On PrawfsBlog Will Baude discusses the ethics of a practice often used by those going to the Supreme Court – the use of lawyer ghost-writers:
Rumor has it that when a victorious party is trying to convince the Supreme Court not to grant cert. in their case, they will sometimes hire experienced specialists in Supreme Court practice to write the brief in opposition, but then keep their names off the papers, so it looks as if the case remains unexceptional from the respondent’s point of view.
But I’m going to stop right here. When I’m refereeing a fencing bout, I don’t keep in mind who’s fencing – or at least I try not to. I’m simply trying to decide which anonymous fencer has scored each touch according to the rules of fencing.
Similarly, should not SCOTUS be deciding its cases on its merits, including whether or not to accept the case, and not on the identity of the representatives of various parties to the case? Granted, we’re all human – but don’t they at least pay lip-service to this ideal?
