It’s been a while since I wrote a post specifically directed at Fault Lines, which has been a source of enormous pride and joy for me, providing a wealth of perspectives on criminal law that extend beyond the usual echo chamber.  Sure, it’s long on the criminal defense perspective, but it include the cop view as well as the prosecution view.

One of the initial gripes about FL was that it was too broad in its inclusiveness, lacking a “voice.” That was one of the ideas, that there are legitimate points of view other than the ones that confirmed your bias.  We hoped to expose people inclined to only read one perspective to others.  Whether we’ve done enough to accomplish this is subject to dispute.

Frankly, we’ve sought greater breadth of perspective, but it’s hard to find. There aren’t a lot of cop-types and prosecution-types whose offices will let them write honestly. And there are other perspectives that are also missing from the mix, one of which is the Biglaw White Collar point of view.

Following the Martin Shkreli indictment last week, Lee Pacchia got a brainstorm.  Why not bring in a Biglaw white collar guy to be interviewed about it.  This offered two new independent prongs to the experiment, video interviews and the Biglaw perspective.  It was a great idea, and Lee went to work.

This week, there will be a new feature, a video interview of a Biglaw white collar defense lawyer.  Because I’m special, I got to see it beforehand.  I hated it. I cringed all the way through it. Then I hated it some more.  And I told Lee how much I hated it, and that it should be destroyed, obliterated, peed on, then destroyed again.  And Lee told me that it was going up anyway, and I just had to suck it up.

Lee is right.  Just because I hated it doesn’t mean a different voice shouldn’t be aired. The integrity of Fault Lines is that it airs perspectives with which we disagree, which make us cringe.

Just so it’s clear, Biglaw white collar defense isn’t like any other criminal defense.  It’s not like white collar criminal defense by real criminal defense lawyers. And it’s about as far away from criminal defense of street crime as one can get.  If anything, it’s more like taking an Assistant United States Attorney, giving him a corner office and a huge paycheck, and letting him pretend he’s no longer on the prosecution team.  It offends every sensibility that the defense side otherwise possesses, as it’s contrary to every precept of criminal defense that otherwise exists.

Where we challenge the government, they politely ask the government “may I?” as they rush to set up an appointment to bring their client down and beg to be the first best rat.  They compliment the prosecution on its professionalism, its integrity, the very tasteful tie and style of Oxford.

Where criminal defense lawyers may openly explain what’s right or wrong with the law, the process, the wide world of shit in which criminal law functions, Biglaw explains at painful and pointless length what a wonderful system it is, because a message of positivity both comports with their intended clients’ world view, and makes for a fabulous marketing message.  And did I mention that they are almost all former prosecutors, and make sure everyone knows it every time they say something?

It’s very important in Biglaw to be a former prosecutor.  Former prosecutors are official, their credibility stemming from having achieved a position of official importance.  Corporate types adore people who held positions of official importance.  They presume them to possess insider voodoo that will, for the right price, be used to limit the buy out on the deferred prosecution agreement to a mere $72 billion, plus the $136 billion in legal fees. Hey, it costs money to buy your way out of crime by bending over whilst writing the check.

This is not my world.  My world is the one that tells the government to shove it. My world is the one that knows what a Ponzi scheme is, and wouldn’t treat you like a moron by trying to tell you that something is a Ponzi scheme, kinda sorta even though it’s not.  My world is the one that wouldn’t suggest that the government will win because they’re all such wonderful professionals that they would never prosecute an innocent man, never make a mistake.

But then, in my world, success isn’t achieved by being obsequious, flattering the government on the cheap.  All of which is why Lee was right to tell me to shut the fuck up.  It’s not that the interview isn’t cringeworthy. It’s not that it’s not a tedious, pandering, disgraceful, verbose heaping pile of steaming crap.  It’s that it is.

That’s what bringing a different perspective into the mix means.  When the video interview goes live, watch it. Watch it carefully. Watch it thoughtfully. But watch it. When you’re done, consider the juxtaposition between what a Biglaw white collar dude has to offer and what you would want if it was your ass on the line.  That’s a message worth sending.

I’ll add a link to the video when it goes live tomorrow. Will you hate it as much as I did? Either way, it is another perspective, and if FL is to maintain its integrity in presenting all perspectives, then this one is as worthy of exposure as any other. Yup, Lee was right all along.

Update:  As promised, here is the link to the video. See it and decide for yourself.