Discriminating against lefties (or righties) in law firm hiring: against the ethics rules?

The blawgosphere is buzzing with discussion of this weekend's NYT column by "The Ethicist," Randy Cohen, which dealt with a law firm associate who rejected job seekers who had belonged to the Federalist Society.  In California, there's an ethics rule prohibiting discriminatory conduct in law firm hiring, but it doesn't apply to one's political views -- it applies to "race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability."  So I guess that the answer under the rules in California is that you can. Whether it's OK in the ethics sense of "all things considered" is up to you to decide.  (And IANYL, so I am not commenting on any employment law aspects to the hypo.) 

Much of the buzz is about how conservatives were discriminated against, but I'd like to raise a different issue.  Does it hurt candidates' chances at a biglaw job when their resumes are full of lefty affiliations, social justice work, National Lawyers Guild memberships, etc?  I am frequently asked that question by students and I have my own views but would be interested in your views.  And suppose that a member of the hiring committee thinks, "I don't care about the candidate's politics, but given that resume I just don't see him/her thriving and happy with our client base and type of work."  Anything wrong with that? 

Comments

[Anon]

That's an interesting question. Personally I kept advocacy work off my resume unless it was completely innocuous. So the internship for the small claims court resolution service stayed, but the volunteering with a political group was left off.

And when I see someone whose focus during law school was clearly on public interest or advocacy law, I don't think it likely that they will like our regulatory-focused practice. I also think that if your resume is full of that kind of work, you do put yourself out as someone interested in that going forward. And if my firm doesn't do that type of work, I don't see how we could be a good match.

On a related note, I recently chose to stop an interview cycle because I found out about the partners' political activities. Partners are in close relationship, and I can't imagine making healthy joint decisions with someone whose view points on social issues are diametrically opposed to mine. I would love to hear your views on the ethical implications of that.

[Judith]

This article comes to mind: http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2007/05/what_did_monica.html

[Stephen Bloom]

My early November blawg post, "You can't make it in Biglaw if you're that worried about what God would think," bears relevance to this discussion: http://thebelieversguidetolegalissues.blogspot.com/2009/11/you-cant-make-it-in-biglaw-if-youre.html

It's obviously an issue on the minds of law students and firms alike. At some point though, an applicant just has to be him or herself. Both employee and employer want the relationship to be successful, and some basic ideological compatibility can certainly help with that.

Why work at a firm where you have to be stealthy about who you are?

[Law school grad]

I personally encountered alot of resistance the majority of law firms I interviewed with due to my two summer internships. There weren't any issues with actual conflicts, but the interviewers were concerned that someone with my views would not fit in in their firm.