Robert Kantowitz Co-Authors Influential NYSBA Report on Advocacy, Public Service, and Fair Judgment

One question has drawn significant attention: how can individuals fairly judge an attorney’s previous representations and activities if that attorney later sets out for a judicial seat or a political role?

Many observers realize that lawyers often accept cases involving unpopular clients or charged topics. By following professional rules, they make sure that persons and causes can obtain fair representation, even when opinions differ on the merits of those clients or causes.

A new publication from the New York State Bar Association Committee on Attorney Professionalism addresses these questions. Our own Robert Kantowitz co-authored this report and contributed insights on the lawyer’s responsibility to assist individuals or groups who lack broad support, and on the impact that such work may have on future opportunities in government or on the bench.

This report highlights how professional ethics require serving those in need, whether they are admired by society or not. It then explains the importance of factoring in an attorney’s role and motivations when deciding how previous representation might shape perceptions of fitness for public office.

In recent years, the public has taken a deeper look at attorneys who once defended controversial figures or participated or advocated in lawsuits that generated debate. Open access to information across social platforms and search engines allows large segments of the population to examine details of prior matters. That environment prompts the question: should past cases and activities influence or determine suitability for future leadership?

The NYSBA report suggests a framework that helps citizens distinguish between a lawyer’s obligation or choice as a professional matter to represent any client and direct endorsement of a client’s actions or beliefs. Advocates are bound by a code that supports every person’s right to a fair day in court. That objective can, at times, clash with public opinion, especially when the client is unpopular. It addresses, for example, the difference between a lawyer who purposely takes on a specific mission and one who simply fulfills a duty assigned by a court or employer.

That nuanced viewpoint reminds us that context matters. And to support this viewpoint, the report encourages open-minded evaluations of each candidate’s background avoiding hasty judgments that might undermine the concept of legal representation for all. At the same time, the text acknowledges that legal practice often involves moral and ethical gray areas, which can be complex. By focusing on the key ingredients of legal advocacy – competent representation, loyalty to clients, and adherence to ethical codes – the committee hopes to prompt informed decision-making among those who vote or appoint.

We believe this report will spark fresh discussions on accountability, fairness, and the reasons attorneys take on challenging cases. Download the full report here.