5 ms·
No, the point does not stand. He was not "just a prominent local lawyer." Unless you don't know your history.
by AlbertCory 2y ago
No, the point does not stand. He was not "just a prominent local lawyer." Unless you don't know your history.
- cge 2y agoIt could be that they were referring to his prominence as a non-labor lawyer, or that he hadn't had as many prominent cases after fallout from the LA Times case, but it is generally a strange statement. No, he wasn't as famous before Leopold and Loeb, and Scopes, or the culturally immortal figure he became, but he had certainly been a prominent lawyer at a national level, not a local one. He had, as you point out, represented Debs, in federal trials over a major national strike, up to the Supreme Court. He had represented labor leaders in Idaho charged with conspiracy over the assassination of a former governor. He represented defendants accused of the LA Times bombing in California. For Leopold and Loeb, a question in the media was about wealthy families hiring such a prominent, high-priced lawyer. And the Scopes was essentially an organized publicity stunt that chose lawyers for both the prosecution and defense because they were famous and would attract attention.
- lupire 2y agoI can't believe you are arguing about the precise gradations of informal descriptions of exactly how famous he was. There are many current legal cases about major national issues, where the lawyers aren't famous.
- AlbertCory 2y agoWell, I can't believe you are bothering to comment here. The author said something egregiously wrong. It's not "precise gradations of informal descriptions." And cge got it exactly right. What do you think you're adding here? It was all settled until you came along.