Facebook Attorney Shakes Off Client Amid Corporate Embrace of Bigotry for Profitability

Intellectual property authority Mark Lemley has concluded his tenure with Facebook. The Stanford Law professor represented Facebook in a copyright lawsuit initiated by creators who allege that the social media behemoth violated their intellectual property in the development of its extensive language model, a case that could hold significant consequences for the future of generative AI. Despite Lemley’s hope for Facebook to win on principle, he’s severing ties with the company’s “slide into toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi insanity.”

He declared this decision on Facebook.

When we refer to the slide into Neo-Nazi insanity, we are referencing guidelines such as these leaked to The Intercept:

In general, the limitations on assertions of ethnic or religious supremacy have been considerably relaxed. The document indicates that Meta now permits “assertions of superiority as long as the remarks do not reference the inferiority of another [protected characteristic] group (a) based on inherent intellectual capability and (b) without evidence.” Permissible remarks under this guideline include “Latinos are the finest!” and “Black individuals are superior to all others.” Also now deemed acceptable are comparative assertions such as “Black individuals are more violent than Whites,” “Mexicans are lazier than Asians,” and “Jews are simply greedier than Christians.” The only example that is prohibited, solely due to its relation to intellectual capacity, is “White individuals are more intelligent than Black individuals.”

It is rather ironic that this policy has led to Facebook losing its attorney in a case against comedian Sarah Silverman, who notoriously had a routine satirizing the notion that expressing love for an ethnic community is equivalent to disparaging that community.

A pretentious segment of the legal field insists on the notion that “everyone has the right to an attorney.” However, no one is entitled to you as their attorney. In actuality, no one is entitled to anything in a civil case, and while society may need to provide additional protections to impoverished clients on the wrong end of significant civil cases—like landlord-tenant matters—there is unquestionably no such entitlement for a multibillion-dollar corporation in a copyright dispute.

Representing a client is a strategic business decision. Some lawyers excel as advocates of last resort and structure their practice around the willingness to represent unpopular clients. Others establish their practice on advocating for noble causes. Many attorneys function somewhere along that spectrum. Indeed, numerous affluent clients also prefer not to partner with firms linked to unpopular causes—that’s another business choice.

There’s absolutely nothing improper about any of these methodologies. Attorneys should feel empowered to cultivate their practice in whichever manner they see fit.

Lemley is not attempting to emulate a Hollywood criminal law fixer; he is an intellectual property attorney. He doesn’t require creating a fictitious barrier between his ethical beliefs and some abstract legal principle. He can opt to devote his talents to clients that embody his principles.

And as of now, Facebook does not fit that criteria.

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in legal matters, political topics, and a healthy dose of college sports updates. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.