Firms involved in election litigation Forum

[showusyourtorts]

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.

Does anyone have a sense for the merits of the case and whether there is a genuine question being raised that serious Justices could disagree upon? It seems clear that both (1) the result won't affect Trump's loss and that (2) pursuing the case -- perhaps not in and of itself, but largely because of the expected (and desired/manufactured) public response to it -- will disturb the peaceful transition of power.

[Iowahawk]

I wonder if JD may be between a rock and a hard place here. On the one hand, something of this scale will clearly affect recruiting this year and may even affect clients. Seyfarth Shaw got fired by U.S. Soccer after a much smaller-scale backlash. On the other, if they drop the case they may be worried that Issues & Appeals, the firm's crown jewel, will get Bancrofted. No inside info here, just speculation. They've clearly chosen to stick to their position, at least for now.

[anon121]

I'm curious to see if they lose any clients because of this. I imagine some are pretty displeased with the association, but I kind of doubt that Joe average calling for a boycott of Verizon on Twitter will have any impact.

[Anonymous User]

Anon bc I’m an incoming first year at a firm with extensive ties to Trumpworld.

Of course everyone deserves legal representation, but there seems to be an undercurrent among lawyers that agreeing to represent a client should not be criticized. I really don’t see how it’s different from people banned from Twitter shouting that their First Amendment Rights have been abridged. You can say whatever you want - that doesn’t mean you should be guaranteed a platform. Same with law firms. If you want to bill Harvey Weinstein or Trump or whomever, that’s fine. But you also shouldn’t be immune from social censure. We’re not talking about public defenders here. JD and any other Biglaw firm can pick and choose their clients.

This kind of pressure works, too. K&S famously withdrew from DOMA defense after pressure from corporate clients and activists. https://www.abajournal.com/news/articl ... from_firm/
And yes, I’m personally embarrassed by my firm’s work with Trumplandia. The “Yuppie Nuremberg Defense” of a mortgage to pay and no other offers in my market only goes so far. Both lawyer and non-lawyer friends have chided me for working there. Their opinion of me and my opinion of myself matters to me and I will probably try to find a job with a slightly less nefarious clientele.

And this isn’t just a thing on the left. Ask any counsel at ACLU, NARAL, or public defender if they ever experience “targetted harassment” for their work. (And as long as there are no threats of violence, I think that’s fine).

[Anonymous User]

Work for an international large cap PE fund that spends low 9 figures a year on legal costs.

Our head of legal mentioned that he won't consider Jones Day for any engagements for the time being solely because of negative publicity and client requests.

[ChosenOneNow]

Work for an international large cap PE fund that spends low 9 figures a year on legal costs.

Our head of legal mentioned that he won't consider Jones Day for any engagements for the time being solely because of negative publicity and client requests.

If this is widespread, affecting other potential clients, then I wonder if it will impact partner retention. Think about it, an M&A partner at Jones Day is being negatively impacted by this election litigation. I wonder if other firms are soliciting Jones Day partners in groups outside of the group handling the election litigation as a result of this.

[lavarman84]

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.

Does anyone have a sense for the merits of the case and whether there is a genuine question being raised that serious Justices could disagree upon? It seems clear that both (1) the result won't affect Trump's loss and that (2) pursuing the case -- perhaps not in and of itself, but largely because of the expected (and desired/manufactured) public response to it -- will disturb the peaceful transition of power.

If you're talking about the PA ballot deadline litigation, it does raise a genuine question. If SCOTUS grants cert (not at all out of the question), I expect that the PA Republicans will win (Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito will vote in their favor, and I am expecting Barrett to join with them). My personal take on the Elections Clause argument is that the theory is bunk. I could write a long explanation why, but there is enough room for reasonable minds to differ. Still, I'll be pretty disgusted if they do take it up (it's quite the affront to federalism).

[GFox345]

OP you're OK with Perkins's other cases, like their representation of Tyson Foods in covid cases, Fernandez v. Tyson Foods, Inc et al, 6:20-CV-02079 (N.D.Iowa), Glenn et al v. Tyson Foods, Inc. 9:20-CV-00184 (E.D.Tex) and Wazelle et al v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al, 2:20-CV-00203 (N.D.Tex.)?

They all involve estates of very low-paid laborers in meat packing plants. They caught covid and died, allegedly because Tyson put a few pennies of profit over worker safety.

As an associate, you will have to, inter alia, write up the deposition questions for these cases, to come up with ways to fuck the families over.

Get a clue about where biglaw PPP and your generous salary comes from and get off your high horse.

Completely annihilated.

[Anonymous User]

Anon because I'm an associate at JD. The internal dissent here is loud and growing, and firm leadership is futilely trying to diffuse the situation. I don't think this will end unless we drop the PA case — unless the firm wants to see many of us and clients walk. I have to believe that this fiasco will mark the end of Steve Brogan's reign.

[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.

Does anyone have a sense for the merits of the case and whether there is a genuine question being raised that serious Justices could disagree upon? It seems clear that both (1) the result won't affect Trump's loss and that (2) pursuing the case -- perhaps not in and of itself, but largely because of the expected (and desired/manufactured) public response to it -- will disturb the peaceful transition of power.

If you're talking about the PA ballot deadline litigation, it does raise a genuine question. If SCOTUS grants cert (not at all out of the question), I expect that the PA Republicans will win (Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito will vote in their favor, and I am expecting Barrett to join with them). My personal take on the Elections Clause argument is that the theory is bunk. I could write a long explanation why, but there is enough room for reasonable minds to differ. Still, I'll be pretty disgusted if they do take it up (it's quite the affront to federalism).

The appears that the case is moot in practical terms because the number of ballots at issue isn't enough to change the result though, which brings the motives of pursuing it into question

[basketofbread]

Anyone who thinks this is an exceptional evil on behalf of Jones Day is totally deluded. They and every other big law firm does more significant evil every single day. The difference is that it is usually in service the bipartisan consensus. Huge healthcare mergers, defending against employee suits, etc... any number of things more degrading to our democracy than raking in the fees for Trump’s doomed vanity suit. Helping to create hundreds of conglomerates the size and power of nation states that have a vice grip on our government is much worse than this stupid suit, and every big law firm (and nearly every democrat and republican) is responsible for that.

[Iowahawk]

Anyone who thinks this is an exceptional evil on behalf of Jones Day is totally deluded. They and every other big law firm does more significant evil every single day. The difference is that it is usually in service the bipartisan consensus. Huge healthcare mergers, defending against employee suits, etc... any number of things more degrading to our democracy than raking in the fees for Trump’s doomed vanity suit. Helping to create hundreds of conglomerates the size and power of nation states that have a vice grip on our government is much worse than this stupid suit, and every big law firm (and nearly every democrat and republican) is responsible for that.

Lots of brave use of anon on this thread

[LawrenceGazebo]

Anyone who thinks this is an exceptional evil on behalf of Jones Day is totally deluded. They and every other big law firm does more significant evil every single day. The difference is that it is usually in service the bipartisan consensus. Huge healthcare mergers, defending against employee suits, etc... any number of things more degrading to our democracy than raking in the fees for Trump’s doomed vanity suit. Helping to create hundreds of conglomerates the size and power of nation states that have a vice grip on our government is much worse than this stupid suit, and every big law firm (and nearly every democrat and republican) is responsible for that.

Lots of brave use of anon on this thread

This site is filled with anon-posting tools who think they will be "outed" for saying they're in a major secondary market and not happy with the hours they work.

[lavarman84]

The appears that the case is moot in practical terms because the number of ballots at issue isn't enough to change the result though, which brings the motives of pursuing it into question

I think there's a couple genuine arguments that it isn't moot. It won't change the election, but that doesn't necessarily make it moot (and might even make it less politically problematic to take up the issue).

[purplegoldtornado]

The appears that the case is moot in practical terms because the number of ballots at issue isn't enough to change the result though, which brings the motives of pursuing it into question

I think there's a couple genuine arguments that it isn't moot. It won't change the election, but that doesn't necessarily make it moot (and might even make it less politically problematic to take up the issue).

Could you please explain what I bolded? I figured most of the litigation was inconsequential, but I wasn't sure if that necessarily made it "moot." (I really need to take Fed Courts.)

[eastcoast_iub]

Anyone who thinks this is an exceptional evil on behalf of Jones Day is totally deluded. They and every other big law firm does more significant evil every single day. The difference is that it is usually in service the bipartisan consensus. Huge healthcare mergers, defending against employee suits, etc... any number of things more degrading to our democracy than raking in the fees for Trump’s doomed vanity suit. Helping to create hundreds of conglomerates the size and power of nation states that have a vice grip on our government is much worse than this stupid suit, and every big law firm (and nearly every democrat and republican) is responsible for that.

This is a naive take. These lawsuits are actively undermining faith in our democracy, with no chance of success, and letting a genie out of the bottle that may never be put back in. Jones Day absolutely deserves to be shamed for this and I hope the Lincoln Project's ad campaign is successful. I sure as hell would not go there if I was a law student with choices, it's just one more reason on top of their below-market comp.

[lavarman84]

The appears that the case is moot in practical terms because the number of ballots at issue isn't enough to change the result though, which brings the motives of pursuing it into question

I think there's a couple genuine arguments that it isn't moot. It won't change the election, but that doesn't necessarily make it moot (and might even make it less politically problematic to take up the issue).

Could you please explain what I bolded? I figured most of the litigation was inconsequential, but I wasn't sure if that necessarily made it "moot." (I really need to take Fed Courts.)

Well, first, while the votes won't change the Presidential Election, there is still a live dispute as to whether they get counted (and it's possible they could affect a down-ballot race). Second, as we saw with all the last-minute election litigation, this is arguably a problem that is capable of repetition, but evading review. It really depends on if SCOTUS wants to take it or not. If they want to take it, they'll find a way.

[lavarman84]

Anyone who thinks this is an exceptional evil on behalf of Jones Day is totally deluded. They and every other big law firm does more significant evil every single day. The difference is that it is usually in service the bipartisan consensus. Huge healthcare mergers, defending against employee suits, etc... any number of things more degrading to our democracy than raking in the fees for Trump’s doomed vanity suit. Helping to create hundreds of conglomerates the size and power of nation states that have a vice grip on our government is much worse than this stupid suit, and every big law firm (and nearly every democrat and republican) is responsible for that.

This is a naive take. These lawsuits are actively undermining faith in our democracy, with no chance of success, and letting a genie out of the bottle that may never be put back in. Jones Day absolutely deserves to be shamed for this and I hope the Lincoln Project's ad campaign is successful. I sure as hell would not go there if I was a law student with choices, it's just one more reason on top of their below-market comp.

Is Jones Day even the firm pursuing the nutty, frivolous post-election lawsuits? I didn't think they were.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Anyone who thinks this is an exceptional evil on behalf of Jones Day is totally deluded. They and every other big law firm does more significant evil every single day. The difference is that it is usually in service the bipartisan consensus. Huge healthcare mergers, defending against employee suits, etc... any number of things more degrading to our democracy than raking in the fees for Trump’s doomed vanity suit. Helping to create hundreds of conglomerates the size and power of nation states that have a vice grip on our government is much worse than this stupid suit, and every big law firm (and nearly every democrat and republican) is responsible for that.

This is a naive take. These lawsuits are actively undermining faith in our democracy, with no chance of success, and letting a genie out of the bottle that may never be put back in. Jones Day absolutely deserves to be shamed for this and I hope the Lincoln Project's ad campaign is successful. I sure as hell would not go there if I was a law student with choices, it's just one more reason on top of their below-market comp.

Is Jones Day even the firm pursuing the nutty, frivolous post-election lawsuits? I didn't think they were.

No, they are not. And as posters above have pointed out, every big firm represents unpopular clients and advocates for unpopular positions. For instance, Paul Weiss represents Exxon and has continued to do so despite boycotting from T14 grads. This is part of what you are signing up for in big law. Most cases are just about $$$ and there is no good guy or bad guy, but not all cases are like that.

[lavarman84]

Anyone who thinks this is an exceptional evil on behalf of Jones Day is totally deluded. They and every other big law firm does more significant evil every single day. The difference is that it is usually in service the bipartisan consensus. Huge healthcare mergers, defending against employee suits, etc... any number of things more degrading to our democracy than raking in the fees for Trump’s doomed vanity suit. Helping to create hundreds of conglomerates the size and power of nation states that have a vice grip on our government is much worse than this stupid suit, and every big law firm (and nearly every democrat and republican) is responsible for that.

This is a naive take. These lawsuits are actively undermining faith in our democracy, with no chance of success, and letting a genie out of the bottle that may never be put back in. Jones Day absolutely deserves to be shamed for this and I hope the Lincoln Project's ad campaign is successful. I sure as hell would not go there if I was a law student with choices, it's just one more reason on top of their below-market comp.

Is Jones Day even the firm pursuing the nutty, frivolous post-election lawsuits? I didn't think they were.

No, they are not. And as posters above have pointed out, every big firm represents unpopular clients and advocates for unpopular positions. For instance, Paul Weiss represents Exxon and has continued to do so despite boycotting from T14 grads. This is part of what you are signing up for in big law. Most cases are just about $$$ and there is no good guy or bad guy, but not all cases are like that.

Yeah, that's what I thought. I'm certainly not conservative, nor am I interested in working for Jones Day, but I don't see them as in the wrong here. Now, I definitely am judging the firms who have filed some of the overtly frivolous lawsuits, for example, Porter Wright's lawsuit attacking mail-in voting (from which they now have apparently withdrawn).

[AdieuCali]

Anyone who thinks this is an exceptional evil on behalf of Jones Day is totally deluded. They and every other big law firm does more significant evil every single day. The difference is that it is usually in service the bipartisan consensus. Huge healthcare mergers, defending against employee suits, etc... any number of things more degrading to our democracy than raking in the fees for Trump’s doomed vanity suit. Helping to create hundreds of conglomerates the size and power of nation states that have a vice grip on our government is much worse than this stupid suit, and every big law firm (and nearly every democrat and republican) is responsible for that.

This is a naive take. These lawsuits are actively undermining faith in our democracy, with no chance of success, and letting a genie out of the bottle that may never be put back in. Jones Day absolutely deserves to be shamed for this and I hope the Lincoln Project's ad campaign is successful. I sure as hell would not go there if I was a law student with choices, it's just one more reason on top of their below-market comp.

Is Jones Day even the firm pursuing the nutty, frivolous post-election lawsuits? I didn't think they were.

No, they are not. And as posters above have pointed out, every big firm represents unpopular clients and advocates for unpopular positions. For instance, Paul Weiss represents Exxon and has continued to do so despite boycotting from T14 grads. This is part of what you are signing up for in big law. Most cases are just about $$$ and there is no good guy or bad guy, but not all cases are like that.

I think everyone understands that all Biglaw firms have a "lawful-evil" alignment. If you're a lefty anti-corporate type you're going to have to compromise your principles if you want to work at one. That said, it's not unreasonable for potential hires/laterals considering a firm to draw the line at representing the Trump administration. To use the Tyson Chicken/Trump example from above, one is defending a company screwing over its workers with Covid. The other is supporting the leader of a political movement seeking to expand immunity for all companies from these types of suits. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN22D5MG Also, as u/eastcoast pointed out, Trump is delegitimizing the democratic system in a way that Tyson Chicken is not.

[Iowahawk]

News on this front today: Porter Wright has withdrawn from at least one election lawsuit, as has Snell & Wilmer, which was representing Trump in Arizona. Jones Day had an internal conference call today due to discontent in the ranks and dissatisfaction about the litigation from clients and announced that it will not take on any further election litigation but it does not plan to withdraw from the lawsuits it has already filed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/busi ... vania.html

[Anonymous User]

This is a naive take. These lawsuits are actively undermining faith in our democracy, with no chance of success, and letting a genie out of the bottle that may never be put back in.

But we are not talking about "lawsuits." We are talking about the very specific lawsuit filed by JD that three Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States signaled was meritorious.

[purplegoldtornado]

This is a naive take. These lawsuits are actively undermining faith in our democracy, with no chance of success, and letting a genie out of the bottle that may never be put back in.

But we are not talking about "lawsuits." We are talking about the very specific lawsuit filed by JD that three Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States signaled was meritorious.

Wasn't it four?

[Anonymous User]

This is a naive take. These lawsuits are actively undermining faith in our democracy, with no chance of success, and letting a genie out of the bottle that may never be put back in.

But we are not talking about "lawsuits." We are talking about the very specific lawsuit filed by JD that three Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States signaled was meritorious.

Wasn't it four?

You could be right. I thought it was Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas.