admin
Connecticut’s Attorney General has quietly put out a request for outside law firms to help the state sue gun makers — and he’s asking those firms to prove how well they score on the diversity checklist before he’ll even consider them. The RFP is a clear new move to marshal pro bono legal muscle for state lawsuits over firearms, and the addition of workforce‑diversity questions turns what should be a legal procurement into an ideological audition.
What the RFP actually requests
The Office of the Attorney General issued an RFP seeking outside counsel to assist with investigations, litigation, and legislative work related to gun‑violence prevention and firearms‑industry accountability. The office prefers pro bono help but will accept fee proposals. The RFP explicitly asks firms to “discuss the extent to which your workforce … reflects the diversity of your community,” and to explain actions taken or planned to improve that mix. The scope includes potential claims under state consumer‑protection and industry‑responsibility statutes and work tied to recently enacted Connecticut firearms laws.
Why this matters for Connecticut and for gun litigation
This is not just a formality. Connecticut just passed a law targeting so‑called convertible pistols, and the state will face immediate legal challenges. Recruiting outside counsel is a normal step for a busy attorney general. What’s new is tying hiring to diversity metrics. That turns selection of legal talent into a politics test instead of a competence test. When a state wants to bring complex litigation against manufacturers, it ought to be picking the best lawyers, not the most politically correct résumé.
DEI screening or politicized procurement?
There are good reasons to value inclusion in law firms. But making workforce composition a formal selection criterion for litigating highly contested constitutional and commercial claims invites trouble. It risks chilling participation by top firms, invites claims of viewpoint discrimination, and substitutes identity metrics for experience, strategy, and courtroom skill. If the goal is firearms‑industry accountability, ask about track record and trial wins. If the goal is social engineering, put that on the ballot — don’t smuggle it into a legal contract.
How Connecticut should proceed
The Attorney General should clarify why DEI criteria are in the RFP and explain how those answers will be weighed against legal experience and cost. Transparency matters: Connecticut taxpayers and litigants deserve to know that public enforcement decisions rest on law and evidence, not on an ideological litmus test. If the AG truly wants the best litigation teams against gun manufacturers, he should stop chasing virtue signals and start chasing competence. Otherwise this RFP will look like a political shopping list dressed up as procurement — and that will not help anyone, least of all Connecticut families who expect the law to be enforced fairly.
