Charles Reich to Justice Black (1955): Is Paul, Weiss the Law Firm for Me?

Guest Blogger

John Q. Barrett

Charles Reich graduated from Yale Law School in 1952. He was one of its top students. In his third year, he was editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal.

Following law school, Reich moved home to New York City and, for a year, he was an associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore.

Then Reich moved south. For the next year, 1953-1954, he was one of Justice Hugo L. Black’s law clerks at the U.S. Supreme Court. The year was momentous—the Court decided, that May, Brown v. Board of Education. And Reich developed a very close relationship with Justice Black, including because Reich and his co-clerk lived with the recently-widowed justice at his home in Alexandria, Virginia.

Following the clerkship, Reich stayed in Washington, D.C. He became an associate at the Wilmer & Broun law firm. It was Cravath’s regular D.C. corresponding firm, a forebear of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering and today’s WilmerHale.

After a few months, Reich knew that Wilmer was not the place for him. He explored teaching options, but Harvard Law School did not have an opening for him and, for reasons of university politics, he was not interested to join the Yale law faculty. (That later changed; Reich became a Yale law professor in 1960.) Reich interviewed with and received job offers from two prominent, if not “big,” law firms. (In those days, the U.S. had leading law firms, but none remotely resembled today’s “Big Law.”)

By mid-January 1955, Reich had to decide which law firm offer to accept. He was unsure. He wanted Justice Black’s advice. But Black was vacationing in Florida and Reich was reluctant to pay the cost of telephoning him long-distance.

So on Monday evening, January 17, 1955, Reich wrote by hand, on Wilmer stationery, a four-page letter to Justice Black. This letter seems to be, at least in part, Reich focusing his own thinking about his law firm options. The first two-plus pages of the letter are about his various considerations:

Dear Judge,

I wish I could talk to you this evening, but Florida is a long way off, so the U.S. mail will have to do.

As you may have suspected, my [Wilmer & Broun] job has not been very exciting, and for some time I've been thinking about changing. I would have been glad to go to Harvard to teach, but they are not looking for anyone for next year. As for Yale, the departure of [Professor Vern] Countryman makes things pretty unhappy up there for the present. At any rate, I have opportunities to go with two firms—one in Washington and one in New York, and have to decide by Monday [January 24, 1955]. Whichever one I go with I would plan to stay a few years and then think about teaching.

The Washington firm is Arnold, Fortas + Porter. They have a very interesting practice, and seem to be a very congenial group. I admire them for their work in the [alleged Soviet spy Professor Owen] Lattimore [espionage/perjury] + [Dr. John Punnett] Peters [government loyalty] cases. On the other hand, I have some doubt. Occasionally, their [Supreme Court] briefs seemed very unfair to me last year, and some of their arguments unsound. In addition, they seem to love publicity and showmanship, + I don't care for that sort of thing. Still, Abe Fortas is a really fine lawyer.

The alternative firm is Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton + Garrison in New York. The senior partners are Randolph Paul, who used to be with the Treasury [Department], Judge Simon Rifkind, formally a federal judge, and Lloyd K. Garrison, who was [J. Robert] Oppenheimer's lawyer [in the 1954 Atomic Energy Commission hearing that suspended his security clearance]. I think they are a very good firm, not as colorful as Arnold, Fortas, but perhaps would provide sounder experience. They have a Washington branch (in which I'm not interested) and one of the partners there is Abe Fortas’ wife [Carolyn Agger]. They have a fairly general practice, in contrast to the strong emphasis on antitrust work at Arnold's firm. In addition, they want a man to do general practice, whereas Arnold's firm wants a man to do research for their antitrust cases—primarily library work and brief writing. Probably there are more courageous people in Arnold's firm than in the other.

....

          Best wishes for the rest of your stay in Florida.

                                        Sincerely      Charlie

*        *        *

Charles Reich chose Arnold, Fortas & Porter over Paul, Weiss. No doubt geography—staying put in Washington—played a role in his decision. So, I bet, did any advice that he received from Justice Black, and also from his other mentor, Justice William O. Douglas, who was a friend of AF&P name partners Thurman Arnold, Abe Fortas, and Paul Porter.

The factors that Reich mentioned in his letter also were significant. Arnold, Fortas & Porter was litigating for its clients against the U.S. government, in business cases and in matters that were fraught with Cold War controversy. The AF&P lawyers showed no concern about possible consequences of opposing the government. It was what admirable lawyers did, as a matter of professional role and duty. It was “courageous.”

John Q. Barrett is Benjamin N. Cardozo Professor of Law at St. John’s University. You can reach him by e-mail at barrettj@stjohns.edu.

Sources—

Letter from Charles A. Reich to Hugo L. Black, Jan. 17. 1955, in Hugo L. Black Papers, Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Washington, DC, Box 466

United States v. Lattimore, 112 F. Supp. 507 (D.D.C. 1953) (denying motion to dismiss indictment, ordering dismissal of specified counts, ordering government to file a bill of particulars as to remaining counts, and denying motion to change venue), aff’d in part & rev’d in part, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 268, 215 F.2d 847 (D.C. Cir. 1954) (en banc)

United States v. Lattimore, 127 F. Supp. 405 (D.D.C.) (dismissing indictment), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 232 F.2d 334 (D.C. Cir. 1955) (en banc) (per curiam)

Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331 (1955)