As New Lawyer, Senator Defended Big Tobacco

[DainBramaged]

Source: NY Times online

The Philip Morris Company did not like to talk about what went on inside its lab in Cologne, Germany, where researchers secretly conducted experiments exploring the effects of cigarette smoking.

So when the Justice Department tried to get its hands on that research in 1996 to prove that tobacco industry executives had lied about the dangers of smoking, the company moved to fend off the effort with the help of a highly regarded young lawyer named Kirsten Rutnik.

Ms. Rutnik, who now goes by her married name, Gillibrand, threw herself into the work. She traveled to Germany at least twice, interviewing the lab’s top scientists, whose research showed a connection between smoking and cancer but was kept far from public view.

She helped contend with prosecution demands for evidence and monitored testimony of witnesses before a grand jury, following up with strategy memos to Philip Morris’s general counsel.

The industry beat back the federal perjury investigation, a significant legal victory at the time, but not one that Ms. Gillibrand is eager to discuss.

Now in the Senate seat formerly held by Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ms. Gillibrand plays down her work as a lawyer representing Philip Morris, saying she was a junior associate with little control over the cases she was handed and limited involvement in defending the tobacco maker.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/nyregion/27gillibrand.html?hp

---

Oh boy, this gets better and better.

[Truth2Tell]

1. Of course she did.

That's how you get to be in the US Senate.

[elleng]

2. Do NOT disparage attorneys for doing their job!

It is WRONG, and gets us NOWHERE. It tells us NOTHING about how she will do her job in the Senate, except that she will probably work very hard.

I represented a narcotics peddler in one of my first cases. I represented undocumented workers. Later I worked for the government. After that, I represented railroads. Would it be reasonable to hold any of that against me if I were running for public office?

[DainBramaged]

5. You are accosting me for reporting what the NY Times wrote?

This PERSON, who was APPOINTED by the governor of NY State, is NOT the person she is trying to appear to be.

If you have a bitch, write the NY times. Don't give me shit about it.

[onenote]

19. she has been completely upfront about the fact she worked on the phillip morris matter

and its absolutely not an issue. She was a second or third year associate at a big firm at the time -- it wasn't "her" client at the time, and she was one of several lawyers on a multi-lawyer team. She did a good job and got more responsibiility over time. That's what one would hope a lawyer assigned to a case would do. And while at Davis Polk, she also did pro bono cases for very good causes.

Young lawyers at big firms work on all kinds of matters for all kinds of clients. Much ado about nothing.

[DainBramaged]

29. Once again, go bitch to the NY Times, WTF is wrong with you people

I DID NOT WRITE THE article!

[EFerrari]

6. Do you believe your professional choices wouldn't be on the table

if you ran for office?

[MADem]

9. I agree with you. She took a stinker of a case and won. That means she's got a good mind.

People who think that stumblebums don't deserve vigorous representation are the ones with the problem. Our legal system doesn't say "Only the pure of heart get lawyers."

You see a lot of this silliness here, unfortunately. They are the opposite of progressive, these views.

[DainBramaged]

10. How can you possibly take this article as a swipe at lawyers???

You are right, there is a tremendous amount of silliness here, and you are in the mix. She CLAIMS she had no important role, but the article proves otherwise, so what is in question is her ethics, not her competence.

[MADem]

27. No, not the article--the klinking editorial turd of a comment posted AFTER the article.

Oh boy, this gets better and better.

Now THAT's taking a swipe at this particular lawyer. It's not even subtle.

And the one doing the shitstirring isn't me. He who said it, owns it. Put the spoon away, why don't you?

You know, what you might consider "an important role" might not be on her top ten list. Unless you are a member of the bar, AND you are intimately familiar with every case this woman was ever involved with, you have no clue which cases appear on her "top ten" list of significant contests...and you just might want to quit while you're ahead.

Your agenda is showing, yet you're continuing to play the wide-eyed innocent--it's a very poor performance, FWIW. You protest way too much.

[DainBramaged]

30. Oh I get it, pounce on my comment and blame me for her lapse in ethical judgement

Two words, and they aren't Merry Christmas.

[MADem]

31. I did not "pounce," nor did I "blame." You wrote that comment, I didn't.

Now you're foot-stompingly angry, and tossing childish "two words" insults....because I dared to NOTICE and remark on a value-based comment that YOU made.

You'd be better off racheting back your desire for dramatic internet fights, because you're not going to get one from me. You said it, now live with it. You might want to work on reducing your obstreperous attitude, developing a thicker skin, and engaging in a more mature fashion if you want to be taken seriously.

Four words: Have a nice day!

:hi:

[DainBramaged]

34. What the fuck do I care if you take me seriously or not, this isn't my life's work

get a clue, my life doesn't revolve around message boards, and with few exceptions, my friends and family aren't part of this 'community'. Oh and when I sense someone who thinks that they have more 'moral' authority than the rest of us, or think that their purity is purest, I don't get into fights, I just the click the red X, because life is too short to fight with people who think I'm too, too vociferous for them, but have their nose pointed up their own ass.

Bite me.

"Click".

PS, get that last word in, JUST to prove you are morally superior. I had you pegged, I should have put you on ignore a long time ago.

[MADem]

35. Always aggressive, aren't you? Tsk, tsk. Bite me? You're fond of the two word retort, apparently.

If your life doesn't revolve around message boards, you're sure doing a good job of faking it. A fuller and more varied schedule might help you not take everything so personally. You might lash out a little less, too.

For someone who insists he isn't part of the DU "community" as you claim, you sure spend a lot of time here, and plenty of it telling people to fuck off and bite you, and suggest where their noses are pointed, in oblique and not-so-oblique language. Now, you can call that something other than "fighting," but it's, at the least, behaving aggressively and rudely. If you really meant what you said, you would have already clicked on that red X you were boasting about, and you wouldn't have posted such an angry rant. Life, apparently, is not short enough for you, eh?

Have a sunny day, now Bright Eyes! Take a Happiness Pill! Work on those "anger issues" whydoncha?

:hi:

[peacetalksforall]

14. A narcotics peddler (individual crime) is a lot different than a major corporation defending

and getting around evidence that millions would be subject to a life threatening disease.

She had a free choice to continue to work for the firm used by the cancer spreader?

Cancer from smoking is so repulsive to me that I can't figure out a way to justify her choice. Especially because of the 100 to 200 additives added to the raw tobacco.

I would have never voted for her.

There is a line. I know I am not seeing it according to the way cases are taken and assigned. But, she could have been her own heroine. Jobs weren't that hard to find in that time period.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. So now she's in trouble for being a good lawyer? Is there...

a Democrat ANYWHERE in Washington that we can find at least marginally acceptable?

[antimatter98]

13. A good lawyer doesn't promote dying at the hands of corporate America. n/t

[Bake]

16. A good lawyer zealously represents his/her client.

She was a young lawyer, fresh out of law school apparently. She didn't solicit the case, she wasn't the rainmaker. She did her job, and did it well.

Would you have a problem with a lawyer representing an accused serial killer? Child molester? I personally wouldn't take those cases, but they are still entitled to representation in our system. In Gillibrand's case, maybe if the prosecutors did a better job, they would have won. Maybe if the LA prosecutors had done a better job, OJ would have been in prison for murder.

If you're NOT a lawyer, don't express ignorant opinions about what a lawyer is supposed to do.

Bake, Esq.

[AZ Criminal JD]

17. I don't know when she graduated from law school

But I do know a major corporation would not hire someone "fresh out of law school" for a case like this.

[onenote]

20. she graduated from law school in 1991

and she clerked for a federal appellate court judge, which means (contrary to the article), she probably started working at Davis Polk in late 1992 or early 1993. I imagine that she was one of a dozen or more associates hired by Davis Polk that year. (I don't know how big it was in 1992/93, but it has more than 700 lawyers now). She was assigned to the case -- I don't know whether the case was already ongoing when she started or if firm started working on the case after she was there. But in any event, there is absolutely no reason to think that she was hired to work on that particular case. It probably wasn't the only matter she worked on during that time. But she apparently did well and so, over time, her responsibility grew. That's exactly how big law firms work.

[Bake]

22. They didn't hire HER. They hired her firm.

And one of the partners assigned her to work on the case.

Bake, Esq.

[AZ Criminal JD]

25. Either she did a minor amount of paperwork and research

or she was a major player in the case. If she did a minor amount then the OP and the article are meaningless. If she was a major player the corporation would know about it and approve of it in advance. Corporations don't just hire law firms and then let the firm randomly pick who is going to do important work on the case.

[onenote]

33. she probably started out with a relatively minor role and grew into a more senior role

That's how these things work in big firms and multiyear cases.

And while a corporation may hire a firm so that a specific partner will work on a case, the client rarely picks the associates that work on a case -- it leaves that to the judgment of the partner. On a major litigation matter, the partner may have specific senior associates he/she will want to use because of their experience. As you move down the line, less experienced associates are fungible -- its more of a matter of which associate has the time to work on a matter. HOwever, as time goes on, an inexperienced new associate will gain expertise and experience and with that expertise and experience likely will come more responsibility. Over a multi-year case at a big firm its entirely likely that some of the associates that worked on the matter will leave or rotate off the case onto something else and other new or current associates will take their place.

From your handle, it would appear you are a lawyer, but from your posts, it would seem like you haven't had much exposure to how big New York law firms operate. I am a "graduate" of a big DC firm and I worked on big litigation matters. In one case, I was assigned to simply research one particular issue for a motion to dismiss. When it turned out that issue decided the case, I was pegged as someone with expertise on the issue and as other cases involving the same client came in, the partner in charge wanted me to work on them. The role I played as a fourth year associate was much different from the role I played as a second year associate.

[TheWraith]

23. "For a case like this"? She was assembling documents in response to subpoenas. nt

[AZ Criminal JD]

24. That is not what the OP implies and says.

[Bake]

26. I suspect the OP/article is mistaken or exaggerating.

Bake

[cliffordu]

4. At first I though it said

"Big Tabasco"

[NBachers]

7. Defending the Habanero Gang

[No Elephants]

8. Two things: One: a new lawyer in a firm does not have a thing to say about

who the clients of the firm are or whick cases they are assigned to. NO say at all.

Two. One of the foundations of our legal legal system is right to counsel, whether you are Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, a Guantanamo detainee, etc.

This story is the NYT stirring very old pots against a Democrat, playing off the resentment against lawyers the RW has been drumming up for at least 20 years now. Please stop falling for this kind of media bs.

Gillibrand may have faults up the yin yang. Being a young lawyer assigned to a tobacco companies is not one of them.

[LeftishBrit]

11. It's a lawyer's job to represent all sorts of clients

That's the way the law works, otherwise unpopular people couldn't get a lawyer. It doesn't indicate general support for Big Tobacco, unless she has chosen to represent them consistently.

(And I hadn't even heard of her before, so am not particuarly defending her as an individual. And I'm anti-smoking.)

[DainBramaged]

12. I guess no one here read the article completely

"Of course, many lawyers, including some who now serve in the Senate, have defended unpopular clients. Still, in an approach that was not uncommon at law firms that represented tobacco companies, lawyers at Davis Polk were permitted to decline work on the tobacco cases if they had a moral or ethical objection to the work,"

Mr. Chang said.


Because the article is raising doubts about her integrity as a PERSON, those here take it as a swipe at lawyers. And DU doesn't have hidden agendas?

Bullshit.

[onenote]

21. I read it. And I worked at a big law firm. Believe me, the "option"

wasn't really an "option". Not if you wanted to have a future at the firm.

[davidinalameda]

15. this reminds me of the right wing rant against Tony West

West has been nominated to serve as the deputy AG for Civil Rights; West also help defend Johnny Walker Lindh

so West is being called the terrorist's lawyer and Gillibrand is being called a shill for big tobacco

so nice to see character assassination is alive an well in this day and age

I hope Gillibrand serves until she's 90 just to piss some people off

[MADem]

32. Yes, and it's particularly interesting to see such broad brushing on a "progressive" forum.

Torches and pitchforks are out in force. It's a bit disappointing.

[RB TexLa]

18. Well let's have a law then, companies and criminals we don't like should not be able to hire

lawyers.

[WeDidIt]

28. What a steaming pile of bullshit

I admire ANY attorney that adheres to the most basic tenet of legal ethics.

She zealously defended the interests of her client.

She should be commended, not derided.