Why Big Law Remains Mum on SCOTUS Leak: The Morning Minute

Want to get this daily news briefing by email? Here's the sign-up.

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

RESERVING JUDGMENT - Big Law has thus far proven much better than the U.S. Supreme Court at keeping its opinions from leaking. As Law.com's Patrick Smith reports, large law firms have been noticeably mum since a draft SCOTUS opinion reversing Roe v. Wade was made public. The silence may be temporary, however. In interviews, leaders of several Am Law 100 firms, speaking anonymously due to the debate around the issue, told Smith that firm management feels constrained to talk about the decision publicly because it's still a draft ruling and it's not the law right now. But they expected some firms will take a public stand once the final decision comes out, even if public messaging is fraught with the risk of alienating employees, clients and others. "The hallmark of a good business leader is to do what is best for your clients, your people and your community," said one firm leader, adding that that becomes a hard issue when within the client base, office and surrounding community there is dissonance. "It would be hard to put out a statement even if 80% of your firm agrees with you," the leader said.

ZOOM VS. ROOM - If you thought attorneys were less than enthused about returning to the office to do work they could do more easily from home, just imagine how they feel about getting dragged into the courtroom for hearings they could have done over video. Actually, you don't have to imagine because Law.com's Brad Kutner talked to lawyers about this very issue. While many litigators still crave the courtroom when it comes to big-ticket items like trials and oral arguments, their appetite for making insanely long commutes to attend insanely short hearings appears to be all but gone at this point. "There's no reason this couldn't have been done via Zoom," remarked one attorney who, after years of digital court appearances, is once again taking cross-country flights for 15-minute hearings. The good news is, similar to return-to-office policies, talent may dictate a more reasonable path forward for court proceedings. "We lose great talent every year because the life of a litigator is not sustainable for many lawyers," said Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll Partner and Harvard Law adjunct professor Betsy Miller, adding, "Hybrid access to courts, where some matters are presented remotely and others in person, is the wave of the future. Just because we did it one way in the past doesn't mean that's the best way forward."