The issue at HLS, based on my passing first-hand experience, is the truly nihlistic viewpoint foisted by its faculty on students. That is, in the main, the faculty appear to deny the very existence of good and evil (as judged by the practice of their former students). While this makes for interesting legal argument, it does real social harm. When you remove all morality and extrinsic ethical considerations, what's left is bloodsport for a lawyer's personal enrichment. The author describes the symptoms and, in the third semester, this person has not yet identified the disease.
The rebuttal should be that counsel acting for an organization is somewhat like a teacher to students. Putting such people in positions of authority in corporate America is a "win" for justice to the extent they can effectively guide more, and more influential, people to the ends of justice and fair play. Maybe that's an ideal, but unfortunately from my own experience it's just not what HLS has taught its students in recent years to do, and I hold the faculty responsible.
The rebuttal should be that counsel acting for an organization is somewhat like a teacher to students. Putting such people in positions of authority in corporate America is a "win" for justice to the extent they can effectively guide more, and more influential, people to the ends of justice and fair play. Maybe that's an ideal, but unfortunately from my own experience it's just not what HLS has taught its students in recent years to do, and I hold the faculty responsible.