Last week, Cohen chose two inquiries:
Legal Ethics Forum rounds up some legal blogger reactions to the first inquiry.
The inquiries are awfully similar to one another. As noted by the article, the law firm had more qualified applicants than it could accept, and the potential patient was able to secure other medical treatment. It’s a big world out there; you are not everyone’s keeper.
Thus, Cohen had a simple answer for both:
Oops, my mistake: that should have been Cohen’s simple answer for both.
Instead, that answer was solely for the doctor, who was free not to treat the trial lawyer because the doctor’s political beliefs — i.e., his views on patient’s right to recover for damages caused by medical malpractice — differed from the trial lawyer’s.
Not so for the law firm. No, when it comes to Federalist Society members:
Cohen apparently didn’t even see any conflict between the advice he gave the lawyer and the advice he gave doctor, and doesn’t bother to defend the contradiction.
Which leaves us to speculate: What does Cohen think is the material difference between the two inquiries?
One possible answer: Cohen believes Federalist Society members and trial lawyers should be subject to special rules. Federalist Society members’ political beliefs are good, trial lawyers’ political beliefs are bad.
End of story.