In attempting to ensure equal access to public goods, the law of public accommodation treats private, commercial, and political associations under different standards. Using Stropnicky v. Nathanson, this article analyzes a claimant's interest of equal access to an attorney against an attorney's freedom of association. Attorney Nathanson was sanctioned for refusing to provide representation to Mr. Stropnicky. The policy of Nathanson's law practice, however, was to not represent male clients in divorce proceedings. The author argues that her policy should be considered as political, rather than commercial, activity and accorded greater deference than applied by the U.S. Supreme Court. The article recommends the Supreme Court approach such cases with a particularized analysis of the circumstances.
Politics and Plurality in a Lawyer's Choice of Clients: The Case of Stropnicky v. Nathanson,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol35/iss1/2