Andrew Allard '25
Editor-in-Chief
It’s no secret that young lawyers face an increasingly complex world. Finding the right balance between advocating for causes you care about and maintaining your reputation as a rational legal thinker is no easy feat. And as recent high-profile law firm firings show, getting that balance wrong can be costly.
In recent months, student speech has been front and center at the Law School and on campuses nationwide. With a contentious presidential election looming and an ongoing war in Gaza, tensions at the Law School have noticeably heightened. Reports of removed and defaced posters prompted Senior Associate Dean and Chief Operating Officer Stephen Parr to twice send out emails reminding students of the Law School’s Speech and Signs & Postings policies.
But compared with recent events at other law schools, the fight over free speech at UVA looks tame. Last March at Stanford Law, a visit from Fifth Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan made national news after his vicious exchange with protesting students.[1] A year earlier at Yale Law School, more than 120 students protested a talk by Kristen Waggoner, general counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, leading to a similarly heated confrontation.[2] And just this past October, law students at Harvard and Columbia lost job offers from Davis Polk & Wardwell after signing a letter expressing support for Palestine.[3]
Perhaps with these events in mind, last week, the Federalist Society at UVA invited Judge Wesley Hendrix to offer guidance for students struggling to walk the professionalism tightrope. “The juice is worth the squeeze,” said Judge Wesley Hendrix, alluding to a question posed to Judge Duncan by Stanford Law’s then-associate dean for DEI, Tirien Steinbach. Recognizing the need to be practical, Judge Hendrix had this advice: Try to find the happy medium between head-in-the-sand ostrich and opinionated fire-breathing dragon. “Taking the high ground usually wins in the long run,” Hendrix said.
If this model appeals to you, Hendrix proposed these concrete steps to striking this balance. First, choose your employer wisely. Look at the rules and safeguards they have in place to protect freedom of speech and see what kind of pro bono cases they tend to take on. “Multiple attorneys reported to me that the leftward pressure on firms is real,” Hendrix said, referring to an article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.
Second, leverage your networks. The best way to learn more about an employer’s culture is to ask someone who already works there. “Don’t assume it’s going to all work out, because sometimes it doesn’t.”
Third, look past common assumptions about organizations. Large, worldwide firms aren’t invariably liberal, and Texas- and Florida-based firms aren’t invariably conservative. “Some of those places go out of their way to disabuse people, especially clients, of that assumption . . . They’re concerned that their clients in California or New York might assume ‘That’s a Texas firm’ or ‘That’s a Tennessee firm,’” Hendrix explained, “so they overcorrect.”
Similarly, Hendrix cautioned against assuming that Big Law in New York and D.C. is the only option. Don’t overlook the boutiques—even if they don’t pay market rates. And most of all, work in Texas. “Vote with your feet and come to Texas—we want as many good people as possible.”
Lastly, Judge Hendrix emphasized the importance of working hard and finding the right people. He suggested that young lawyers should find an “anchor partner” who values their development and viewpoints. “Who you work with is more important than where you work.” The right people will stick their necks out for you when you’re in need. And once you’ve found those people, work hard to make yourself indispensable. Ultimately, firms are profit-motivated, so delivering value is the best way to secure your position.
Hendrix acknowledged that, in practice, these steps are not easy. But he thinks those who take this approach succeed in the long run. As an example, Hendrix spoke of a young associate who had joined a firm with a vaccine mandate but had a “good faith religious objection to the vaccine . . . The lack of meaningful accommodations or exemptions from the firm’s requirement made clear that the firm was not going to appreciate his lack of vaccine,” Hendrix said. While the firm allowed the young associate to work remotely, after a year, it became clear to him that he needed a change. “He was quickly hired—as soon as he put his resume on the market—at a better, bigger place, which had a testing protocol for people that had these good faith objections.”
Hendrix’s advice to students appeared targeted to a conservative audience. When listing group affiliations that a law student would worry might bring them public shame, Hendrix named FedSoc, future prosecutors, and Christian legal society. But among federal judges, Hendrix stands out for his ability to balance between competing viewpoints. Hendrix was first nominated to a federal judgeship in 2016 by then-President Obama. When his nomination expired in 2017, he was nominated again by President Trump. “I was nominated by two different presidents,” Hendrix said. “Do you think I didn’t change my resume a little bit?”
---
tya2us@virginia.edu
[1] Greta Reich, Judge Kyle Duncan’s visit to Stanford and the aftermath, explained, Stanford Daily (Apr. 5, 2023).
[2] Eda Aker & Philip Mousavizadeh, Yale Law students protest anti-LGBTQ speaker, armed police presence triggers backlash, Yale Daily News (Mar. 15, 2022).
[3] Mike Wendling, Harvard letter: Law students who took anti-Israel stance lose job offers, BBC News (Oct. 18, 2023).