Top Law Firms Shrink From the Heat of the Mideast Conflict

In late January, a Columbia Law School professor appeared on television regarding a rally that had called for divestment from Israel, recently held at Columbia University. Unlike other protests sweeping across campuses, this one was notable for the release of a foul-smelling vapor by counterprotesters, including a former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) member who was also a student, leading to his suspension.

Some affected students believed the vapor was 'skunk water,' a chemical used by the IDF. The involved student later sued Columbia, asserting that his disciplinary process was flawed and asserting that the spray used was a harmless "novelty" product sourced online.

The events triggered further scrutiny when two colleagues accused the professor of harassment based on national origin following her televised comments. At the heart of the issue was a broader discourse on the transition from military service to student life and its campus impact.

Seeking legal help, the professor engaged a well-regarded law firm. However, the firm later implemented a policy to avoid representing clients in Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, leading to an internal decision to cease its association with the professor's case, prompting controversy within professional circles.

Following the firm’s decision to dissociate itself, the matter escalated to public and political arenas, with accusations and legal challenges extending into broader debates over expression and legal representation amid geopolitical tensions.

Amid this atmosphere, a partner resigned from the firm over ethical concerns regarding the case. The professor later filed a grievance with a state appellate division, alleging ethical violations when her representation was suddenly dropped.

While law firms generally reserve the right to refuse cases, the manner and timing of the decision to discontinue representation raised concerns among ethics experts, drawing parallels to historical instances where legal representation was similarly contested due to the unpopularity of associated positions.

The case transitioned to a nonprofit legal advocacy group specializing in constitutional rights. As the situation unfolds, it embodies a larger discussion on the balance between professional ethics, client loyalty, and the socio-political pressures impacting the legal domain.