Politics and Plurality in a Lawyer's Choice of Clients: The Case of Stropnicky v. Nathanson

Abstract

In a much-discussed decision, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination sanctioned an attorney under the state's public accommodation law for refusing to represent a male party to a divorce case due to the party's gender.

This Article considers this decision from a variety of perspectives, and concludes that the lawyer's gender-specific client selection policy is, in this context, a form of political association that is entitled to constitutional protection. However, the Article also questions the wisdom of the lawyer's policy.

Keywords: divorce, matrimonial law, sex discrimination, gender discrimination, equal protection, public accommodations, legal services

JEL Classification: K10