Kirkland & Ellis Has No Place For Lawyers Who FAIL To Overthrow Governments

Official alleged to plot Donald Trump's DOJ takeover may have a hard time getting back in the workforce.

Hey buddy, can you spare an equity share? (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

When reports first surfaced that Jeffrey Bossert Clark, recently the acting head of the DOJ’s civil division, had plotted with Donald Trump to fire the Acting Attorney General and install Clark in an effort to leverage the federal government to advance debunked election fraud claims and, potentially, reverse the results of the presidential contest, my first instinct was that he’d walk right back into Kirkland & Ellis.

If the last four years have taught America nothing, it’s that there are no consequences for making a mockery of the legal profession in service to that administration. Jones Day welcomed back its collaborators with open arms. Rod Rosenstein ordered the mass kidnapping of children and waltzed right into Biglaw. That firms parted ways with the lawyers on Trump’s “find more votes” call was the exception that proves the rule — it’s one thing to serve as a hired gun, but quite another to promote mayhem while cloaked in an official title. Even if those with government posts caused more tangible damage to the nation, Biglaw always makes room for the former Assistant Deputy Director of Procuring Trump Hotel Rooms or whatever.

So it’s a little shocking to hear chatter that Kirkland & Ellis may not take Clark back after his misadventures over the waning days inside Trump’s bunker. Kirkland & Ellis hasn’t spoken directly to the issue yet, but when the press starts hearing experts describing a lawyer as “radioactive” and pulls together a lengthy list of prominent lawyers describing the conduct as “astonishingly improper”, it’s difficult to see a path forward for a firm trying to protect its brand.

Clark, who has served as the Chair of the Environment and Property Rights Practice Group for the Federalist Society (obviously), denies he did anything wrong, though in his statement to the National Journal he says, “Discussing legal options and engaging in inquiry is not unethical, nor is engaging in internal deliberations.” That is not unethical… unless the internal deliberations delve into a bad place. Criminal lawyers don’t get to say, “We discussed the pros and cons of killing the lead witness, but those were just, like, internal deliberations, man. A lawyah’s gots to present all the options!”

His statement to the Times added another wrinkle, “It is unfortunate that those who were part of a privileged legal conversation would comment in public about such internal deliberations, while also distorting any discussions.” Yeah, I’m not entirely sure attorney-client privilege attaches to the DOJ counseling the president as an individual to undermine the federal government. It feels like the latter institution is the actual client of the Department of Justice.

At this moment Clark’s future is cloudy, but the revolving door is strong and I continue to refuse to believe Kirkland & Ellis would surrender to mass outrage and the efforts of groups like the Lincoln Project or Meidastouch. But hiring someone who failed to pull off a coup? That’s the sort of thing the firm can’t forgive. Kirkland & Ellis is a place for winners, Jeffrey. When our lawyers set out to accomplish something, we expect them to finish the job.

Sponsored

Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General [New York Times]
‘Astonishingly Improper’: What Lawyers Are Saying About Reported Trump Scheme to Oust Acting US Attorney General [National Law Journal]
Ex-DOJ Official Called ‘Radioactive’ After Alleged Election Plot [Bloomberg]


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Sponsored