![[LIVE] Lessons From John Adams: Defending Unpopular Clients from the Founding Era to the Present @TheFederalistSociety](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LW9Y1ZQ3rOs/maxresdefault.jpg)
Uploaded August 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.
American lawyers have long been defined by a commitment to represent even the most unpopular clients—a tradition that traces back to the Founding. When John Adams defended the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, he did so in the face of intense public hostility, underscoring a simple but enduring principle: the right to counsel does not turn on public approval. This webinar revisits that moment to examine the lawyer’s role in an adversarial system—not as an endorsement of a client’s conduct, but as a safeguard of the legal system itself.
That principle has been under strain in recent decades. Lawyers representing controversial clients or causes have faced increasing public backlash and, in some cases, professional consequences. Similar pressures surfaced during the Red Scare, when attorneys representing alleged subversives were themselves subject to suspicion. As criticism shifts from clients to the lawyers who represent them, the question becomes harder to ignore: what happens to the legal system when representation itself is treated as suspect? Join our panel as they discuss what the Founding-era commitment to principled representation means for lawyers today.
Featuring:
• William Creeley, Legal Director, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
• Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC
• Prof. Richard Samuelson, Associate Professor of Government, Hillsdale College, Washington, D.C. Campus
• (Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
CLE
This event has been approved for 1.00 Total CLE Hours
Approved specialty credit (DEI, Civility, Ethics, etc.) is included on the State Approval Status chart below.
State Approval Status: docs.google.com/document/d/1wtkjMJHMAXjC9d59P9cBya6OZFpg0O8m/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
In order to receive CLE credit for this webinar, attendees must attend the Zoom Webinar and have access to the chat box. This event's accreditation is highly predicated upon interactivity and verification measures that are only available via the webinar.
If you join via audio, calling in, SIP, or H.323, you will not be eligible to receive CLE Credit.
CLE Materials: drive.google.com/drive/folders/16HjwMoeF6XxQbeAWsjfJAp5j2VHe7KLs
Questions? Check out our CLE FAQ page: fedsoc.org/cle-instructions-for-webinars
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.
American lawyers have long been defined by a commitment to represent even the most unpopular clients—a tradition that traces back to the Founding. When John Adams defended the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, he did so in the face of intense public hostility, underscoring a simple but enduring principle: the right to counsel does not turn on public approval. This webinar revisits that moment to examine the lawyer’s role in an adversarial system—not as an endorsement of a client’s conduct, but as a safeguard of the legal system itself.
That principle has been under strain in recent decades. Lawyers representing controversial clients or causes have faced increasing public backlash and, in some cases, professional consequences. Similar pressures surfaced during the Red Scare, when attorneys representing alleged subversives were themselves subject to suspicion. As criticism shifts from clients to the lawyers who represent them, the question becomes harder to ignore: what happens to the legal system when representation itself is treated as suspect? Join our panel as they discuss what the Founding-era commitment to principled representation means for lawyers today.
Featuring:
• William Creeley, Legal Director, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
• Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC
• Prof. Richard Samuelson, Associate Professor of Government, Hillsdale College, Washington, D.C. Campus
• (Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
CLE
This event has been approved for 1.00 Total CLE Hours
Approved specialty credit (DEI, Civility, Ethics, etc.) is included on the State Approval Status chart below.
State Approval Status: docs.google.com/document/d/1wtkjMJHMAXjC9d59P9cBya6OZFpg0O8m/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
In order to receive CLE credit for this webinar, attendees must attend the Zoom Webinar and have access to the chat box. This event's accreditation is highly predicated upon interactivity and verification measures that are only available via the webinar.
If you join via audio, calling in, SIP, or H.323, you will not be eligible to receive CLE Credit.
CLE Materials: drive.google.com/drive/folders/16HjwMoeF6XxQbeAWsjfJAp5j2VHe7KLs
Questions? Check out our CLE FAQ page: fedsoc.org/cle-instructions-for-webinars
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
![[LIVE] Lessons From John Adams: Defending Unpopular Clients from the Founding Era to the Present](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LW9Y1ZQ3rOs/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] Lessons From John Adams: Defending Unpopular Clients from the Founding Era to the Present
In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.
American lawyers have long been defined by a commitment to represent even the most unpopular clients—a tradition that traces back to the Founding. When John Adams defended the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, he did so in the face of intense public hostility, underscoring a simple but enduring principle: the right to counsel does not turn on public approval. This webinar revisits that moment to examine the lawyer’s role in an adversarial system—not as an endorsement of a client’s conduct, but as a safeguard of the legal system itself.
That principle has been under strain in recent decades. Lawyers representing controversial clients or causes have faced increasing public backlash and, in some cases, professional consequences. Similar pressures surfaced during the Red Scare, when attorneys representing alleged subversives were themselves subject to suspicion. As criticism shifts from clients to the lawyers who represent them, the question becomes harder to ignore: what happens to the legal system when representation itself is treated as suspect? Join our panel as they discuss what the Founding-era commitment to principled representation means for lawyers today.
Featuring:
• William Creeley, Legal Director, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
• Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC
• Prof. Richard Samuelson, Associate Professor of Government, Hillsdale College, Washington, D.C. Campus
• (Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
CLE
This event has been approved for 1.00 Total CLE Hours
Approved specialty credit (DEI, Civility, Ethics, etc.) is included on the State Approval Status chart below.
State Approval Status: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wtkjMJHMAXjC9d59P9cBya6OZFpg0O8m/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
In order to receive CLE credit for this webinar, attendees must attend the Zoom Webinar and have access to the chat box. This events accreditation is highly predicated upon interactivity and verification measures that are only available via the webinar.
If you join via audio, calling in, SIP, or H.323, you will not be eligible to receive CLE Credit.
CLE Materials: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16HjwMoeF6XxQbeAWsjfJAp5j2VHe7KLs
Questions? Check out our CLE FAQ page: https://fedsoc.org/cle-instructions-for-webinars
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
![SOC! Sidebar 3: Competitive Shooting [2025 NLC]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/N9BXZsAVw3Q/mqdefault.jpg "SOC! Sidebar 3: Competitive Shooting [2025 NLC]
SOC! Sidebar 3: Competitive Shooting [2025 NLC]")
![[LIVE] SOC! SIDEBAR: Tennis](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NN9-iifZc3A/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] SOC! SIDEBAR: Tennis
[LIVE] SOC! SIDEBAR: Tennis")
![[LIVE] Trial by Jury or Administrative Adjudication: What Would the Founders Say?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NojREJndJdI/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] Trial by Jury or Administrative Adjudication: What Would the Founders Say?
In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.
The Founders regarded trial by jury as an indispensable check on government power, and the Fifth and Seventh Amendments enshrined that guarantee. In recent decades, however, the proliferation of administrative adjudication has steadily displaced the jury from disputes between citizens and the state. While the Supreme Courts decision in SEC v. Jarkesy was a significant step toward restoring the constitutional baseline, much work remains. Lower courts continue to rely on Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHA to uphold agency adjudication of claims that, at the Founding, would have been tried before a jury. Cases like the recently decided FCC v. AT&T and next terms Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC illustrate just how far modern practice has drifted from constitutional design.
Thomas Jefferson identified the jury as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. Yet today, Americans routinely face penalties imposed by federal agencies, not juries of their peers. Join us for a Federalist Society America 250 panel discussion looking back to the Founding Era to ask: What has become of the right to a jury trial in actions brought by the federal government?
Featuring:
• Robert E. Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
• Prof. Renée Lerner, Donald Phillip Rothschild Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
• Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
• (Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/trial-by-jury-or-administrative-adjudication-what-would-the-founders-say
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
