Prof. Phil Lord

A few days ago, Paul Clement, one of the United States' most prominent Supreme Court advocates, left his firm. He'd just prevailed in a significant gun rights case, and his firm had just announced it would no longer represent clients in such cases. Anyone who knows Clement and his practice knew it was only a matter of days. Clement had left another large law firm, King & Spalding, in 2011 when the firm withdrew from defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (a law that defined marriage as between partners of opposite sexes). Here's why I would have done the same thing. It has nothing to do with guns, unpopular clients, or law firm politics.  According to American Lawyer, Clement's law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, is the largest law firm in the world by revenue, and the third most profitable. Its equity partners each made $6,194,000 last year. Clement served in a Republican administration, and he often represents clients whose interests align with

The Supreme Court of the United States just issued a very significant decision. Lots of people are saying lots of things about it. As usual, these range from informative to worryingly incorrect. This is my attempt to simplify what just happened (and what did not), and to give a few pointers on how other lawyers might see the decision.  I must preface this discussion by noting that I am beyond thrilled to see everyday people make the effort to read and engage with a  Supreme Court  decision. I encourage you to read the decision in its entirety. The Justices made an effort (as they now generally do) to use accessible and clear language. We should all be able to understand  Supreme Court  decisions, and you probably will. First, here's what the Supreme Court did not do. It did not outlaw abortion because it can't. Women will still be able to get an abortion, somewhere, sometime (more on that later). In 1973, the Supreme Court had issued another decision, Roe v Wade. You've sur