U. fires law firm for partner's opinion

and STEPHEN GLASS The University has fired a Center City law firm after a partner in the firm condemned a city official for endorsing the University's controversial stance on the Mayor's Scholarships dispute. The Legal Intelligencer, a daily trade publication for the Philadelphia legal community, is reporting today that the University dismissed the firm because a partner, William Ewing, wrote a letter to City Council President John Street criticizing City Solicitor Judith Harris's stance. The Legal reported that the firm is Hangley Connolly Epstein Chicco Foxman & Ewing and handled "relatively minor" legal issues for the University. "We expect the firms that represent us to meet their ethical obligations and to serve the University with loyalty," General Counsel Shelley Green said yesterday to the Legal. "Ewing insinuated himself into the public debate over the scholarship issue, and that seemed to me inconsiderate. We're not talking about thought control, we're talking about duty to client." PILCOP attorney Michael Churchill, who is representing the coalition of unions and University groups that filed the controversial lawsuit in October, said last night that Ewing was not directly connected with the Mayor's Scholarship litigation. "He is chairman of [the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia's] board," Churchill said. "[But,] the board does not conduct the litigation . . . and he was not chairman at the time PILCOP decided to undergo the litigation." In his letter, which he wrote on personal stationery, Ewing stressed that his opinion was "unaffected" by either his loyalty to the University -- where he attended law school -- or to PILCOP. Ewing's firm represented the University in unrelated matters, according to the Legal. The newspaper also reports that John Summers, not Ewing, represented the University. No one in the Hangley firm would comment to The Daily Pennsylvanian or to the Legal. Law School professors criticized the University last week for dismissing the firm, saying that there was no conflict of interest and that the decision might discourage other attorneys from performing public service. "In my opinion, if the University dismissed the law firm to punish the firm and its lawyers for expressing their views on a legal or political matter, I would find that highly offensive," Senior Law Fellow David Rudovsky said. "If, on the other hand, the University . . . had reason to believe that there was a conflict of interest which would make it difficult for the University to work with the law firm -- that might present a different situation," Rudovsky added. "I would add that from everything I've seen so far, it appears this was an act of retribution and something that I think was not worthy of this University." "It is the highest form of hypocrisy to mandate students to do public service work as a condition of graduation and then condone economic punishment for that very work," Associate Law Professor Ralph Smith said. Smith is a member of the University's African-American Association, one of the plaintiffs in the suit against the University. An ethics expert at Yale University said yesterday that Rule 6.3 of the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility permits a lawyer to sit on a public interest law firm's board and not be subject to the same conflict-of-interest principles as someone at a private firm. But Geoffrey Hazard of Yale Law School told the Legal that the protection is limited and does not include public criticism of a client's legal stance. The Legal has also reported that by dismissing the Hangley firm, the University may hurt itself economically. All of the founding partners graduated from the University's Law School in 1965 and many have donated large sums in the past.