Ian Samuel.

Big Law should be scared of Ian Samuel. Recently, the Harvard Law School lecturer and co-host of the “First Mondays” podcast created a huge uproar when he tweeted that Munger, Tolles & Olson required that summer associates agree to arbitration in their employment contracts. (He called the requirement “super gross.”)

Almost immediately, law faculty and law students jumped on social media to condemn the super elite firm for attempting to silence summer associates. The upshot was that Munger retracted the requirement literally overnight—within 24 hours of Samuel's tweet, issuing a mea culpa of sorts:

Munger, Tolles & Olson is committed to the highest standard of conduct. In this case, we were wrong, and we are fixing it. We will no longer require any employees, including summer associates, to sign any mandatory arbitration agreements. 

A few days later, Orrick followed suit, essentially outing itself, declaring that it would no longer require employees to submit to arbitration. And, according to Samuel in his podcast, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom did the same thing. Now the bet is that other firms will quietly dismantle similar requirements or kill them before they see the light of day.

So who is this young lawyer (he graduated from New York University School of Law in 2008) causing Big Law to quake in its boots? And how far will he go in pushing for change in the legal establishment?

Below is an edited version of my phone interview with Samuel:

You outed Munger Tolles and you expressed utter disdain for law firms that mandate employees agree to arbitration. If I didn't know your background, I'd label you a pro-labor type with an anti-management agenda. 

I am firmly planted on the political left. I am a self-described socialist. In fact, I am literally a card-carrying socialist.

 
Whoa. But you clerked for two of the most flaming conservatives in our judiciary: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. What were you doing hanging out with that crowd? And why would they want anything to do with a pinko?

I happen to clerk for two judges who are conservative but they liked me. They wanted someone who would challenge them. Scalia really liked debate. He did not think originalism was a right or left idea. He didn't like it when law clerks agreed on everything so he tried to get law clerks on the left. But it helped that we also had a cultural affinity because I was a cradle Catholic.

 

Well, you don't seem to have much affinity for Scalia's pro-business positions. Scalia upheld arbitration agreements, but you loathe them. Why?

They are particularly toxic because they prevent workers from sticking together by making everything a secret. It pits people against each other. I learned about arbitration clauses during my clerkship with Scalia when he wrote an opinion that I didn't agree with. I'm sure Scalia would be skeptical of what I'm doing, but I'm equally sure he'd enjoy a good argument about it.

 

You mentioned on your podcast with Dan Ennis that you're going to out other firms with these clauses. Then, you outed Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, venting outrage that a renowned firm would have such a “vile” requirement. I contacted Gibson about the clause and its spokesperson emailed me: “The firm no longer requires summer associates to sign arbitration agreements.” Do you think that was in response to Munger?

It is obviously in response to what happened with Munger. But what about non-summer associates and staff? [I also asked Gibson the same question but have not received a response.]

 

So what other firms can you out?

I can send you the actual arbitration agreements for Kirkland & Ellis, Gibson Dunn and O'Melveny & Myers. [Neither Kirkland nor O'Melveny has responded to our request for comment.]

 

That won't make them happy. So, would you expand this movement you've created to shining light on other dark corners of Big Law—like compensation and the gender pay disparity? 

I was an associate at Jones Day, and I loved it, but it was secretive about salaries. No one was supposed to talk about how much they made. They couldn't prohibit people from discussing it outright but they leaned heavily on everyone, saying that 'It's not our culture' to talk about it. In the years I worked there, I never told anyone.

We know women are paid less everywhere. And firms shouldn't be preventing people from discussing it. I felt women at Jones Day understood perfectly well they got paid less, but they couldn't do anything about it. Associates there don't like the secrecy, though some have bought in to it. I'd love to see law students demand that they be open.

 

Do you think law students should demand that firms post information like how men and women are paid differently?

Top law schools have a lot of power, so if they require firms to do XYZ, they'll do it. You have a lot of leverage as law students—more than once you're working. Firms are more responsive to law students. Law schools control access–they're the fulcrum–as to who's allowed to interview their students. A place like Harvard can do anything they want. As a law firm, what are you going to do—not interview at Harvard Law School?

 

So what are you going to stir up next?

I'll take cues from the rank and file. I'm not a believer in the top-down organizing model. I think this generation of law students are great leaders; they are agitated and fired up–much more so than when I was a law student. We will see amazing leaders from this group.