Trends, trends, trends

I am continuing to do research on the so-called "business models" across large law firms in the country.

I already posted multiple stories on this blog evidencing the most prominent "business model" that I see as an attorney and a researcher, the "mesh-advice-carrot-and-stick" business model.  You can word-search on this blog "American Inns of Court",  "Judges indebted to others", "state-federal judicial council" for examples of how large law firms hire relatives, friends and/or former employees of judges, "serve" upon public or quasi-public bodies that provide either education, entertainment, catering, rule-making or discipline for the judiciary.

More and more I come to a conclusion that a large factor in hiring practices of large law firms is the candidate's connections with all branches of the government and especially the judiciary.  That is convenient both from the point of view of influence upon courts - favorable decisions - and money and growing popularity with clients and more money which comes with it, and it is convenient from the point of view of being free from any reach of sanctions from the judiciary, no matter what the firm or attorney from the firm may be doing.  

The approach proves to be invincible, since only solo attorneys appear to ever be reached by discipline.

It appears important for large law firms to have their attorneys "serve" in a variety of capacities on committees that 

(1) create court rules;  
(2) create the law, including the laws favoring the law business itself;  
(3) advise the judiciary;  
(4) provide small and large benefits and favors for the judiciary, openly and behind closed doors through various "social networking" situations and settings; 
(5) be part of selection of judges;  
(6) be part of judicial discipline; 
(7) be part of attorney discipline

Participation in all of those activities is possible only when the law firm is large enough to afford to do business and have their various members "serve" in those various capacities. 

This "business model" provides allows large law firms to:

(1) provide enough favors for the judiciary so that it is "not proper" for the court not to give them something in return;
(2) have an intimidating effect upon judges where law firms whose members can discipline judges appear in front of those judges;
(3) create rules and laws favorable for the law firms and their clients;
(4) know the "insider rules" and "the ears" of particular judges by hiring his or her law clerks and other court personnel;
(5) be in a position of an "advisor" to the judiciary and thus be deemed a better advocate than solo independent attorneys;

I wonder why attorneys and judges still bother with oaths of office when the way decisions are so clearly tainted by the "business model" and, even with scant hard evidence of briberies of the judiciary by large law firms (because potential prosecutors are also lawyers craving, in the event they are not re-elected for the next term, to go work for those large firms and use their connections for personal gain), there is enough appearances of impropriety and likelihood of influence upon the judiciary by large law firms in the make-up of law firms, their hiring practices - and then blatant advertising of attorneys' prior employment with the judiciary or other branches of the government to attract more clients and raise prestige of their firm. 

Stay tuned for the ratings that will start coming next week.