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.