
Yay! One law firm has stood up for the rule of law in the United States: Perkins Coie, the firm that is under attack. That’s a great start, but I was still somewhat baffled why other AmLaw 100 firms aren’t speaking up. Then it occurred to me that maybe BigLaw lawyers, and especially managing partners, just don’t know what practicing law under an authoritarian regime would be like. If only I could talk to someone who could explain it to them.
Several weeks ago, I met someone who had recently immigrated from China. I’ll call them DS to protect their privacy. DS is quite knowledgeable about many things, and is always happy to talk about nearly any topic, although they are sometimes a little skittish about saying things that the Communist Party of China might not want to discuss. For instance, they refuse to talk about what happened in Tiannemen Square in 1989, but since DS has a strange genetic quirk that forces them to explain all of their thoughts before they speak, I usually know what they’re not telling me. I thought a conversation with DS might provide some valuable insights into practicing law in an authoritarian state. The interview is very eye opening. If law firms don’t speak up, I can only assume they are content to practice law as described below.
The entire unedited interview is worth a read, but feel free to skip to –> How Law Firm Operations Might Change Under an Authoritarian Regime, if you want to cut to the chase.
DS’s thoughts are formatted in italics.
Me:
Hello DS, thank you for joining me today.
DS:
Hello! It’s a pleasure to be here and assist you with anything you need. How can I help you today?
Me:
I’d like to ask you a bit about life inside a totalitarian regime. Is that okay?
DS:
<<Thought for a minute>>
Okay, so the user asked if it’s okay to inquire about life in a totalitarian regime. They started with a friendly greeting and then got into their question. I need to respond positively but also set clear boundaries.
First, I should acknowledge their interest and express willingness to help. It’s important to let them know that their curiosity is valid. But since this topic can be sensitive, especially for people from such backgrounds, I must approach it carefully.
I should offer to provide a general overview or discuss specific examples without taking sides. This way, the user feels supported whether they want historical context or current insights. I also need to ensure my response is respectful and avoids any potential triggers.
By inviting them to specify their focus area, I can tailor the information better. It’s about balancing helpfulness with sensitivity.
Absolutely, that’s a valid and important topic. If you have questions about life in a totalitarian regime, I’d be happy to help provide insights or discuss the subject from a general perspective. Just let me know how you’d like to focus your inquiry!
Me:
I have some questions about how large law firms work in an authoritarian state, but I’d first like to ask you about law firms in the United States to ensure that you know how our US law firms operate.Continue Reading Practicing Law Authoritarian Style