Some pro bono briefs are tight & white

Some things, once you’ve see them, can  never be un-seen, no matter how hard you try.

Such is the image of Covington & Burling partner David Remes dropping trou at a press conference in Yemen to illustrate the ‘humiliating’ search techniques his clients, Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo, are being subjected to by ‘corn fed’ (to use Remes’ odd descriptor) U.S. soldiers. (Query: doesn’t Remes’ public demonstration sort of undermine his contention that the search procedure is so awful?  He looks to me like he’s enjoying himself.)

Anyway, the work of BigLaw’s so-called ‘Guantanamo Bay Bar Association’ has never been more conspicuous—in addition to Remes’ ‘Michael Clayton moment,’  we've had the recent Boumediene decision ( a triumph for WilmerHale) and the imminent military commission trial of Bin Laden chauffeur Salim Hamdan ( Perkins Coie is disappointed). 

Despite the liberal rep of a Covington or Cleary, or the rightwing vibe of a Kirkland or Gibson, most BigLaw firms manage to maintain at least the appearance of political neutrality (or, at least, ‘diversity’).  It seems, however, that the Gitmo Bar might be drawing some real differences among firms into sharp relief: a firm who throws its resources at a habeas case on behalf of alleged ‘unlawful combatants’ is saying something different about itself than the firm whose pro bono efforts are focused on landlord-tenant or asylum cases. 

If the comments to the WSJ law blog post on Remes are any indication—and if you can’t trust blog comments, what can you trust? —law students are taking note.  For some aspiring BigLaw associates, these distinctions may be a factor in firm choice.  Before the comments thread degenerated into “wingnut!/moonbat!” name calling,  the comments lauding Remes were running about even with the likes of  “Wow, what an outrage. Dropping Covington from my bid list.”

                                                                         -posted by brian

7/21/08 UPDATE: Remes resigns