One reader objects that the Fidelis memo largely faults Ogden for positions that he has taken in private practice representing clients, and I suspect that many other readers would make the same objection. I do think that we need to be respectful of the range of arguments that an attorney must properly make on behalf of a client. But the prior question here is how it is that Ogden has such a stable of hard-Left clients.

My experience and impression are that a lawyer in private practice has broad freedom to represent, or not to represent, particular “ideological” clients. I don’t buy into the prevailing ethos among lawyers that the practice of law is a moral-free zone. So I think it’s fair to hold Ogden accountable for the hard-Left ideological cast of many of the clients and causes he has chosen to represent—and all the more so insofar as the representation has been unpaid or discounted.