Tuesday Talk*: Can White Lawyers Defend?

Maud Maron was a career public defender with the Legal Aid Society and, as one might expect, quite progressive in her leanings. But what she was not, as became fashionable on the fringe, was “anti-racist.” This was reason enough for LAS and the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid to attack, and claim she could not be a competent public defender as she wasn’t dedicated to the cause.

The mandate is a simple one. To be anti-racist, to dismantle racism here at LAS, and in every organization, we must all recognize that white supremacy drives every policy and law, every opportunity and every advantage. For those of us who are white, it is a recognition that power and privilege has been granted merely because we are white. While you have dedicated your life to public interest, you cannot do this work effectively and fully unless and until you face that reality and own that you are part of the problem.

Seems kinda discriminatory to say that Maron can’t “do this work effectively” unless she admits to being racist because she’s white, right? Well, yes and no, says SDNY Judge Katherine Polk Failla.

The Court’s careful review of the BALA and LAS Statements demonstrates that they were not, as Defendants claim, limited to expressing disapproval of Plaintiff’s political views on an issue touching upon race. If this were the sum total of the statements, the Court would agree with Defendants that the statements would not implicate Title VII. But the LAS  Statement goes further, expressly tying white attorneys’ — specifically Plaintiff’s — ability to do the work of a public defender to whether they accept the anti-racist credo and assume the attendant responsibilities.

Maron sued under Title VII and defendants moved to dismiss. So Maron’s cause of action survived because, as Judge Failla held, this was expressly tied to her race? But there was more!

Poignantly, the LAS Statement imposes additional obligations on white public defenders “merely because” they are white:

To be anti-racist, to dismantle racism here at LAS, and in every organization, we must all recognize that white supremacy drives every policy and law, every opportunity and every advantage. For those of us who are white, it is a recognition that power and privilege has been granted merely because we are white. While you have dedicated your life to public interest, you cannot do this work effectively and fully unless and until you face that reality and own that you are part of the problem. You cannot stop there, you must actively work to dismantle the systems that lend you privilege and oppress BIPOC people. To push against the deep work needed to change and be threatened by the conversation, is the exact definition of white fragility….White people have a duty to no longer be silent and a responsibility to confront these systems of oppression and to shun all forms of white supremacy in our society, in our workplaces, and within our hearts and minds.

So Maron really, really survived the motion to dismiss? Nah.

To adequately plead a claim against an employer for hostile work environment under Title  VII, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the  conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” This test has both objective and subjective elements: “the conduct complained of must be severe or pervasive enough that a reasonable person would find it hostile or abusive, and the victim must subjectively perceive the work environment to be abusive.”

This just wasn’t sufficiently severe and pervasive, to argue that no white person can competently be a public defender if they aren’t fully dedicated to being an anti-racist and actively working to “dismantle” the racist “systems” of privilege and oppression. Can a white lawyer who isn’t dedicated to the cause competently represent defendants or must public defenders also pass an ideological litmus test atop the bar exam before being allowed to walk into the well? And if this is true of PDs, what about the rest of the criminal defense bar? Are white criminal defense lawyers either anti-racists or incompetent?

*Tuesday Talk rules apply.


Discover more from Simple Justice

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

17 thoughts on “Tuesday Talk*: Can White Lawyers Defend?

  1. Elpey P.

    A white person authentically opposed to racism is a special target, but it seems like this “discriminatory intimidation” lands on everyone regardless of identity or whether they obey. Whites who do conform to these new White Power fanatics are still deemed to be “part of the problem” based on their involuntary identity, while non-whites are told that sadly they are systemically inferior. A black lawyer who asserts him or herself against this doctrine would find out pretty quickly how racist it and its defenders are.

  2. Annie P.

    I guess defendants – if there are any after new charging rules are applied – will get the defense they deserve. Or, asked for.

  3. B. McLeod

    I rather lean toward a contrary conclusion. It seems to me that a person who is willing to compromise principles and personal dignity to bow to a hat on a pole is likely to prove unprincipled in other respects as well. Unprincipled, craven and inclined to always take the easiest path. I wouldn’t want such a person as my counsel or advocate in a serious, criminal matter.

  4. Mark Schirmer

    Why doesn’t more people realize how racist this type of thinking is? It divides people by race — the color of their skin (regardless of their actual life and family history) and says we are not one people, but rather two groups at odds with each other.

    1. Dan

      Because “racism” (and its various related terms) has been redefined such that BIPOC people, or those claiming to act on their behalf, cannot be guilty of it. Unless they reject the narrative of oppression, in which case they’ve just internalized the racism.

    2. schorsch

      If policy and law are driven by white supremacy, than people in this system are already divided by their skin color. Than every participant in law business is either victim or perp (however involuntary) – defined by his/her skin color.

      Otherwise you would be right. Without this construct this type of thinking would be obviously racist. But since it can’t be racist (by definition), the construct of all law driven by white supremacy must be true!

  5. Miles

    It might better be argued that people conflicted between the sole concern for the welfare of their client and whatever ideological causes float around in their fuzzy brain are incompetent, both ethically and tactically. How can one put the client first and foremost when whatever they believe to promote antiracism is their primary concern?

  6. Drew Conlin

    Suppose hypothetically that a black defendant wants a white defense lawyer because that particular lawyer has been recommended…. What then LAS?
    Idiocracy is here and it ain’t nearly as funny as the movie.

    1. B. McLeod

      That’s where LAS likely has to explain to the defendant why the defendant shouldn’t want that, and why, for the defendant’s own good, LAS has determined to assign counsel who “looks like” the defendant. (If the defendant is also a disabled [Ed. Note] with facial scars, brands, body modifications and tattoos, counsel will be expected to undergo the appropriate physiological adjustments).

  7. Guitardave

    So can someone tell me how a white defendant can be fairly advocated for by anyone who would go along with this utterly insane horseshit?

    1. Bryan Burroughs

      Maybe it’s a brilliant plan to get a bunch of white people out on appeals for ineffective assistance of counsel?

  8. Nigel Declan

    I fear it won’t be long before an LAS anti-racist lawyer refuses to defend a white client because the defendant would not accept his or her complicity in white supremacy. Or, even worse, defends the same individual but does so in a substandard way because the lawyer could not separate his or her anti-racist views from the duty to zealously and competently defend each and every client.

  9. Rxc

    I am so glad that I am retired and don’t have to deal with this crap. But I am also cynical enough to worry about how the perpetually offended will eventually apply it to us geezers, too.

  10. The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit

    And yet none of the Regular Music People have tossed up Blue Oyster Cult’s “The Pact.”

    What IS the world coming to????

Comments are closed.