WEBVTT - Federal Workers Can Promote Religion & Lawyers Quit Over Principles 0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:08.640 --> 0:00:11.240 We're bringing back religion in our country, and we're bringing 0:00:11.280 --> 0:00:14.800 it back quickly and strongly. And President Trump has made 0:00:14.960 --> 0:00:19.840 efforts to appeal to his conservative Christian supporters. Trump created 0:00:19.880 --> 0:00:23.520 a White House Faith Office, a task force to eradicate 0:00:23.600 --> 0:00:27.720 anti Christian bias, and a Religious Liberty Commission. The Office 0:00:27.760 --> 0:00:32.800 of Personnel Management encouraged agencies to approve religious accommodations for 0:00:32.880 --> 0:00:37.239 remote work. The irs greenlit political endorsements from the pulpit. 0:00:37.760 --> 0:00:41.520 Perhaps the most striking example is a July twenty eighth 0:00:41.600 --> 0:00:47.200 administration memo encouraging federal government employees to show off their 0:00:47.280 --> 0:00:52.480 faith and even proselytize coworkers. Employees are permitted to display 0:00:52.640 --> 0:00:56.880 religious icons, pray in groups, and discuss religious topics with 0:00:57.000 --> 0:01:01.760 co workers, including quote attempt to persuade others of the 0:01:01.840 --> 0:01:06.120 correctness of their own religious views. My guest is Stephanie Barclay, 0:01:06.360 --> 0:01:09.520 a professor at Georgetown Law School and the faculty co 0:01:09.720 --> 0:01:13.640 director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. Stephanie give 0:01:13.680 --> 0:01:16.199 us the broad overview of this memo. 0:01:16.600 --> 0:01:20.240 So like the Clinton era guidance, the more recent memo 0:01:20.360 --> 0:01:25.560 permits allowing workers in federal deployment situations to engage in 0:01:25.680 --> 0:01:30.080 discussion of their faith. It allows them to display religious symbols, 0:01:30.120 --> 0:01:31.680 and it just allows faith. 0:01:31.480 --> 0:01:33.240 To be a more normal part of the workplace. 0:01:33.319 --> 0:01:36.480 It does prohibit those sorts of expressions from rising to 0:01:36.560 --> 0:01:40.280 the level of harassment or constituting an undue burden, But 0:01:40.400 --> 0:01:43.520 the memo does say that people just merely having discomfort 0:01:43.640 --> 0:01:46.360 alone isn't enough to count as an under burden in 0:01:46.400 --> 0:01:48.920 a government workplace. And so I think it's just trying 0:01:48.960 --> 0:01:52.040 to normalize that. You know, people in the workplace are 0:01:52.040 --> 0:01:55.600 allowed to talk about their favorite sports teams or type 0:01:55.600 --> 0:01:57.080 of food that they'd like to cook, they should be 0:01:57.080 --> 0:01:58.800 able to talk about their religion too. 0:01:59.320 --> 0:02:03.600 Does it usify where the line is between a normal 0:02:03.640 --> 0:02:08.639 conversation about religion and one that's harassing to co workers. 0:02:09.120 --> 0:02:13.600 I mean, talking about sports and your favorite foods that's 0:02:13.639 --> 0:02:17.440 one thing. But having a conversation about why someone should 0:02:17.440 --> 0:02:21.160 rethink their religious beliefs that can get very personal. 0:02:21.600 --> 0:02:25.440 Yeah, so religious speech could be considered harassment if it's 0:02:25.480 --> 0:02:30.000 sufficiently severe or pervasive, if it's creating a hostile work environment. 0:02:30.120 --> 0:02:33.880 According to this memo and some of the eeoc's Compliance 0:02:33.960 --> 0:02:38.440 manual's guidance about religious discriminations. So there are certainly boundaries 0:02:38.560 --> 0:02:41.800 like if there's a break in employees engaging another polite 0:02:41.800 --> 0:02:44.840 discussion about their faith and a non adherent request that 0:02:44.960 --> 0:02:47.440 to stop, then some sorts of requests like we need 0:02:47.480 --> 0:02:49.960 to be honored in order to not rise the level 0:02:50.000 --> 0:02:52.920 of creating a harassing sort of environment. So it's really 0:02:52.919 --> 0:02:56.960 meant to, I think protect and facilitate polite discussion, not 0:02:57.440 --> 0:03:00.839 religious evangelizing that's going to be overbearing. 0:03:01.120 --> 0:03:06.959 Are there any guard rails for supervisors having religious conversations 0:03:07.240 --> 0:03:08.440 with their employees? 0:03:09.040 --> 0:03:12.160 So for supervisors, they're also allowed to do some of 0:03:12.160 --> 0:03:14.120 the things we talked about at the beginning. They're allowed 0:03:14.200 --> 0:03:18.440 to have religious displays, They're allowed to engage in group 0:03:18.480 --> 0:03:22.880 activities like prayer during breaks or non duty hours, have 0:03:23.000 --> 0:03:28.000 religious conversations, have public expression about religion. So supervisors have 0:03:28.160 --> 0:03:31.320 all of those same religious expression rights as o their 0:03:31.360 --> 0:03:33.840 sorts of employees. The key issue, of course, is there 0:03:33.880 --> 0:03:37.720 are concerns about power imbalances with supervisors. So one key 0:03:37.760 --> 0:03:40.760 limitation is that menmos clear that unwillingness to engage in 0:03:40.800 --> 0:03:45.120 conversations can't be a basis for workplace discipline, so supervisors 0:03:45.320 --> 0:03:48.160 can't do anything with the position that they're in to 0:03:48.240 --> 0:03:51.800 try and put pressure on other employees and colleagues to 0:03:51.960 --> 0:03:55.160 participate in religious discussions or religious activities. 0:03:55.600 --> 0:03:59.040 Was the Clinton memo the same in every respect? Or 0:03:59.040 --> 0:04:00.000 were there differences? 0:04:00.480 --> 0:04:03.400 The Clinton Memo wasn't the same in every respect. It 0:04:03.520 --> 0:04:05.360 was similar in the way in which it was just 0:04:05.440 --> 0:04:10.120 trying to allow for fostering of polite conversations in the workplace. 0:04:10.280 --> 0:04:12.240 It dealt with religion and just to make it a 0:04:12.280 --> 0:04:15.080 more normal part of the workplace environment. I think the 0:04:15.080 --> 0:04:18.440 Trump memo is more specific to the other key differences 0:04:18.800 --> 0:04:21.680 between the Clinton Memo and this memo. We've had two 0:04:21.680 --> 0:04:24.279 Supreme Court cases at least that the Trump Memo sites 0:04:24.320 --> 0:04:28.160 that provide more guidance and both statutory and constitutional protections 0:04:28.200 --> 0:04:30.360 for religion in the workplace. One of those is the 0:04:30.400 --> 0:04:32.440 case of Graph we to Joy, and the other is 0:04:32.560 --> 0:04:35.880 Kennedy versus Bremerton, and Graph is a case that the 0:04:36.000 --> 0:04:39.080 Court is analyzing what it means under the Civil Rights 0:04:39.080 --> 0:04:42.440 Act to require religious accommodation in the workplace, and it 0:04:42.560 --> 0:04:46.320 takes a much more rigorous approach to what counts as 0:04:46.360 --> 0:04:49.640 an undue burden, and so the Trump Memo is following 0:04:49.800 --> 0:04:52.240 that sort of tax here and then in the Kennitty 0:04:52.279 --> 0:04:55.800 for SSUs Bremerton's Schoolisteric case, that's a free exercise case 0:04:55.880 --> 0:04:58.479 and a free speech case dealing with a high school 0:04:58.480 --> 0:05:00.720 football coach who, when he was off beuty, wanted to 0:05:00.720 --> 0:05:02.680 be able to pray in public, and the Supreme Court 0:05:02.800 --> 0:05:05.520 said that does not violate the establishment cause for the 0:05:05.520 --> 0:05:08.960 government to accommodate that sort of religious expression. Not only that, 0:05:09.000 --> 0:05:12.719 but religious exercise and free speech demand that government provide 0:05:12.760 --> 0:05:15.279 accommodations and contacts like that where they don't have good 0:05:15.279 --> 0:05:17.960 reason not to, where the coach for the employee would 0:05:17.960 --> 0:05:19.960 be allowed to do other personal things at that time, 0:05:20.000 --> 0:05:22.760 there's no reason to prohibit religious expression as long as 0:05:22.760 --> 0:05:26.920 that religious expression isn't pressuring or coercing others to participate. 0:05:27.279 --> 0:05:31.880 Quit encouraging religious expression like this create a hostile work 0:05:32.000 --> 0:05:34.120 environment under Title seven. 0:05:34.480 --> 0:05:37.800 I mean, I think that if it did create hostile 0:05:37.839 --> 0:05:40.160 work environment, if say you could demonstrate that, then that 0:05:40.600 --> 0:05:43.880 would be something that's outside of the type of protection 0:05:43.920 --> 0:05:46.479 that the memo is trying to offer. That's consistent with 0:05:46.520 --> 0:05:49.760 the Supreme Court's decision in committee versus per Merchant School 0:05:49.760 --> 0:05:52.719 District because they're the Supreme Court said that the school 0:05:52.720 --> 0:05:54.960 district needed to accommodate the quote she wanted to pray, 0:05:54.960 --> 0:05:56.440 but was very clear to say it would be a 0:05:56.480 --> 0:05:59.440 different case if there was evident that the coach was 0:05:59.480 --> 0:06:02.400 pressuring students to participate in the prayers. There was some 0:06:02.640 --> 0:06:04.719 evidence of the record where some students that they had 0:06:04.720 --> 0:06:07.359 felt that sort of pressure earlier when the coach was 0:06:07.400 --> 0:06:10.000 praying within in the locker room or things like that. 0:06:10.040 --> 0:06:10.640 But once the. 0:06:10.600 --> 0:06:12.320 Coach had said I'm willing to stop, I'm not going 0:06:12.400 --> 0:06:14.719 to do that anymore, I'm no longer asking for that 0:06:14.760 --> 0:06:17.920 sort of accommodation, then the evidence shifted to was there 0:06:17.960 --> 0:06:21.040 any evidence that anyone had ever felt coerced to pray 0:06:21.040 --> 0:06:23.040 with him when he prayed alone on the fifty yard 0:06:23.040 --> 0:06:24.800 line And there was no evidence to the record of 0:06:24.880 --> 0:06:26.960 that's But what that indicates is that if you had 0:06:26.960 --> 0:06:31.640 a case where employees, even on an anonymous basis, even 0:06:31.680 --> 0:06:34.679 like a John Doe employee, had an AFFI David saying, 0:06:35.160 --> 0:06:38.160 I feel like if I don't participate in these religious 0:06:38.200 --> 0:06:41.440 sorts of gatherings or discussions that you know, I'm going 0:06:41.480 --> 0:06:44.479 to lose a promotion or not be able to participate 0:06:44.520 --> 0:06:46.800 fully in my job that that would fall outside of 0:06:46.839 --> 0:06:48.640 the protection of this sort of guidance. And I think 0:06:48.640 --> 0:06:52.080 that that's important because having a workplace that allows and 0:06:52.160 --> 0:06:56.160 protects religious expression also needs to protect non religious people 0:06:56.240 --> 0:06:59.120 who don't want to be pressured into religious expression that 0:06:59.160 --> 0:07:01.200 they disagree with or just don't find persuasive. 0:07:01.480 --> 0:07:06.320 The Council on American Islamic Relations said it's worried that 0:07:06.360 --> 0:07:12.239 the memo would be selectively enforced, potentially disadvantaging Muslim workers. Quote. 0:07:12.320 --> 0:07:17.640 It's concerning that the policy mentions numerous examples of permissible activity, discussion, 0:07:17.720 --> 0:07:21.280 and dress related to the Christian and Jewish faith, but 0:07:21.440 --> 0:07:25.440 never mentions a single example related to Muslims. Do you 0:07:25.480 --> 0:07:27.360 think that that's a valid concern. 0:07:28.080 --> 0:07:31.160 I think that if this memo is selectively enforced, that 0:07:31.480 --> 0:07:35.040 would absolutely be a valid concern. I'm optimistic that it 0:07:35.080 --> 0:07:37.600 will be enforced in an even handed way, but it 0:07:37.640 --> 0:07:39.560 would have been a better memo if they had provided 0:07:39.680 --> 0:07:42.560 an even broader range of religious expression from all sorts 0:07:42.560 --> 0:07:45.960 of different religious states. But certainly, just on the face 0:07:45.960 --> 0:07:48.440 of the text of the memo, there's nothing that would 0:07:48.480 --> 0:07:51.440 allow for that sort of selective enforcement, and I think 0:07:51.440 --> 0:07:53.360 it would be a violation of the memo and certainly 0:07:53.560 --> 0:07:57.080 problematic for constitutional reasons if there was selective enforcement such 0:07:57.120 --> 0:08:00.280 that only certain types of religious denominations for being given 0:08:00.320 --> 0:08:01.520 these protections and others. 0:08:01.520 --> 0:08:05.160 When on this applies only to federal workers, of course, 0:08:05.560 --> 0:08:11.480 could policies like this sort of bleed into the private workplace. 0:08:12.000 --> 0:08:15.000 I think that this MIMO does provide an example of 0:08:15.080 --> 0:08:18.120 the type of protections that could be offered in the 0:08:18.120 --> 0:08:20.760 private workplace. And I think that graph versus a Joy, 0:08:20.800 --> 0:08:23.360 that's the Supreme Court case where the Court was interpreting 0:08:23.400 --> 0:08:26.840 again Title seven and religious protections that applies in the 0:08:26.840 --> 0:08:29.760 private workplace, and that idea of what constitutes an undue 0:08:29.800 --> 0:08:33.240 burden is also relevant to religious employers. And so I 0:08:33.280 --> 0:08:36.240 think this sort of guidance in part is analyzing and 0:08:36.280 --> 0:08:39.080 building on some of those legal principles and taking a 0:08:39.160 --> 0:08:41.440 much more rigorous view of what can count as an 0:08:41.480 --> 0:08:46.120 undue burden, and saying mere discomfort with hearing about religion 0:08:46.120 --> 0:08:48.200 from time to time, or having a colleague express that 0:08:48.480 --> 0:08:50.720 isn't an a nast account as undo burdens. You could 0:08:50.720 --> 0:08:54.480 imagine that sort of interpretation being relevant for courts that 0:08:54.520 --> 0:08:58.000 are interpreting what an undo burden means in the context 0:08:58.040 --> 0:09:00.000 of private employers. 0:09:00.000 --> 0:09:03.800 This follows a broader push by the Trump administration to 0:09:04.080 --> 0:09:07.559 allow federal workers to express religious beliefs. Can you tell 0:09:07.600 --> 0:09:12.319 us about that oh PM guidance about religious accommodations. 0:09:12.679 --> 0:09:15.760 This is following a general trend of the Trump administration 0:09:16.080 --> 0:09:19.520 where the principle is that we should be as accommodating 0:09:19.679 --> 0:09:23.800 of religion as possible. And so basically, if there isn't 0:09:23.840 --> 0:09:29.000 a justification for not accommodating federal workers or not accommodating 0:09:29.120 --> 0:09:31.800 religious practice that has been demonstrated on some sort of 0:09:31.840 --> 0:09:34.839 evidentiary basis, religious accommodation should be allowed. And that's a 0:09:34.920 --> 0:09:37.480 practice that the Supreme Court has been emphasizing in some 0:09:37.520 --> 0:09:40.280 of its recent decisions and that the Trump's administration seems 0:09:40.320 --> 0:09:42.120 to be consistently implementing as well. 0:09:42.480 --> 0:09:47.760 What other things has the Trump administration done regarding faith initiatives? 0:09:48.040 --> 0:09:50.760 One thing that the Trump administration has done is through 0:09:50.760 --> 0:09:54.440 its faith initiatives is that has recently put together a 0:09:54.520 --> 0:09:57.679 Commission on Religious Liberty under the White House, and they 0:09:57.880 --> 0:10:01.439 held a hearing earlier the Fear to receive input about 0:10:01.679 --> 0:10:06.920 challenges that still exist for religious believers and for religious 0:10:06.920 --> 0:10:10.240 institutions in the country. I was actually asked to testify 0:10:10.280 --> 0:10:13.240 at that event. There were discussions of all sorts of 0:10:13.240 --> 0:10:17.320 different religious groups, including religious minorities like Native Americans, and 0:10:17.400 --> 0:10:19.880 challenges that they still face, protection that they did not 0:10:19.960 --> 0:10:23.400 receive under the Biden administration, for example, for Native Americans 0:10:23.440 --> 0:10:26.640 take to site. So I was optimistic to see that 0:10:26.679 --> 0:10:30.240 there was not just a focus on Judeo Christian group, 0:10:30.320 --> 0:10:33.000 which was a concern you expressed earlier that some religious 0:10:33.040 --> 0:10:36.160 minorities have voiced, but that there was a broader discussion 0:10:36.160 --> 0:10:38.920 about the need for religious sobrity protections across the board, 0:10:39.000 --> 0:10:41.920 and a number of the commissioners seemed really interested in 0:10:41.960 --> 0:10:44.960 ways to improve conditions for all sorts of religious groups 0:10:45.000 --> 0:10:45.720 in America. 0:10:45.760 --> 0:10:47.760 And I guess we'll have to see how this religion 0:10:47.800 --> 0:10:51.479 memo actually plays out in the federal workplace. 0:10:52.120 --> 0:10:56.040 It emphasized the need to balance religious freedom with operational needs. 0:10:56.240 --> 0:10:59.760 So it's just saying agencies need to reasonably accommodate employees 0:11:00.040 --> 0:11:04.000 really held religious beliefs, practices, or observances. So I think 0:11:04.040 --> 0:11:05.880 that it will be important to keep an eye on 0:11:06.000 --> 0:11:08.400 whether or not these policies are being enforced in an 0:11:08.440 --> 0:11:12.240 even handed way, and that they're being enforced in ways 0:11:12.240 --> 0:11:15.240 that don't allow for harassment or pressure for must Americans. 0:11:15.280 --> 0:11:17.040 But on the face of the guy that, I think 0:11:17.080 --> 0:11:20.640 there are some guardrails in place that allow for remedies 0:11:20.679 --> 0:11:23.040 if that does occur, and are hopefully just going to 0:11:23.040 --> 0:11:26.080 make it so that employees can discuss religion at work 0:11:26.160 --> 0:11:29.480 like they can discuss their favorite baseball team or you know, 0:11:29.520 --> 0:11:31.680 anything else that's important in their life, and that this 0:11:31.760 --> 0:11:33.800 is an important part of their identity that they should 0:11:33.800 --> 0:11:36.559 be able to bring to work, just like other employees 0:11:36.559 --> 0:11:39.000 can bring other aspects of their life to their work 0:11:39.040 --> 0:11:40.439 as well, And I think that makes for a better 0:11:40.480 --> 0:11:43.400 and more inclusive, more pluralistic workplace in our country. 0:11:43.640 --> 0:11:46.240 Thanks so much for joining me. That's Stephanie Barklay, a 0:11:46.280 --> 0:11:51.960 professor at Georgetown Law. This is Bloomberg. Associate positions at 0:11:51.960 --> 0:11:56.360 top law firms are prestigious and lucrative, with seniority based 0:11:56.440 --> 0:11:59.160 pay scales that range from two hundred and twenty five 0:11:59.240 --> 0:12:02.960 thousand dollars to four hundred and thirty five thousand dollars 0:12:03.200 --> 0:12:08.000 before bonuses. Imagine giving up that job because of your principles. 0:12:08.360 --> 0:12:11.760 That's what some young lawyers did in response to deals 0:12:11.760 --> 0:12:15.400 their law firms made with President Donald Trump. Joining me 0:12:15.480 --> 0:12:19.079 is Justin Henry, a reporter at Bloomberg Law who's written 0:12:19.120 --> 0:12:24.319 about these associates, justin explain why these young lawyers quit 0:12:24.360 --> 0:12:27.920 their jobs at these prestigious law firms. 0:12:28.400 --> 0:12:31.400 So I'll start off by saying just how unusual it 0:12:31.480 --> 0:12:36.240 is for lawyers in big law to loudly quit their 0:12:36.360 --> 0:12:39.319 jobs and make a big deal about their critiques against 0:12:39.320 --> 0:12:41.679 their law firms. The reason why they are quitting their 0:12:41.800 --> 0:12:46.080 jobs and issuing these public statements is because these law firms, 0:12:46.120 --> 0:12:49.680 some of the wealthiest law firms in the world, agreed 0:12:49.720 --> 0:12:53.559 to provide hundreds of million dollars in quote unquote pro 0:12:53.640 --> 0:12:57.440 bono legal services to the Trump administration in exchange for 0:12:57.679 --> 0:13:02.920 avoiding some kind of unitive executive action by the White House. 0:13:03.160 --> 0:13:08.120 These include investigations by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission into 0:13:08.200 --> 0:13:12.880 these firms diversity hiring practices. These include executive orders from 0:13:12.920 --> 0:13:17.720 the White House targeting firms and their lawyers' execurity clearances 0:13:18.040 --> 0:13:22.839 and ability to interact with government officials. And what these 0:13:22.920 --> 0:13:26.320 associates have said as well as a few partners also 0:13:26.400 --> 0:13:29.120 quitting over these deals. Is that this amounts to an 0:13:29.200 --> 0:13:35.160 unconstitutional shakedown, and these super well resourced law firms should 0:13:35.160 --> 0:13:39.880 have the backbone to challenge these punitive actions in court. 0:13:40.520 --> 0:13:43.120 And at this moment in time, we're looking at those 0:13:43.160 --> 0:13:46.880 deals in the context of the fact that four firms 0:13:46.920 --> 0:13:50.240 that were targeted by the Trump administration were vindicated and 0:13:50.320 --> 0:13:54.439 successful in their legal challenges against the Trump White House. 0:13:54.559 --> 0:13:56.080 And so I think there are a lot of lawyers, 0:13:56.080 --> 0:13:57.800 there are a lot of associates who are looking at 0:13:57.800 --> 0:14:01.000 their own firms saying, you know, we should have challenged 0:14:01.040 --> 0:14:06.240 these actions or threatened actions in court instead of preemptively folding. 0:14:07.360 --> 0:14:11.520 So some associates were vocal about leaving their firms, but 0:14:11.720 --> 0:14:13.600 others did it quietly. 0:14:13.720 --> 0:14:18.000 The reporting that I've done has been focusing on the 0:14:18.120 --> 0:14:21.880 associates who vocally quit. Now the sense I get just 0:14:21.920 --> 0:14:24.320 from talking to sources in the industries that there are 0:14:24.480 --> 0:14:28.200 many more people who are dissatisfied about these deals, and 0:14:28.360 --> 0:14:31.120 that is serving as at least one of the reasons 0:14:31.120 --> 0:14:33.600 why they're changing firms or why they're leaving their firms. 0:14:33.960 --> 0:14:36.560 But I wanted to take a look at the associates 0:14:36.560 --> 0:14:40.320 who took it upon themselves to vocally disapprove of their 0:14:40.320 --> 0:14:43.280 firms in a public setting and then leave and then 0:14:43.320 --> 0:14:46.680 ask the question, what are their prospects? What are their 0:14:46.720 --> 0:14:49.240 career prospects now that they've spoken up, because it is 0:14:49.320 --> 0:14:52.240 so rare. So that's the group of associates that I've 0:14:52.280 --> 0:14:54.440 been looking at and just trying to follow up with 0:14:54.520 --> 0:14:57.560 and see how they're viewing their career prospects right now 0:14:57.720 --> 0:15:00.000 and talking to recruiters and asking them the same question. 0:15:00.760 --> 0:15:04.400 Well, let's talk about some of the associates that you 0:15:04.520 --> 0:15:07.320 spoke to. Start with Sunic Maradian. 0:15:07.800 --> 0:15:11.560 He was a third year associate at Simpton Thatcher who 0:15:11.840 --> 0:15:15.200 was very outraged about the deal. Simpton Thatcher is one 0:15:15.200 --> 0:15:16.880 of the nine firms that cut a deal with the 0:15:16.880 --> 0:15:20.720 Trump administration. He sends out a firm wide email on 0:15:20.760 --> 0:15:24.200 April eleventh, the same day that Simpson's deal with Trump 0:15:24.360 --> 0:15:27.920 was announced, and on that same day he's exiting the firm, 0:15:28.400 --> 0:15:31.360 and so he's kind of plotting his next moves. And 0:15:31.400 --> 0:15:34.160 what he's telling me is that he's looking for a 0:15:34.240 --> 0:15:37.680 job as a public defender. And you know, the rationale 0:15:37.680 --> 0:15:40.320 for that is that it basically aligns more with his 0:15:40.720 --> 0:15:44.120 values as a lawyer. When you're working at a high 0:15:44.240 --> 0:15:48.160 powered law firm on Wall Street, you are serving the 0:15:48.840 --> 0:15:53.720 very wealthy. Now, everybody deserves a lawyer, But according to Sinoek, 0:15:53.840 --> 0:15:56.080 he's looking for a job where he can represent people 0:15:56.120 --> 0:15:58.720 who don't have the same access to legal representation. And 0:15:58.720 --> 0:16:02.400 that's what he would be doing as a public defender. Now, 0:16:02.760 --> 0:16:06.480 there aren't many twenty seven year olds who are you 0:16:06.720 --> 0:16:08.840 making the amount of money that you make as a 0:16:08.880 --> 0:16:12.400 third year associate in big law. So he's you know, 0:16:12.480 --> 0:16:14.520 accepting the fact that he's going to be making a 0:16:14.520 --> 0:16:17.800 lot less as a lawyer in whatever he decides to pursue. 0:16:17.800 --> 0:16:19.760 But you know, when I asked him about that, he said, 0:16:20.080 --> 0:16:22.400 it's worth it. You know, there's not an amount of 0:16:22.480 --> 0:16:25.240 money that can make me feel comfortable working at a 0:16:25.280 --> 0:16:28.280 firm that would engage in a deal as highly suspect 0:16:28.360 --> 0:16:30.720 as what Since the Thatcher agreed to put. 0:16:30.600 --> 0:16:33.280 Some numbers on this, tell us about you know what 0:16:33.320 --> 0:16:37.240 the salaries are like for you know, even associates just 0:16:37.320 --> 0:16:38.520 coming out of law school. 0:16:38.920 --> 0:16:43.360 So working at top law firms like some Ston Thatcher, 0:16:43.440 --> 0:16:46.520 like Kirkland and Ellis, like Leithan Milwaukins. These are the 0:16:46.640 --> 0:16:49.680 highest paying jobs that you can get as a junior 0:16:49.760 --> 0:16:52.680 lawyer coming out of law school. These are firms that 0:16:53.320 --> 0:16:56.640 pay their associates according to what's called the Cravat scale, 0:16:57.080 --> 0:17:01.360 the associate seniority based pay scale that is set by 0:17:01.560 --> 0:17:04.639 top firms. So imagine this your first year associate in 0:17:04.640 --> 0:17:07.680 your mid twenties coming out of law school, and your 0:17:07.800 --> 0:17:11.439 annual salary is two hundred and twenty five thousand, and 0:17:11.480 --> 0:17:15.000 that's before bonuses. You add bonuses onto that, and you're 0:17:15.000 --> 0:17:17.600 almost making a quarter of a million dollars as a 0:17:17.680 --> 0:17:19.760 lawyer in your mid twenties. I mean, there's just no 0:17:20.000 --> 0:17:22.359 job in the profession that's going to get you close 0:17:22.400 --> 0:17:25.040 to that, certainly not being a public defender. And by 0:17:25.040 --> 0:17:28.280 the time you're in your third year as an associate 0:17:28.280 --> 0:17:30.680 at one of these firms, you're getting I believe it's 0:17:30.880 --> 0:17:35.080 three hundred and fifteen thousand, and that's space salary including bonuses. 0:17:35.400 --> 0:17:37.199 The reason why we know how much these lawyers are 0:17:37.240 --> 0:17:40.160 making is because they all pay according to the Kravat scale, 0:17:40.720 --> 0:17:43.600 and that is a seniority based pay scale set by 0:17:44.280 --> 0:17:47.400 a very powerful Wall Street law firm called Cravats. Swain 0:17:47.520 --> 0:17:49.600 and Moore. And it's the top dollar that you can 0:17:49.640 --> 0:17:52.520 make as a junior lawyer in the profession that all 0:17:52.640 --> 0:17:55.920 the competitors need to match or else risk losing out 0:17:55.960 --> 0:17:57.160 on junior legal talent. 0:17:57.920 --> 0:18:01.879 Tell us about Ryan Powers, who didn't leave voluntarily. He 0:18:02.000 --> 0:18:02.560 was fired. 0:18:03.119 --> 0:18:06.680 So Ryan Powers didn't quit like the other people we 0:18:06.800 --> 0:18:10.960 looked at, but he was fired by another powerhouse law 0:18:10.960 --> 0:18:14.480 firm called Davis, Polk and Wardwell. He was fired because 0:18:14.760 --> 0:18:18.919 of the op ed pieces that he would get published 0:18:19.040 --> 0:18:23.280 in newspapers around the country where he would opine and 0:18:23.359 --> 0:18:27.879 analyze kind of the intersection of political issues and legal issues, 0:18:27.960 --> 0:18:31.439 and so he would weigh in about things like government surveillance, 0:18:32.119 --> 0:18:37.000 the Trump administration and Trump administration allies. And according to 0:18:37.040 --> 0:18:40.800 the people we've talked to, including Ryan, our understanding is 0:18:40.800 --> 0:18:44.160 that why he was fired was because he didn't get 0:18:44.200 --> 0:18:48.520 these op eds cleared or approved by his firm, and 0:18:48.640 --> 0:18:51.800 so you know, as a result, he breached some internal 0:18:51.840 --> 0:18:55.520 policy and had to be let go. But the reason 0:18:55.560 --> 0:18:56.840 why we took a look at him is because he 0:18:56.920 --> 0:19:00.199 still falls in this category as a vocal june your 0:19:00.280 --> 0:19:04.439 lawyer who's speaking out on hot button political issues and 0:19:04.520 --> 0:19:08.360 so he's in that category, and so we wondered, how 0:19:08.440 --> 0:19:11.000 is he viewing his career right now? Can you speak 0:19:11.080 --> 0:19:12.879 up on these issues and still have a career in 0:19:12.960 --> 0:19:13.400 big law? 0:19:14.280 --> 0:19:18.000 And can you can you go back to practicing in 0:19:18.080 --> 0:19:21.879 big law after speaking out like this? Some of the 0:19:21.920 --> 0:19:26.720 people you spoke to, like recruiters, thought you couldn't. Yeah. 0:19:26.760 --> 0:19:30.240 So my analysis of the situation, based on people we've 0:19:30.240 --> 0:19:33.639 talked to, is that you can still have a career 0:19:33.680 --> 0:19:37.560 in big law, but you are making it difficult for 0:19:37.880 --> 0:19:43.560 yourself by being vocal and speaking out against management decisions. 0:19:43.880 --> 0:19:46.880 You know, there are still some law firms that didn't 0:19:46.920 --> 0:19:50.679 speak up out against the Trump administration. There are a 0:19:50.720 --> 0:19:53.520 handful of law firms that signed on to a friend 0:19:53.560 --> 0:19:57.240 of the Court brief in a lawsuit brought by Perkins Cooey, 0:19:57.320 --> 0:20:00.639 one of these Trump targeted firms, where there does seem 0:20:00.640 --> 0:20:05.000 to be a value alignment between the associates who spoke 0:20:05.080 --> 0:20:08.560 up and the law firms who spoke up in support 0:20:08.600 --> 0:20:11.960 of Perkins Kooi. However, this is a limited number of 0:20:12.080 --> 0:20:14.520 law firms that was willing to speak up. There are 0:20:14.680 --> 0:20:17.919 only eight law firms in the top one hundred biggest 0:20:17.960 --> 0:20:20.560 law firms in the US who were willing to align 0:20:20.600 --> 0:20:22.800 themselves with Perkins KOOI, and not all of them are 0:20:22.840 --> 0:20:25.000 going to hire all the people who are quitting their 0:20:25.040 --> 0:20:26.000 firms in protest. 0:20:26.240 --> 0:20:28.320 Do you have an idea of how many people quit 0:20:28.440 --> 0:20:29.159 in protest? 0:20:29.920 --> 0:20:37.040 We counted twelve associates who posted on LinkedIn or spoke 0:20:37.080 --> 0:20:41.920 with the media saying I'm quitting and then left. That 0:20:41.960 --> 0:20:45.760 does not include a group of former Wilkie, far and 0:20:45.880 --> 0:20:50.520 Gallagher associates who spoke up after they had already secured 0:20:50.560 --> 0:20:54.439 a job at Cooley following a couple partners there. So 0:20:54.600 --> 0:20:57.679 in some ways they overlap with our sample size. In 0:20:57.720 --> 0:21:00.919 other ways they don't because they had already secured another 0:21:01.040 --> 0:21:02.880 job for kind of speaking out. 0:21:03.760 --> 0:21:07.159 So that's a drop in the bucket compared to the 0:21:07.240 --> 0:21:10.440 number of associates there are at these law firms. 0:21:10.920 --> 0:21:12.879 Yeah, it's a drop in the bucket. I mean the 0:21:12.960 --> 0:21:15.760 law firms that they are leaving and speaking out against 0:21:16.320 --> 0:21:21.000 have the strongest buying power in the legal industry. Like 0:21:21.040 --> 0:21:23.880 I said before, they pay top dollar, So I don't 0:21:23.880 --> 0:21:27.240 think they're worried about their ability to recruit and routine 0:21:27.840 --> 0:21:31.359 associates and kind of replace the people who have left some. 0:21:31.280 --> 0:21:34.440 Have not found other jobs yet, and others are going 0:21:34.480 --> 0:21:36.600 in wildly different directions. 0:21:37.119 --> 0:21:40.080 Correct. Yeah, I think the person you're referring to Taylor Weddick. 0:21:40.160 --> 0:21:45.480 He's running to represent Iowa's first congressional district in the 0:21:45.520 --> 0:21:50.119 House of Representatives. And I also wrote about Rachel Cohen, 0:21:50.160 --> 0:21:53.720 who's maybe the most high profile person in this cohort 0:21:53.800 --> 0:21:57.640 because she was one of the first people to loudly 0:21:58.040 --> 0:22:01.920 quit and speak out against her firm, Scaton, for making 0:22:02.000 --> 0:22:06.359 its deal with the Trump administration. She's working at a 0:22:06.400 --> 0:22:10.760 boutique litigation firm founded by Abby Lowell, who said in 0:22:10.800 --> 0:22:13.439 his mission statement is he's formed this firm, he's a 0:22:13.440 --> 0:22:16.840 former Winston and Strawn partner, and his goal is to 0:22:16.960 --> 0:22:21.000 represent political targets of Donald Trump. What I think unite 0:22:21.119 --> 0:22:23.240 a lot of the people who have found post big 0:22:23.320 --> 0:22:26.879 law jobs is that they're in places that kind of 0:22:27.000 --> 0:22:29.919 align with their stated values or allow them to speak 0:22:30.119 --> 0:22:35.160