>What does any of that have to do with whether or not the firm is notorious for union-busting? I'm wondering the same. I suppose it comes down to the semantics

>What does any of that have to do with whether or not the firm is notorious for union-busting? I'm wondering the same. I suppose it comes down to the semantics of where notoriety begins, but they're representing some slimy clients regardless.[0] >Representing citizens in a lawsuit against a polluting corporation is not incompatible with busting unions. Oh no, they were defending the polluter—Beatrice Foods—against said lawsuits.[1] [0] https://therevolvingdoorproject.org/jamie-gorelick-amazons-anti-union-shadow-adviser-at-the-doj/ https://therevolvingdoorproject.org/jamie-gorelick-amazons-a... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmer_Cutler_Pickering_Hale_and_Dorr#A_Civil_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmer_Cutler_Pickering_Hale_a...