOTUS case might be an acceptable use of firm time, this confab was no such thing. It wasn’t a debate anymore than it was a “safe space.” It was a virtue-signalling contest, premised on the highly debatable notion that approval of at-will abortion, or something like it, is a virtue.

Third, as the author points out, it was anything but a “safe space.” It was safe only if you were on board with the Received Wisdom the Roe is constitutional Holy Writ. But if you wanted seriously to discuss that point by, for example, examining the majority and dissenting opinions, you needed to find a different “safe space” — like, say, the sidewalk.