Reflections of a Boston Lawyer

Forty years ago this month I was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar. It therefore seems like a fitting occasion for me to reflect on how law practice has changed during that time, on what remains the same, and on the attributes and values that continue to make law a noble profession. I remember December 1980 as a cold, dark month, made colder and darker by the shocking murder of one of my idols, John Lennon. I was one of 18 new lawyers at the law firm then known as Hale and Dorr (now WilmerHale). Ronald Reagan had just won his first Presidential election, American hostages were being held in Iran, the Cold War was very much alive, and the nation was in the grips of a recession.  I became a lawyer just as big law was beginning to think about getting bigger, and some industry practices were just beginning to change. In 1980 our bills to clients were one- or two-line affairs that simply said "For legal services rendered," followed by a dollar amount. Our assistants were still cal

 My long-time friend, Joe Miller, has started a podcast called "Titans of Transition." In it, he interviews leaders in various fields about pivotal moments that shaped their careers. A few weeks ago, Joe interviewed me about those pivotal moments from high school, college, law school, judicial clerkship, and private law practice that helped to shape my professional and personal life. We also talked about the importance of giving back, such as through pro bono work and volunteer service on non-profit boards. Joe's website contains links to both audio and video versions of the interview. The interview is rather long, but I hope those who decide to take the time to watch or listen to it will find in my answers to Joe's questions, and in Joe's astute observations about some of the turning points in my career, a few kernels of wisdom that will help them in their own journeys. Here is the link to Episode 10 of Titans of Transition. And be sure to check out some of the

 I have begun reading the book "The Upswing" by Robert D. Putnam. In the first chapter, the author calls for balance in two vital yet conflicting characteristics of the American identity. Because these characteristics underlie our great national divide over the wearing of masks in a pandemic, I wanted to post the following insightful passage now: As Tocqueville rightly noted, in order for the American experiment to succeed, personal liberty must be fiercely protected, but also carefully balanced with a commitment to the common good. Individuals' freedom to pursue their own interests holds great promise, but relentlessly exercising that freedom at the expense of others has the power to unravel the very foundations of the society that guarantees it. I believe Mr. Putnam has captured the heart of what is afflicting us at this time of crisis; some Americans' fierce devotion to personal liberty as a supreme virtue, without regard to the collective good. I look forward to

Pictured above from left to right: Yours truly, Justice Ralph Gants, and then-President-Elect of the Massachusetts Bar Association, Richard Campbell, at the 2011 Walk to the Hill for Civil Legal Aid Here I am, a blogger almost at a loss for words. In the span of one week, the legal community has lost two of its heroes - first, the highly respected Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Ralph Gants, and days later, the revered Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. For those of us who practice law in Massachusetts and care about these things, it may take some time to recover from the one-two punch. Much has already been said and will be said about Justice Ginsburg, but I want to take this occasion to remember Chief Justice Gants. Our paths had crossed a few times, although mostly I observed his important work from a distance. Chronologically, we were close contemporaries, and though we were of like minds, he devoted himself to full

By now, we all have heard the reports that the current occupant of the highest office in our land has referred to America's fallen warriors as "losers," and those who answered the call to military service as "suckers." He denies the reporting, of course, but not only has it apparently been confirmed by numerous reliable sources, it also is consistent with words that we have heard from his own lips, notably in his expressed disdain for the late Senator John McCain because of McCain's capture during the Viet Nam war (a war that the President was able to avoid because of alleged bone spurs). From this warped perspective, Trump was a winner (for avoiding service), while McCain was both a loser (for being captured) and a sucker (for serving his country). If this view of the world were accepted, then not only would all American service men and women throughout our history be considered "suckers," but so would those who volunteer for any worthy cause with

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued two decisions of great immediate and historic importance. In Trump v. Vance , the Court ruled that a sitting President is not immune from state criminal investigation. In Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP , the Court ruled that a sitting President is not immune from Congressional investigation into the President's non-privileged, private information. In each case, the Court identified limits to the investigative power. In the Vance , case, the limits are no different from those that apply to investigations of any citizen. In the Mazars case, the limits are special limits derived from the Constitutional principle of separation of powers. Both cases were informed by precedent, but extended precedent to the new circumstances the cases presented. And each case resulted in an Opinion of the Court authored by the Chief Justice and supported by a seven-Justice majority. The commentary following the opinions has focused on their political implications for the c