If an attorney chooses to publicly air controversial opinions, they can expect to get fired. Law firms are a business first, and if their public-facing professionals make statements that alienate clients or create the whiff of a hostile work environment, the firm can cut ties to protect its business. It’s not a free speech thing, it’s just business.
That said, firing someone over their remarks is always a question of “coulda and shoulda.” When an incoming Winston & Strawn associate called the October 7 Hamas attacks “necessary,” the firm quickly revoked that offer. When Foley & Lardner fired a new associate months later for calling out the human rights crisis brought on by the Israeli government’s response, the move smacked of overreaction… and possible discrimination.
Which is all to say that the death of Charlie Kirk presents law firms with new opportunities to struggle with this line.
There are certainly people out there celebrating the right-wing activist’s death on social media. However, many, many more are “celebrating” his death only in the twisted minds of the right-wing political correctness police. Which is to say they are NOT celebrating at all — indeed, they’re openly denouncing political violence — but they’re using this moment to callously “quote things Kirk actually said.” That’s all some GOP elected officials need to start demanding funding cuts and systematic firings. An odd way to honor an activist who made “campus free speech” the core of his movement.
Senator Mike Lee suggested the Kirk estate sue Stephen King for defamation even though (a) American law does not recognize a claim for defaming a dead person and (b) the statement in question was… not inaccurate. But if you’re wondering why some corners of the Supreme Court seem like they couldn’t find black letter law with both hands and a Lexis subscription, I remind you that Mike Lee clerked for Justice Alito.
All these “crackdowns” on people posting about Kirk’s legacy brings us to the news that Perkins Coie fired an associate over his social media response to the Kirk killing.
Not only have they fired this lawyer, but they appear to have taken down firm publicity posts that mention him. It’s quite the purge from Perkins, and it makes you wonder what sort of commentary could have possibly have prompted this aggressive response. Right-wing journalist Benjamin Domenech posted what he purports to be the underlying post. Let’s break it down:
Charlie Kirk got famous as one of America’s leading spreaders of hatred, misinformation, and intolerance. The current political moment — where an extremist Supreme Court and feckless Republican Congress are enabling a Republican President to become a tyrant and building him modern-day Gestapo for assaulting black and brown folks — is a result of Charlie Kirk’s “contributions” to American media and politics.
Hell, Kirk would likely be flattered by the underlying claim. His Turning Point USA began as a sort of Misbehaved Young Republicans and eventually overshadowed traditional right-wing organizations like CPAC in dictating the shape of American conservatism. Not to diminish Donald Trump’s media instincts, but when polls suggest young men turning more conservative helped get Trump to this point, that’s all Kirk. And he can take credit for all that flows from that, including the current Supreme Court making a straightfaced proclamation that forgiving student debt is executive tyranny and then deciding that sending people to South Sudan without due process is just “practicing executive authority the right way.”
It’s not “celebrating” a murder just because you decline to whitewash Kirk’s legacy by acting like he “was practicing politics the right way” as Ezra Klein belched out onto the pages of the New York Times. Klein apparently believes saying that the guy who tried to murder Paul Pelosi with a hammer should be bailed out by some “patriot” or responding to the murder of George Floyd by calling him a “scumbag” is “the right way.” It’s a stunning display of pathological centrism brain: a compulsion to champion an angle that almost no one in the real world shares and then preen as though being an outlier is a sign of genius.
Because while liberals didn’t think Kirk practiced politics the right way… neither did conservatives! If they’re being honest with themselves, the highest compliment conservatives give Kirk is that he broke politics. He saw the dusty, genteel norms of the post-War political divide and tossed them aside to build a following. He took Rush Limbaugh’s model and pushed it beyond its limits.
That said, no one in this country should be murdered for their political speech. Wishing comfort to his wife and children in this difficult time.
Is this the sentiment that Perkins Coie thinks is “not who we are”? Because this is exactly the right thing to say.
Maybe this will be the event that gets MAGA to be serious about gun control. Dead school children haven’t been enough.
So far, MAGA took the opposite path. Out of the gate, social media flooded with calls for war against “the left” and tirades about how “the left owns political violence in this country!!!” Then all the alleged shooter’s ties to the Groypers came out, a group of far right-wingers who saw Kirk as too liberal, kicking off “The Great Deleting” as conservatives quietly purged their feeds of all the posts about violent leftists. Since then, they’ve all returned to writing about mental illness and video games and anything that isn’t gun control. That narrative disappeared faster than Trump’s plan to end the Ukraine war on day 1. Who couldn’t see this coming?
A week earlier, right-wing media was bragging about “The Department of War” and purging the military of “wokeness” because liberals are all soy boy cucks who lack the warrior mentality. A murder happens on air and suddenly “yep, that sniper was obviously a liberal!” and the audience just follows along like the sheep they are. They were probably right the first time. No political ideology holds a monopoly on violence, certainly, but violence is more likely to emerge from communities where there are a lot of young men, ready access to guns, and a value system that sees “strength” is a laudable political solution. That’s just going to tilt right-wing far more often. You tell the Oberlin campus someone is a fascist and they’re far more likely to organize a poetry slam about it, than turn to violence.
Republicans even dusted off their classic, “no way to prevent this” claims, with the added spin that the bolt-action Mauser 98 allegedly used in this killing isn’t the sort of high powered assault rifle-inspired weapon typically covered by gun control proposals. Which is true as far as it goes, though this highlights the profound superficiality that defines conservative argument.
Gun control couldn’t have stopped this specific killing? Speculative, but even if that’s true, why is that dispositive? Political violence tends to beget political violence. The next potential shooter might not opt for an antique rifle, which is why throwing obstacles in the process and massively curtailing the ready supply of weaponry can save lives. Or at least make catching the perpetrator on the back end easier through more robust licensing and tracking — and that provides at least some disincentive. That’s before considering how the marketing surrounding gun culture nurtures the idea that guns are the solution to all one’s problems.
And that’s before considering how the shooter might not have ever gotten in position if Utah didn’t allow unfettered open carry on campuses. You can’t credibly secure a venue when law enforcement and private security aren’t stopping people and asking, “um, why the gun, bro?”
In any event, there’s nothing in this statement that comes close to offensive or inappropriate when discussing a prominent political activist. Viewed through the lens of Perkins Coie’s ongoing legal fight with the administration, the response seems more cynical. The firm did not surrender to White House demands and took Trump to court over retaliatory executive actions directed at the longtime Democratic Party lawyers. Given that Trump’s actions are patently illegal, the firm has consistently whupped the government in the case. But locked in a high-stakes fight with the administration, the firm might be depending on its lawyers to steer completely clear of any controversy. Even though there’s exactly zilch about this post to justify taking away his job, this could be a proactive step to avoid the DOJ running into court and pretending this post, benign though it may be, is some sort of “proof” that the firm is biased.
Unless this attorney said a lot worse — and, again, right-wing sources are even claiming this is it — then Perkins Coie did him dirty. But the firm may be looking out for number 1 here. And by that we mean profits.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.
The post Perkins Coie Fires Lawyer Over This Charlie Kirk Post appeared first on Above the Law.
If an attorney chooses to publicly air controversial opinions, they can expect to get fired. Law firms are a business first, and if their public-facing professionals make statements that alienate clients or create the whiff of a hostile work environment, the firm can cut ties to protect its business. It’s not a free speech thing, it’s just business.
That said, firing someone over their remarks is always a question of “coulda and shoulda.” When an incoming Winston & Strawn associate called the October 7 Hamas attacks “necessary,” the firm quickly revoked that offer. When Foley & Lardner fired a new associate months later for calling out the human rights crisis brought on by the Israeli government’s response, the move smacked of overreaction… and possible discrimination.
Which is all to say that the death of Charlie Kirk presents law firms with new opportunities to struggle with this line.
There are certainly people out there celebrating the right-wing activist’s death on social media. However, many, many more are “celebrating” his death only in the twisted minds of the right-wing political correctness police. Which is to say they are NOT celebrating at all — indeed, they’re openly denouncing political violence — but they’re using this moment to callously “quote things Kirk actually said.” That’s all some GOP elected officials need to start demanding funding cuts and systematic firings. An odd way to honor an activist who made “campus free speech” the core of his movement.
Senator Mike Lee suggested the Kirk estate sue Stephen King for defamation even though (a) American law does not recognize a claim for defaming a dead person and (b) the statement in question was… not inaccurate. But if you’re wondering why some corners of the Supreme Court seem like they couldn’t find black letter law with both hands and a Lexis subscription, I remind you that Mike Lee clerked for Justice Alito.
All these “crackdowns” on people posting about Kirk’s legacy brings us to the news that Perkins Coie fired an associate over his social media response to the Kirk killing.
Not only have they fired this lawyer, but they appear to have taken down firm publicity posts that mention him. It’s quite the purge from Perkins, and it makes you wonder what sort of commentary could have possibly have prompted this aggressive response. Right-wing journalist Benjamin Domenech posted what he purports to be the underlying post. Let’s break it down:
Charlie Kirk got famous as one of America’s leading spreaders of hatred, misinformation, and intolerance. The current political moment — where an extremist Supreme Court and feckless Republican Congress are enabling a Republican President to become a tyrant and building him modern-day Gestapo for assaulting black and brown folks — is a result of Charlie Kirk’s “contributions” to American media and politics.
Hell, Kirk would likely be flattered by the underlying claim. His Turning Point USA began as a sort of Misbehaved Young Republicans and eventually overshadowed traditional right-wing organizations like CPAC in dictating the shape of American conservatism. Not to diminish Donald Trump’s media instincts, but when polls suggest young men turning more conservative helped get Trump to this point, that’s all Kirk. And he can take credit for all that flows from that, including the current Supreme Court making a straightfaced proclamation that forgiving student debt is executive tyranny and then deciding that sending people to South Sudan without due process is just “practicing executive authority the right way.”
It’s not “celebrating” a murder just because you decline to whitewash Kirk’s legacy by acting like he “was practicing politics the right way” as Ezra Klein belched out onto the pages of the New York Times. Klein apparently believes saying that the guy who tried to murder Paul Pelosi with a hammer should be bailed out by some “patriot” or responding to the murder of George Floyd by calling him a “scumbag” is “the right way.” It’s a stunning display of pathological centrism brain: a compulsion to champion an angle that almost no one in the real world shares and then preen as though being an outlier is a sign of genius.
Because while liberals didn’t think Kirk practiced politics the right way… neither did conservatives! If they’re being honest with themselves, the highest compliment conservatives give Kirk is that he broke politics. He saw the dusty, genteel norms of the post-War political divide and tossed them aside to build a following. He took Rush Limbaugh’s model and pushed it beyond its limits.
That said, no one in this country should be murdered for their political speech. Wishing comfort to his wife and children in this difficult time.
Is this the sentiment that Perkins Coie thinks is “not who we are”? Because this is exactly the right thing to say.
Maybe this will be the event that gets MAGA to be serious about gun control. Dead school children haven’t been enough.
So far, MAGA took the opposite path. Out of the gate, social media flooded with calls for war against “the left” and tirades about how “the left owns political violence in this country!!!” Then all the alleged shooter’s ties to the Groypers came out, a group of far right-wingers who saw Kirk as too liberal, kicking off “The Great Deleting” as conservatives quietly purged their feeds of all the posts about violent leftists. Since then, they’ve all returned to writing about mental illness and video games and anything that isn’t gun control. That narrative disappeared faster than Trump’s plan to end the Ukraine war on day 1. Who couldn’t see this coming?
A week earlier, right-wing media was bragging about “The Department of War” and purging the military of “wokeness” because liberals are all soy boy cucks who lack the warrior mentality. A murder happens on air and suddenly “yep, that sniper was obviously a liberal!” and the audience just follows along like the sheep they are. They were probably right the first time. No political ideology holds a monopoly on violence, certainly, but violence is more likely to emerge from communities where there are a lot of young men, ready access to guns, and a value system that sees “strength” is a laudable political solution. That’s just going to tilt right-wing far more often. You tell the Oberlin campus someone is a fascist and they’re far more likely to organize a poetry slam about it, than turn to violence.
Republicans even dusted off their classic, “no way to prevent this” claims, with the added spin that the bolt-action Mauser 98 allegedly used in this killing isn’t the sort of high powered assault rifle-inspired weapon typically covered by gun control proposals. Which is true as far as it goes, though this highlights the profound superficiality that defines conservative argument.
Gun control couldn’t have stopped this specific killing? Speculative, but even if that’s true, why is that dispositive? Political violence tends to beget political violence. The next potential shooter might not opt for an antique rifle, which is why throwing obstacles in the process and massively curtailing the ready supply of weaponry can save lives. Or at least make catching the perpetrator on the back end easier through more robust licensing and tracking — and that provides at least some disincentive. That’s before considering how the marketing surrounding gun culture nurtures the idea that guns are the solution to all one’s problems.
And that’s before considering how the shooter might not have ever gotten in position if Utah didn’t allow unfettered open carry on campuses. You can’t credibly secure a venue when law enforcement and private security aren’t stopping people and asking, “um, why the gun, bro?”
In any event, there’s nothing in this statement that comes close to offensive or inappropriate when discussing a prominent political activist. Viewed through the lens of Perkins Coie’s ongoing legal fight with the administration, the response seems more cynical. The firm did not surrender to White House demands and took Trump to court over retaliatory executive actions directed at the longtime Democratic Party lawyers. Given that Trump’s actions are patently illegal, the firm has consistently whupped the government in the case. But locked in a high-stakes fight with the administration, the firm might be depending on its lawyers to steer completely clear of any controversy. Even though there’s exactly zilch about this post to justify taking away his job, this could be a proactive step to avoid the DOJ running into court and pretending this post, benign though it may be, is some sort of “proof” that the firm is biased.
Unless this attorney said a lot worse — and, again, right-wing sources are even claiming this is it — then Perkins Coie did him dirty. But the firm may be looking out for number 1 here. And by that we mean profits.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.
The post Perkins Coie Fires Lawyer Over This Charlie Kirk Post appeared first on Above the Law.
