Although it’s not clear whether these firms actually offer unique services or are just shrewd marketers, they claim success in attracting and serving clients. There undoubtedly are some concerns more common to men in divorce proceedings, but this niche practice itself raises some concerns about client selection and zealous advocacy. I don’t think these men-focused firms are in the same league as certain famous debates over client selection. (To name just a few: the recent flap over King & Spalding’s withdrawal from representing the House of Representatives in the DOMA litigation (see here for Paul Clement’s resultant resignation from the firm); the debate between Monroe Freedman and Michael Tigar over the latter’s representation of Nazi John Demjanjuk (outlined in the appendix to Freedman’s book Understanding Lawyers’ Ethics, App. B “Must *You* Be the Devil’s Advocate?”); and the controversy over the representation of the Ku Klux Klan by an African-American NAACP lawyer, Anthony Griffin (see Professor David Wilkins’ article about it, “Race, Ethics and the First Amendment: Should A Black Lawyer Represent the Ku Klux Klan?”). But if these firms are unwilling to represent a woman who came to them, able to pay their fees, it’s not clear that they are operating within the ethical rules.
Read the full post at prawfsblawg.blogs.com.