Biglaw

Even Jones Day Lawyers Are Giving Trump's Election Lawsuits Some Serious Side Eye

The chances of the courts coming to save Trump's presidency are pretty slim, but there's still harm being done.

By  
on

Jones Day (Photo by David Lat)

You know, we give Jones Day A LOT of shit around here. And, listen, there are tons of good reasons for that between being the go-to law firm for the Trump administration and their opaque, black-box associate compensation system, well, there’s a lot of fodder. But the truth is, behind the Biglaw firm are a lot of lawyers and plenty of them don’t fuck with Trump’s politics (though have historically been fine with making money off of defending them), and are pretty annoyed with the compensation nonsense. Now we have some Jones Day lawyers who are finally willing to speak up — well, anonymously.

In a new article in the New York Times, they speak with nine senior attorneys — both partners and associates — at the firm who “are worried that [Jones Day] is advancing arguments that lack evidence and may be helping Mr. Trump and his allies undermine the integrity of American elections.” Well, no shit. Welcome to the party.

We know that the series of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and his allies are on… challenging legal grounds. And let’s be honest they’re designed to soothe egos and grift money from right wing supporters to cover campaign expenses. Though the chances of the courts coming to save Trump’s presidency are pretty slim, there’s still harm being done.

It’s the faith in American democracy that’s being eroded. And Jones Day’s involvement in the specious Pennsylvania litigation (you remember, they had to segregate the ballots received after November 3rd, which they were already doing, and there aren’t even enough of those ballots to matter anyway) that finally seems to be giving some Jones Day lawyers pause:

Six Jones Day lawyers said that given the small number of late-arriving ballots involved in the litigation, and the fact that they already had been segregated, the main goal of the litigation seemed to be to erode public confidence in the election results.

Jones Day did not respond to a request for comment.

In recent days, two Jones Day lawyers said they had faced heckling from friends and others on social media about working at a firm that is supporting Mr. Trump’s efforts.

A lawyer in Jones Day’s Washington office felt that the firm risked hurting itself by taking on work that undermined the rule of law. “To me, it seems extremely shortsighted,” the lawyer said.

And you know, if you’re a law student or lateral candidate and you have a choice to go… anywhere else, it’s looking increasingly likely the best and brightest will exercise that option.

Sponsored

The Times also details “discomfort” at another Biglaw firm — the Am Law second hundred firm of Porter Wright — and their involvement in election lawsuits.

Chief among their concerns: How could lawyers, whose profession is based on the rule of law, represent someone who they felt had frequently tried to flout it? One lawyer said he was concerned that the firm might be asked to try to delay the election. Another said he quit in response to the decision to represent Mr. Trump in Pennsylvania.

At two meetings, associates at Porter Wright told the firm’s partners that they objected to the work for the Trump campaign, according to the three current and former employees. They were told that the assignment was limited to the election in Pennsylvania. That assurance struck some attendees as hollow, since the state might decide the election.

Robert J. Tannous, the firm’s managing partner, declined to comment in detail on the work for Mr. Trump. He said, “Porter Wright has a long history of representing candidates, political parties, interest groups and individuals at the local, state and federal levels on both sides of the aisle, and as a law firm will continue to do so.”

But as you know, thankfully a slew of other states besides Pennsylvania voted for Joe Biden, and the Trump litigation strategy would have to master the extremely unlikely feat of invalidating the election results in multiple states to change the results of the election.

At least it’s good to see that some attorneys prioritize the sanctity of elections over the value of billable hours.

Sponsored

headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Topics

, , , ,