Biglaw

Yesterday Was The Day America Learned What We've Known About Jones Day All Along

Welcome to the party. Yes, Jones Day is as awful as you think.

By and  
on

So, we uh, well, we really went after Jones Day yesterday. And I regret nothing. If you try to overturn the results of a free and fair election with courtroom machinations, well, you’re going to piss some people off.

But between the New York Times article blowing them up, and the Lincoln Project promising an ad campaign targeting not just the Biglaw firm over its election litigation, but their clients too, well, it couldn’t have been a good day to work in their PR office. And Above the Law tipsters from all around Biglaw were noticing the cracks in the firm’s armor.

Like folks taking note of their social media presence during the controversy:

FYI, just thought you should know Jones Day’s Twitter is getting filled with negative comments. Their LinkedIn posts was also getting filled with negative comments until Jones day deleted them all and disabled the comment function!

And quite a few people noted that the firm’s servers seemed unable to keep up with the sudden deluge of attention.

When their website was finally up and working, a link to a Jones Day Statement Regarding Election Litigation appeared. Oh, this’ll be good.

Sponsored

First off, Jones Day issued a strong, categorical rebuke of the negative coverage:

Jones Day is not representing President Trump, his campaign, or any affiliated party in any litigation alleging voter fraud. Jones Day also is not representing any entity in any litigation challenging or contesting the results of the 2020 general election. Media reports to the contrary are false.

Wow. Well, then let us be the first to express our apolo… oh wait, there’s more.

Jones Day is representing the Pennsylvania GOP in pending litigation brought by private parties in April 2020 and the Pennsylvania Democratic Party in August 2020. In that litigation, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order extending the statutory deadline to return mail-in ballots established by the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

There it is.

Sponsored

Jones Day isn’t representing anyone alleging “voter fraud”… Jones Day just represents the GOP in the case that forms the basis of all the allegations that this is a stolen election. It’s a distinction that seems trivial, but in reality is actually still trivial.

The Republican Party of Pennsylvania, through Jones Day, has sought review in the United States Supreme Court on the ground that the order is unconstitutional because it usurped the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s plenary authority to determine election procedures including the deadline for absentee ballots. The United States Supreme Court is currently deciding whether to grant certiorari. Four justices agreed with our client’s position, and voted to grant a stay, indicating that they believed there was a fair prospect of review and reversal by the Court. Three justices have issued a statement that there is “a strong likelihood that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s order violates the U.S. Constitution.” On November 6, Justice Alito ordered Pennsylvania election officials to segregate ballots arriving after the statutory deadline to preserve the issue and to have a record of the vote with and without the segregated ballots.

Basically, Jones Day is shouting to the world that they are not the kind of two-bit outfit that will get caught getting berated over hearsay within hearsay, as if the flack they’re taking from the Times article is for being bad lawyers as opposed to being evil lawyers. They’re taking flack because they are good lawyers trying to disenfranchise thousands of people in the middle of a pandemic.

Jones Day will not withdraw from that representation.

Everyone is entitled to hire the counsel of their choice. And we shouldn’t judge attorneys as attorneys based on the cases they take. However, lawyering is also a business, and part of business is protecting the brand. Jones Day saw a global pandemic that sparked serious public health concerns and thought it was good business to slap their name on forcing people to risk their lives to vote in person rather than voting absentee — a completely safe form of voting — simply because that could improve turnout and undermine the gerrymandered Pennsylvania state legislature that routinely brags about how its unconstitutional voting restrictions were created for the purpose of helping them retain power. Jones Day is welcome to take on that representation… and Jones Day should be prepared to face the associated market backlash for that move.

Or they could whine like children.

Jones Day expects that the media will correct the numerous false reports given the facts set forth above, all of which were readily verifiable in the public record.

I see we’re taking the latter path.

HeadshotheadshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. 
Joe Patrice is a Senior Editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search. Feel free to email Joe or Kathryn  any tips, questions, or comments.

Topics

, ,