Firms involved in election litigation Forum

[Auxilio]

I never said they had no "righteous" opportunities. I said I doubt they have the same level of opportunities working for pro-democracy election law actions.

For the record, I'd never consider working at Jones day anyways since they pay below market and don't even have the balls to own it.

[RandomInternetPerson]

I never said they had no "righteous" opportunities. I said I doubt they have the same level of opportunities working for pro-democracy election law actions.

For the record, I'd never consider working at Jones day anyways since they pay below market and don't even have the balls to own it.

Is the old thread locked? Why a stand alone thread on this?

[Auxilio]

I never said they had no "righteous" opportunities. I said I doubt they have the same level of opportunities working for pro-democracy election law actions.

For the record, I'd never consider working at Jones day anyways since they pay below market and don't even have the balls to own it.

Is the old thread locked? Why a stand alone thread on this?

This is the same thread as far as I can tell?

[Iowahawk]

Add Porter Wright to the firms working for Trump; it's the only firm on the pleadings in the new lawsuit. Story in NYT today says there are tensions in the partnerships of both Jones Day and Porter Wright on whether their work for Trump on elections matters is frivolous and unethical.

[Anonymous User]

Add Porter Wright to the firms working for Trump; it's the only firm on the pleadings in the new lawsuit. Story in NYT today says there are tensions in the partnerships of both Jones Day and Porter Wright on whether their work for Trump on elections matters is frivolous and unethical.

Not trying to sound like an elitist, but it is an objective question: Why would Porter Wright be involved in election lit? There are far more elite firms that could contribute.

[Iowahawk]

Add Porter Wright to the firms working for Trump; it's the only firm on the pleadings in the new lawsuit. Story in NYT today says there are tensions in the partnerships of both Jones Day and Porter Wright on whether their work for Trump on elections matters is frivolous and unethical.

Not trying to sound like an elitist, but it is an objective question: Why would Porter Wright be involved in election lit? There are far more elite firms that could contribute.

It looks like they were hired early on as local counsel for Pennsylvania issues and Pennsylvania is where the most important litigation ended up being. If it was e.g. Georgia that was the key jurisdiction I imagine King & Spalding would be prominent rather than Porter Wright. It’s curious to me that Jones Day isn’t just doing everything given its strong Pittsburgh presence, but there must be a reason.

[legalpotato]

Perfectly fine to consider OP's post in making employment decisions if that is something important to you. My guess is that some of the pushback on here is that, while I don't think OP's post goes there, the next logical step would be "shaming" the firms involved or seeking "retribution", as some folks are demanding post-election.

Imagine being some poor, young median grade grad who manages to get a job at JD and is just happy for any job and finds themselves on some blacklist because they were put on some discovery dump related to a Trump case. Scary times.

[purplegoldtornado]

The Lincoln Project is now posting contact info to the people working on then litigation: https://twitter.com/projectlincoln/stat ... 18593?s=21

[legalpotato]

Lol looks like I’m a wizard.

[Anonymous User]

I have a close friend who works at Jones Day. He said his phone, email, and Linkedin are blowing up from random people asking how he could dare to work for such an organization. I think it'll be interesting if we start seeeing some public resignations from JD associates/partners if the firm doesn't do anything

[nealric]

I have a close friend who works at Jones Day. He said his phone, email, and Linkedin are blowing up from random people asking how he could dare to work for such an organization. I think it'll be interesting if we start seeeing some public resignations from JD associates/partners if the firm doesn't do anything

It's not implausible that we could see firms withdraw from these representations under client pressure. The business case for working these suits has to be quite poor.

[purplegoldtornado]

Firms withdrawing their representation might be good for them, but it would set a very dangerous precedent.

[jackshunger]

I have a close friend who works at Jones Day. He said his phone, email, and Linkedin are blowing up from random people asking how he could dare to work for such an organization. I think it'll be interesting if we start seeeing some public resignations from JD associates/partners if the firm doesn't do anything

The original Lincoln Project post was about 2 hours ago and only has 10K likes. The latest Jones Day Linkedin post has about 50 comments from angry internet people. I'm going to cast doubt on the idea random Jones Day associates are getting seriously harassed by the internet right now.

[UnfrozenCaveman]

Firms withdrawing their representation might be good for them, but it would set a very dangerous precedent.

Not sure who is setting the dangerous precedent here. An attorney should not file frivolous lawsuits.

[purplegoldtornado]

Firms withdrawing their representation might be good for them, but it would set a very dangerous precedent.

Not sure who is setting the dangerous precedent here. An attorney should not file frivolous lawsuits.

Then if that is the case, FRCP 11. Let the courts decide it.

[UnfrozenCaveman]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/busi ... e=Homepage

"Some senior lawyers at Jones Day, one of the country’s largest law firms, are worried that it is advancing arguments that lack evidence and may be helping Mr. Trump and his allies undermine the integrity of American elections, according to interviews with nine partners and associates, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs."

[nealric]

Firms withdrawing their representation might be good for them, but it would set a very dangerous precedent.

Not sure who is setting the dangerous precedent here. An attorney should not file frivolous lawsuits.

Then if that is the case, FRCP 11. Let the courts decide it.

Somewhat doubtful that the Biden campaign will go for Rule 11 sanctions in these cases. They are looking for a quick and quiet dismissal so they can move on- not making an example of Trump's lawyers.

[jackshunger]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/busi ... e=Homepage

"Some senior lawyers at Jones Day, one of the country’s largest law firms, are worried that it is advancing arguments that lack evidence and may be helping Mr. Trump and his allies undermine the integrity of American elections, according to interviews with nine partners and associates, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs."

Hardly surprising a firm with 2500 attorneys has least 10 that don't like the President

[nealric]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/busi ... e=Homepage

"Some senior lawyers at Jones Day, one of the country’s largest law firms, are worried that it is advancing arguments that lack evidence and may be helping Mr. Trump and his allies undermine the integrity of American elections, according to interviews with nine partners and associates, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs."

Hardly surprising a firm with 2500 attorneys has least 10 that don't like the President

This is a bit different than that. I had plenty of clients I didn't like when I was in biglaw (including political clients), but none that I would have dreamed about talking to the New York Times about. It's not the Trump campaign representation that is the issue for these lawyers, it is the nature of that representation.

[jackshunger]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/busi ... e=Homepage

"Some senior lawyers at Jones Day, one of the country’s largest law firms, are worried that it is advancing arguments that lack evidence and may be helping Mr. Trump and his allies undermine the integrity of American elections, according to interviews with nine partners and associates, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs."

Hardly surprising a firm with 2500 attorneys has least 10 that don't like the President

This is a bit different than that. I had plenty of clients I didn't like when I was in biglaw (including political clients), but none that I would have dreamed about talking to the New York Times about. It's not the Trump campaign representation that is the issue for these lawyers, it is the nature of that representation.

I don't necessarily disagree with you; I personally think the election claims are unfounded and I'm relatively friendly toward Jones Day.

I do have serious doubts that those nine partners and associates are part of the Issues and Appeals team. Getting nine random Jones Day lawyers to comment that they are unhappy with the representation isn't exactly difficult in these partisan times - and we know the NYTimes is perfectly willing to promote junior level anonymous sources and pretend they are more important than they actually are. That is much different than getting members of the actual teams to cast doubt on their actions.

[Pennoyer v. Meh]

This Lincoln Project crap is wildly inappropriate. The NYT article was also ridiculous, and harmful, but this is beyond the pale.

[ChosenOneNow]

Can anybody who works at JD provide an inside account as to what is going on with pushback regarding all of the negative press? I read the New York Times article, and I see a lot of people on social media sites talking about JD.

[legalpotato]

Not sure why ppl are acting like this is life or death. The case will likely be summarily dismissed well before Jan 20th. Think the bar for frivolous is set pretty high, but let the courts decide and punish accordingly — not sure what ppl are trying to accomplish by intimidating the law firms.

Defer to mods, but linking to that tweet and some of the other comments on here seem to be getting past the “legal employment” scope of this board and crossing into targeted harassment — seems like a good thread to lockup imo.

[Anonymous User]

I have a close friend who works at Jones Day. He said his phone, email, and Linkedin are blowing up from random people asking how he could dare to work for such an organization. I think it'll be interesting if we start seeeing some public resignations from JD associates/partners if the firm doesn't do anything

Ditto, angry phone calls and stuff from internet randoms to one of my friends at Jones Day (first-year associate).

The tweet is down now (good). As long as everyone acts like an adult and keeps it on-topic I don't see why it should be locked. This topic will continue progressing potentially as more suits are filed (if any), blowback happens (if any), etc.

[Iowahawk]

Lots of news on this front this afternoon:

Jones Day has now released a statement.

https://www.jonesday.com/en/news/2020/1 ... litigation

The second sentence of this is pretty clearly false on their own description of their lawsuit fwiw.

The Lincoln Project has moved on to telling people to LinkedIn message employees of Jones Day and Porter Wright. It also says it intends to launch a TV ad campaign targeting the firms and their clients.

Random twitter stuff: Various prominent people (e.g. Norm Ornstein, Mark Eichenwald) are also targeting their clients on social media. A partner at Leiff Cabreser has called for Biden to remove Jones Day lawyers from his transition team. There's a journalist at Slate that's been tweeting a lot about it, wouldn't be surprised if there's another article soon.