The Washington Post wanted you to know how much Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) charged per hour for her legal expertise while she worked as a professor at Ivy League schools in the 90s and 2000s. Everyone else, seemingly, wanted the Washington Post to know that it was a non-story.
Check out this ratio:
The response to the story was not particularly forgiving, especially among those who actually work in–or are generally familiar with–the legal profession.
The lack of context in this @washingtonpost story on Elizabeth Warren is outrageous. Did the reporters not know, or not care what the hourly rate is for law professors who consult for private clients? Or the hourly rate for attorneys with Warren's expertise and experience? pic.twitter.com/orQunZasGV
— Carissa Byrne Hessick (@CBHessick) May 23, 2019
This isn’t news. This is something professors do all the time. https://t.co/OOi2Zi69gq
— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) May 23, 2019
Many more than previously disclosed is the sort of language the press uses to manufacture a scandal where none exists. She‘s never been required to disclose them. Odd to see her being punished for actually being more transparent than most lawyers running for office are. https://t.co/QWU7q7q6EK
— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) May 23, 2019
CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski tweeted out the story Wednesday night, and the ratio was even worse.
So?
— ThreeIndictmentsAtTheSameTimeHat (@Popehat) May 23, 2019
What’s wrong with that? Why shouldn’t she charge money for her legal expertise like most lawyers do?
— Mimi Rocah (@Mimirocah1) May 23, 2019
Love this ratio.
If Warren did no legal work as a prof, we’d see articles about Warren the ivory tower all-talk, no-work professor.
If she always took the labor side, she’d be framed as commie ideologue.
Btw, I’ve become a better teacher as I worked as amicus on more cases.— Jed Shugerman (@jedshug) May 23, 2019
Here's what would have made this story worthwhile: (1) is it unusual for profs to represent clients? (2) is that rate unusual or above/below market? (3) do any legal experts see anything questionable about any of this?https://t.co/1iRDemCVdM
— ThreeIndictmentsAtTheSameTimeHat (@Popehat) May 23, 2019
Nothing inappropriate or unusual about this. Many law professors do same. Nor, as general rule, is lawyer's clients reflective of who they are.
It's perfectly fine to better understand her legal career, but this article's insinuations are below belt.
And I don't support her. https://t.co/80Qk8WHkfJ
— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) May 23, 2019
It was suggested that if Warren was a man the Post article would never have been written.
I really don’t mean to pile on but would this honestly be a story if it was about a man?
— Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) May 23, 2019
[Image via JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP/Getty Images]
