If you’ve been practicing law for more than 20 years, you will recall the hand-wringing over the advent of email. Too informal, too insecure, couldn’t be trusted with client information, etc. But the voices of lawyerly caution never had much of a chance; email was simply too effective, too widely adopted. People and businesses far and wide plowed ahead with using it, and the concerns of the lawyers were shunted to the wayside.
Since that time, the vast majority of lawyers have become adept at using email. Sure, there are still too many disclaimers, and many lawyers have retained the practice of attaching letters to an email when the email itself would do just fine. But still – as a profession, we’re good with email as a tool.
But sometimes we still can’t figure out how to use it.
Case in point – the fawning email sent by Randall Rader – the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals – to Edward Reines, a patent lawyer at Weil Gotshal & Manges who often appeared before the court.
The email, as you can see, lauds Reines’ abilities, and invites him to share the judge’s praise with others. Had Reines done the usual thing – smiled, sent the judge back a personal thank you, and filed away or deleted the email – there would be nothing to see here. Instead – because even white shoe Biglaw partners have to hustle for a buck – Reines forwarded the email to dozens of clients and potential clients, using it as a platform for selling his services.
As one might expect, this didn’t go well. When news of the email surfaced back in May, Rader quickly stepped down from his role as Chief Judge. His message came at a particularly bad time for the Federal Circuit, which has been facing increasing criticism (not to mention Supreme Court reversals) for being far too cozy with the patent bar.
And now Reines has been reprimanded by the Federal Circuit, for violating Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(e), which prohibits stating or implying the ability to influence a government official.
I think, as Reines unsuccessfully argued, that this is going too far. The email reveals that at least one Federal District court judge (and several others by implication) is very impressed with the quality of Reines’ work. And as I have written about before, praise from judges is valuable as a marketing tool precisely because of its scarcity value. Indeed, Rader’s encouraging Reines to broadcast the email acknowledges the rarity of this kind of praise.
The court, in applying the discipline, focused on Rader’s references to his friendship with Reines, and the fact that other parts of Reines’ marketing communications referred to his stature in the court and knowledge of the judges. The court seized on these factors as somehow being distinct from advocacy skills (because being an effective advocate is completely separate from having credibility and knowing the judges well enough to know which sorts of arguments resonate with them?), and also somehow being indicative of a nefarious intent to unduly influence the judges.
Had he to do it over, I’m sure Reines would have chosen a different approach. But there shouldn’t be a professional discipline penalty for crowing that the head judge of the court where you do most of your work thinks you’re the cat’s pajamas. Reines should have a first amendment right to let people – including potential clients – know how well-regarded he is by the court. Those potential clients can then choose for themselves whether it feels like too much of “look how special I am!”