Lawyers and oligarchs

The last time that lawyers became entangled with oligarchs, the outcome was bad for us. The oligarchs then were Russians, and after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the reputation of our legal profession took a bashing, with accusations that some lawyers had enabled obviously dirty money to wash through law firms and cause damage to our society.

Last week, president Biden gave a speech, and pointed to the dangers from the rise of a new group of oligarchs, this time within his own country. It was his last address to the nation, and, among other things, he said:

‘Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms … we’ve seen it before, more than a century ago. But the American people stood up to the robber barons back then and busted the trusts … I’m equally concerned about the potential rise of a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country as well … Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation enabling the abuse of power. The free press is crumbling. Editors are disappearing. Social media is giving up on fact-checking. The truth is smothered by lies told for power and for profit … In the age of AI, it’s more important than ever that the people must govern.’

The new oligarchy is there for all to see: the incredible wealth of the very few who control our tech systems, the absorption of some into the new US administration and the kowtowing of others to purchase influence. Many – probably most or nearly all – law firms have the symbols of some of these oligarchs’ organisations on the front pages of their websites, to advertise where clients and others can click to see their social media sites.

One lawyer last week decided that he had had enough, after a particular act of kowtowing by Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, who had just announced that he would stop fact-checking on his platforms before the new administration took office.

Mark Lemley, who is the William H. Neukom Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and the director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology, had represented Meta in a generative AI copyright dispute. He announced dramatically on LinkedIn (owned by Microsoft):

‘I have struggled with how to respond to Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook's descent into toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness. While I have thought about quitting Facebook, I find great value in the connections and friends I have here, and it doesn't seem fair that I should lose that because Zuckerberg is having a mid-life crisis. On reflection, I have decided to stay, though I will probably engage somewhat less than I normally do. But I am doing the following three things:

1. I have deactivated my Threads account. Bluesky is an outstanding alternative to Twitter, and the last thing I need is to support a Twitter-like site run by a Musk wannabe

2. I will no longer buy anything from ads I see on Facebook or Instagram. Their algorithm has my number, and I have regularly purchased things they show me. But in the future, even if I want something, I will go separately to the website to make sure Facebook doesn't get any credit for the purchase

3. I have fired Meta as a client. While I think they are on the right side in the generative AI copyright dispute in which I represented them, and I hope they win, I cannot in good conscience serve as their lawyer any longer.’

Is this the first of many such lawyers’ decisions, or a virtue-signalling gesture soon swept away by the hurricane which is likely to hit us?

Very few of us have the tech bros and their firms as clients. But nearly all of us advertise their wares on our websites. And those who have them as clients may soon be faced by questions similar to those faced when Russia invaded Ukraine (before legal sanctions were imposed).

For instance, as I wrote recently, Elon Musk, one of the new administration’s consiglieri in chief, who has an algorithm that amplifies his posts on his own platform, has already called for UK government officials to be hanged and jailed, insisted on the removal of our prime minister (and also the leader of another party), called one of our ministers ‘a rape genocide apologist’, suggested a far-right activist in prison for contempt of court for repeating false claims be released, and instituted a poll on whether America should liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government.

Here’s another prediction for 2025: our law firms will have to be as careful in their involvement with the new US oligarchy as with the former Russian one.

Jonathan Goldsmith is Law Society Council member for EU & International, chair of the Law Society’s Policy & Regulatory Affairs Committee and a member of its board. All views expressed are personal and are not made in his capacity as a Law Society Council member, nor on behalf of the Law Society