That isn't an ad hominem. I haven't attacked your position because of your obvious conflict of interest, I've merely pointed it out. I didn't say, "This person is a corporate shill and so you shouldn't listen to them about free speech!" I said, "It makes sense that you would be in favor of restrictions on speech that benefit your clients." I'm not casting doubt on your argument because of your bias. In fact, I attack your position's substance head on by providing actual historic context.

I could not be further from an ad hominem if I tried.

And I'm well aware of the supposed leftist slant of younger biglaw lawyers. I just don't acknowledge it as a true value they hold. Actions speak louder than words, and biglaw on the whole works against liberal values.