Wickwire Lecture – Criticizing Trump Administration Lawyers

W. Bradley Wendel
Edwin H. Woodruff Professor of Law
Cornell Law School

Lawyers generally believe in something called the Principle of Nonaccountability, which shields them from criticism for representing unpopular clients. Lawyers also have a stock of explanations or excuses they can offer for choosing to represent such clients – for example, the principle that everybody deserves as lawyer, or the importance of providing a vigorous defense to a criminal accused. But waving off criticism in this peremptory way prematurely ends a conversation that would be beneficial in a democracy that values relationships of accountability between professions and the political community. In my recent book, Canceling Lawyers, I argued against the Principle of Nonaccountability. The point is not that lawyers are wrongdoers straightforwardly as a matter of identification with their clients, but that lawyers do owe an account that justifies the representation. Importantly, this account must acknowledge that lawyers remain moral agents when acting within their professional role. Using examples from the second Trump administration, I will consider what moral accountability would look like for government lawyers involved in implementing these policies.