Sullivan & Cromwell's New Hiring Policy Is Polarizing and Worrisome

“The firm is sending a strong signal about what political views it finds ok."

The esteemed law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell recently issued a statement about how it will vet prospective hires, and it is both curious and troubling. 

Alarmed by the spread of student protests over Israel’s military actions in Gaza, the Wall Street firm said it will “review resumes for participation in pro-terrorist groups and other similar activities” and conduct a “thorough review of the candidate’s online presence, school website [and] news reports,” according to The American Lawyer.

What’s more, S&C will require submission of “lists of all campus organizations the student has been or is currently a part of and monitor activities from those groups that do not align with our ethical standards.” The firm also plans to hire third-party specialists to do background checks.

The firm’s chair Joe Shenker told Am Law: “What we have seen on campuses is antisemitic behavior, both physical and verbal. And that behavior doesn’t require context, just like a lynching doesn’t require context. It’s wrong, and we won’t tolerate it.” He added, “what is new is that there is a view that if that hate is directed at Jews, then it is different somehow. It is not.” 

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of a terrorist group?

There’s a lot to unpack here but what got my immediate attention was the part about listing “all campus organizations the student has been or is currently a part of ....” It reminded me of Sen. Joseph McCarthy during the Red Scare when he badgered Americans by asking: “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?”

I doubt I’m the only one to make that association—and that is unfortunate for S&C’s brand. So I’m baffled why the firm feels it’s necessary to adopt and announce this policy. Is there a danger that Big Law—or S&C, in particular—is being infiltrated by potential terrorists or their sympathizers? Or is the firm sending out a warning that only candidates with certain leanings will be welcomed?

While I agree that employers have the right and responsibility to do background checks to weed out candidates who advocate racism, antisemitism, misogyny, homophobia, or intolerance in general, I find S&C’s policy problematic on many levels. For starters, how is the firm defining “pro-terrorist groups and other similar activities”? Is there a list of verboten groups and activities—and who’s deciding: a special committee or “the third-party specialists”? Equally vague, in my mind, is what the firm means by “campus organizations” that “do not align with our ethical standards.”

And it’s that very vagueness, coupled with the undertone of vigilantism, that makes the process disturbing. For instance, if you’re a Muslim law student who belongs to a Muslim student group that’s been critical of Israel, are you automatically on the no-fly list or simply subject to greater scrutiny? And would interning at an organization like the ACLU, which has taken on the representation of student protesters, cast a pall over your resume? I also wonder if this policy might encourage people to rat on potential hires or current employees.

You see where I’m going: The slippery slope of guilt by association.

Of course, the firm is free to hire only those who share its stated political views but is this a wise strategy for attracting the best and the brightest? 

Many more firms in the Big Law sea

“If you’re Sullivan Cromwell caliber, you’ll have other choices,” a senior administrator at a top 10 law school tells me. “I would be hesitant about going there, if you’re at all left-leaning. The firm is sending a strong signal about what political views it finds ok. And you have to wonder if you’re a current employee, if it’s going to hurt your chances for advancement too.”

Already, this administrator says that some members of the S&C recruiting team are trying to backpedal, reassuring law schools that the hiring policy hasn’t really changed and that students won’t be penalized for belonging to certain organizations; rather, it’s individual actions and words that matter. 

So if there’s no substantive change in S&C’s hiring, why make the grand statement in the first place? (It’s worth noting that no other news outlet, besides AmLaw, seems to have received the firm’s complete statement. I’ve requested a copy of the statement from the firm but did not get a reply.)

It’s personal

My hunch is that it’s all very personal to Shenker. As AmLaw reported in October, Shenker, who has longstanding ties to Israel, was in a shelter at a synagogue during the brutal Hamas massacre. In an “emotional” interview with my former colleague Patrick Smith, the S&C chair called it an “attack on a people all over the world for their very right to exist.” He also remarked about how it affected his views on hiring. Noting that associates are paid “a lot of money for their critical thinking skills,” he said: “If their critical thinking skills land them in that place [blaming the victims of the terror for the terror], then they have no place here.”

There is absolutely no excuse for the October 7 atrocity but is it fair to cast all or even most student protesters as Hamas sympathizers who are blaming the victim? It seems quite condescending to the young people the firm is trying to attract—essentially telling them that their differing views on the conflict are inherently antisemitic, deserving condemnation. (According to Pew Research Center, a third of adults in the U.S. under 30 say their sympathies lie with the Palestinians, while 14% say their sympathies are with the Israelis. The rest say their sympathies lie equally with both, with neither or that they are not sure.)

To be clear, I have deep sympathy for what Shenker and his family went through on that horrific day. And I can only imagine how that tragedy must continue to affect him to this day. But is it a good idea for personal feelings to drive corporate policy?

An illiberal culture

At this moment of immense polarization, issuing this kind of statement isn’t helping. It suggests that there’s only one morally correct stance at a time when many people are struggling mightily to understand the tragedy that’s now unfolding in Gaza. If the goal is to encourage community, dialogue, and (to use Shenker’s words) critical thinking, all this creates the opposite—an illiberal culture where dissent is unacceptable. 

Shenker took the lead last November by penning a letter to the deans at the top law schools (the so-called T-14) that called for an “unequivocal stance” in standing up to antisemitism and intolerance. Dozens of top firm leaders joined him as signatories. But what about this latest effort?

So far, other firms are not joining the crusade. “I cannot imagine we would issue public warnings to potential hires—in law school or otherwise—saying that we’re going to check to see if they are supporting ‘pro-terrorist groups’,” says the leader of a major firm that signed Shenker’s letter. “That doesn’t feel right or necessary to me.”

On this issue, S&C seems to be a lone wolf. That’s a relief.

What’s your view on this? Did S&C go too far?

Contact: chen.vivia@gmail.com

Twitter (X): ViviaChen