… but as I was reading one of the articles from Forbes, I saw this piece criticizing Mayer Brown for taking a case — and I thought, “What the heck?” So I posted it.
Are there cases that no self-respecting law firm should take? Is this one of them?
… but as I was reading one of the articles from Forbes, I saw this piece criticizing Mayer Brown for taking a case — and I thought, “What the heck?” So I posted it.
Are there cases that no self-respecting law firm should take? Is this one of them?
This is actually funny as just last summer Mayer Brown Chicago was criticized for taking an outrageous housing dispute case (which Above the Law later discovered was taken on as a favor for a major client (it was his son’s dispute)). Perhaps this is something similar? If not, I’m embarassed for MB.
Also wholly unrelated, I read a book in college–The Rape of Nanjing–which is all about comfort women, the use of women (i.e. rape) as tools and weapons of war, etc. While the subject matter is horrific, it is a huge part of WWII that almost no young Americans know about. I recommend the read.
I feel like a favor for a big client is the only possible explanation here. I don’t buy the idea that taking on this lawsuit would help MB expand business in Japan. I can’t imagine the majority of the Japanese are supportive of this lawsuit, much less that it would buy MB a significant amount of goodwill even if they were. Whoever the client is they must be important, because the potential for a negative media feeding frenzy over this case far seems to far outweigh the benefit to the firm, but who knows, maybe MB will be lucky and this story will continue to fly under the radar.