Firms involved in election litigation Forum

[lavarman84]

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.

4-4 split

[anon121]

I'm just amazed at how the average person has literally zero idea about what we do in big law. Like what do you think we do? Save the polar bears?

[UnfrozenCaveman]

I'm just amazed at how the average person has literally zero idea about what we do in big law. Like what do you think we do? Save the polar bears?

Everytime.

[nealric]

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.

I think Jones Day is in a rather interesting position here. The late arriving ballots suit was clearly not frivolous in a Rule 11 sanctions sense, and indeed is in a very different position legally than some of the other post election cases given that it appears to have reasonably solid legal and factual support.

The issue Jones Day faces is that the suit looks very different today than it looked when it was first litigated in October. It's one thing to fight over election procedures for an upcoming election. It's a somewhat different situation when the result is clear, the losing candidate is refusing to concede, and the suit itself has virtually no chance of changing the result.

There's also a question of disenfranchisement. If the suit had been definitively decided before the election, a voter would have been on notice that if their ballot arrived late, it would not be counted, and thus they must vote in person if they were unable to mail in their ballot within a few days of election day. As it stands, many voters would have had a good faith belief that a ballot postmarked by election day would be counted. So the suit now has the possibility of disenfranchising voters who have already voted and cannot cure their ballots.

So I think there is a reasonable argument that pursuing the case initially was perfectly ethical, but continuing to pursue it now is perhaps less so. To some extent, I can respect Jones Day for not backing down. Even unpopular clients often need representation, and representing unpopular clients can advance the cause of justice. On the other hand, unpopular clients are often so for good reasons, and taking on an unpopular client does not give one a free pass on handling that representation unethically.

[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.

I think Jones Day is in a rather interesting position here. The late arriving ballots suit was clearly not frivolous in a Rule 11 sanctions sense, and indeed is in a very different position legally than some of the other post election cases given that it appears to have reasonably solid legal and factual support.

The issue Jones Day faces is that the suit looks very different today than it looked when it was first litigated in October. It's one thing to fight over election procedures for an upcoming election. It's a somewhat different situation when the result is clear, the losing candidate is refusing to concede, and the suit itself has virtually no chance of changing the result.

There's also a question of disenfranchisement. If the suit had been definitively decided before the election, a voter would have been on notice that if their ballot arrived late, it would not be counted, and thus they must vote in person if they were unable to mail in their ballot within a few days of election day. As it stands, many voters would have had a good faith belief that a ballot postmarked by election day would be counted. So the suit now has the possibility of disenfranchising voters who have already voted and cannot cure their ballots.

So I think there is a reasonable argument that pursuing the case initially was perfectly ethical, but continuing to pursue it now is perhaps less so. To some extent, I can respect Jones Day for not backing down. Even unpopular clients often need representation, and representing unpopular clients can advance the cause of justice. On the other hand, unpopular clients are often so for good reasons, and taking on an unpopular client does not give one a free pass on handling that representation unethically.

Agree with this. Also illustrates why the Court should have granted the motion to expedite.

[cturne17]

This is helpful. If I did not already have a job, would want to know this. Thank you!

[jimmythecatdied6]

Jones Day should suffer for this. I feel bad for the associates, but hey, they knew what they were getting into by going to a firm with a reputation for being political.

And it's one thing to have a one-off litigator that does unwholesome work for Trump. It's another thing to go balls-to-the-wall in an attempt to undermine American democracy.

But whatever.

[Pennoyer v. Meh]

Jones Day should suffer for this...And it's one thing to have a one-off litigator that does unwholesome work for Trump. It's another thing to go balls-to-the-wall in an attempt to undermine American democracy.

Okay, but, it's not at all clear that that's what the firm is doing. As has been pointed out, the PA mail lawsuit which JD filed in October was a legitimate and valid suit, and it isn't at all clear that JD has been attached to any of these more frivolous suits since the election (although there has been an interesting question raised of who's ghost-writing the briefs filed by that solo divorce attorney).

I'm fine with criticizing a firm for having certain clients, but I am not at all comfortable with the tenor of the attacks on Jones Day and other such firms. It seems way beyond what should be acceptable.

[jimmythecatdied6]

Jones Day should suffer for this...And it's one thing to have a one-off litigator that does unwholesome work for Trump. It's another thing to go balls-to-the-wall in an attempt to undermine American democracy.

Okay, but, it's not at all clear that that's what the firm is doing. As has been pointed out, the PA mail lawsuit which JD filed in October was a legitimate and valid suit, and it isn't at all clear that JD has been attached to any of these more frivolous suits since the election (although there has been an interesting question raised of who's ghost-writing the briefs filed by that solo divorce attorney).

I'm fine with criticizing a firm for having certain clients, but I am not at all comfortable with the tenor of the attacks on Jones Day and other such firms. It seems way beyond what should be acceptable.

You can believe that, but others will have different opinions. I will always question the people that have voluntarily chosen to work for Trump to challenge the results of the election. It was unripe when they filed all of these suits because the counts weren't done - but it will ultimately be moot because there is no possible set of facts where Trump wins. That is important. Jones Day is full of tons of lawyers that realize the limits of the merits (both substantively and for purposes of Article III). But that has been ignored. It's been ignored by the executive committee of the firm and that will reflect on it for the foreseeable future (and quite possibly, for the rest of the lives of the attorneys that want to / have to work on it)

[Pennoyer v. Meh]

Jones Day should suffer for this...And it's one thing to have a one-off litigator that does unwholesome work for Trump. It's another thing to go balls-to-the-wall in an attempt to undermine American democracy.

Okay, but, it's not at all clear that that's what the firm is doing. As has been pointed out, the PA mail lawsuit which JD filed in October was a legitimate and valid suit, and it isn't at all clear that JD has been attached to any of these more frivolous suits since the election (although there has been an interesting question raised of who's ghost-writing the briefs filed by that solo divorce attorney).

I'm fine with criticizing a firm for having certain clients, but I am not at all comfortable with the tenor of the attacks on Jones Day and other such firms. It seems way beyond what should be acceptable.

You can believe that, but others will have different opinions. I will always question the people that have voluntarily chosen to work for Trump to challenge the results of the election. It was unripe when they filed all of these suits because the counts weren't done - but it will ultimately be moot because there is no possible set of facts where Trump wins. That is important. Jones Day is full of tons of lawyers that realize the limits of the merits (both substantively and for purposes of Article III). But that has been ignored. It's been ignored by the executive committee of the firm and that will reflect on it for the foreseeable future (and quite possibly, for the rest of the lives of the attorneys that want to / have to work on it)

That sort of elides the point. First of all, I don't think the case is moot just because it wouldn't change the results of the election--it's still an important application of election law for future elections (and, fwiw, I don't agree with JD or Trump's view of the merits in this case).

More importantly, it doesn't address the broader question (to me), which is the appropriateness of the tone of the attacks on JD and its attorneys (why should a random general litigation attorney at JD be harassed over a case being handled by a small number of D.C. attorneys?) It's much more hostile and personal, in a way which I do not think is acceptable.

[jimmythecatdied6]

Jones Day should suffer for this...And it's one thing to have a one-off litigator that does unwholesome work for Trump. It's another thing to go balls-to-the-wall in an attempt to undermine American democracy.

Okay, but, it's not at all clear that that's what the firm is doing. As has been pointed out, the PA mail lawsuit which JD filed in October was a legitimate and valid suit, and it isn't at all clear that JD has been attached to any of these more frivolous suits since the election (although there has been an interesting question raised of who's ghost-writing the briefs filed by that solo divorce attorney).

I'm fine with criticizing a firm for having certain clients, but I am not at all comfortable with the tenor of the attacks on Jones Day and other such firms. It seems way beyond what should be acceptable.

You can believe that, but others will have different opinions. I will always question the people that have voluntarily chosen to work for Trump to challenge the results of the election. It was unripe when they filed all of these suits because the counts weren't done - but it will ultimately be moot because there is no possible set of facts where Trump wins. That is important. Jones Day is full of tons of lawyers that realize the limits of the merits (both substantively and for purposes of Article III). But that has been ignored. It's been ignored by the executive committee of the firm and that will reflect on it for the foreseeable future (and quite possibly, for the rest of the lives of the attorneys that want to / have to work on it)

That sort of elides the point. First of all, I don't think the case is moot just because it wouldn't change the results of the election--it's still an important application of election law for future elections (and, fwiw, I don't agree with JD or Trump's view of the merits in this case).

More importantly, it doesn't address the broader question (to me), which is the appropriateness of the tone of the attacks on JD and its attorneys (why should a random general litigation attorney at JD be harassed over a case being handled by a small number of D.C. attorneys?) It's much more hostile and personal, in a way which I do not think is acceptable.

"First of all, I don't think the case is moot just because it wouldn't change the results of the election--it's still an important application of election law for future elections (and, fwiw, I don't agree with JD or Trump's view of the merits in this case)."

That's good. This is an intellectual exercise for the benefit of all future generations. But forget the actual "case" that is in front of the court. Yeh, that sounds about par for the course.

[aegor]

You can believe that, but others will have different opinions. I will always question the people that have voluntarily chosen to work for Trump to challenge the results of the election.

Is Trump the plaintiff in this case? Also, are the results of the election actually being challenged? This seems like a state constitutional case. Why are you turning a legal question into a hot-button political one?

Frankly, it sounds like your are suffering from a combination of misinformation and obsession with Trump. Your selection of this as the proverbial back-breaking straw seems completely arbitrary at best and deranged at worst.

[Iowahawk]

You can believe that, but others will have different opinions. I will always question the people that have voluntarily chosen to work for Trump to challenge the results of the election.

Is Trump the plaintiff in this case? Also, are the results of the election actually being challenged? This seems like a state constitutional case. Why are you turning a legal question into a hot-button political one?

Frankly, it sounds like your are suffering from a combination of misinformation and obsession with Trump. Your selection of this as the proverbial back-breaking straw seems completely arbitrary at best and deranged at worst.

1. Trump has intervened in the lawsuit you’re discussing
2. It’s been obvious that he’s the real party in interest the whole time. It’s not like this is a conspiracy theory or something, it’s the same lawyers.
3. And on the merits the whole issue in the case is whether it’s a state constitutional case (Dems argue it is, Trump argues it’s not) and the remedy sought is throwing out votes to affect the election result

Please stop spreading misinformation on the topic of this thread (law firms involved in election litigation) to justify talking about stuff that’s not the topic of this thread (your feelings about Trump)

[Anonymous User]

ETA: Accidental anon. aegor here.

1. Trump has intervened in the lawsuit you’re discussing

So JD was not representing Trump, who was not even a party to the lawsuit JD filed.

2. It’s been obvious that he’s the real party in interest the whole time. It’s not like this is a conspiracy theory or something, it’s the same lawyers.

This matters why? Should JD forego litigating open legal questions because its clients may have ulterior motives?

3. And on the merits the whole issue in the case is whether it’s a state constitutional case (Dems argue it is, Trump argues it’s not) and the remedy sought is throwing out votes to affect the election result

Why should JD care about the judicial/legal outcome of its legitimate case? Why should anyone care that JD is litigating an open legal issue?

Please stop spreading misinformation on the topic of this thread (law firms involved in election litigation) to justify talking about stuff that’s not the topic of this thread (your feelings about Trump)

As far as I can tell, nothing I said is misinformation. And this entire thread exists because of your feelings about Trump and the election litigation. I do not particularly care about your feelings about Trump one way or another. The broader issue is whether those feelings translate into reasonable decisionmaking about what firms to work at. This thread has made it pretty clear that the answer is "no," at least judging by the responses/screeds offered thus far.

[aegor]

confirming ID

[Iowahawk]

I've posted hardly anything about my personal opinions in this thread, I'm just reporting news on a public controversy. I'm glad to hear you disapprove of derailment of this thread with "screeds." I'll let readers judge the merits of your "arguments," I have no interest in a debate with you beyond correcting and/or clarifying your "factual" statements.

[Iowahawk]

In news today, there's some sniping between Jones Day and Kirkland. Kirkland is representing the state of Pennsylvania. Trump has also released a statement attacking Porter Wright and Snell & Wilmer for dropping his cases. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/1 ... ney-436764

As I speculated earlier, there's now an article in Slate on the controversy. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... scorn.html

The law student organization People's Parity Project has started an anti-Jones Day drive targeting its OCI recruitment. https://abovethelaw.com/2020/11/protest ... -doorstep/

I missed this earlier, but there have been pickets of Jones Day and K&S offices in New York and a protest mural has been painted next to Jones Day's office in San Francisco in the last few days.

There's also been what seems to be another wave of unrelated reporting on gender/culture issues at JD, probably capitalizing on the current notoriety.

[aegor]

I've posted hardly anything about my personal opinions in this thread, I'm just reporting news on a public controversy.

Thanks for proving my point. Any number of controversies could have generated threads about going into BL despite ethical concerns, but for some reason, you picked this one. How many others have you created threads for? How many others have seen you so defensive about your motivations four pages in? I really did not care who won the election; this is not about me, my views, or "reporting news on a public controversy." This is about the propriety of suggesting that others view a particular issue as arbitrarily more significant in their career decisions despite no clear suggestion from the user base that the controversy was especially salient before you started this thread.

More significantly, the fact that you feel comfortable lying to your readers given the content of your response directly above this is rather shocking given the already-low standards of ethics lawyers seem to adhere to.

I'm glad to hear you disapprove of derailment of this thread with "screeds." I'll let readers judge the merits of your "arguments," I have no interest in a debate with you beyond correcting and/or clarifying your "factual" statements.

I never mentioned "derailment." If it were up to me, this entire thread would be deleted as a derailment from the objectivity that I believe should accompany all career-related fora.

I'll let readers judge the merits of your "arguments."

I have not made any, though.

I have no interest in a debate with you beyond correcting and/or clarifying your "factual" statements.

Nothing I said warranted clarification or correction, and nothing you have posted has demonstrated otherwise. I will take a cue from your trust in the readership and assume they are not comatose and/or idiotic, so I wish you much-needed luck in continuing to press your point.

[Windjammer]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/1 ... ney-436764

Anyone any clue as to what the associate's voicemail message actually said?

The article saw fit to mention how the associate "had a baby babbling in the background during the voicemail." Now wondering if said associate volunteered an unflattering comparison to opposing counsel's client.

[legalpotato]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/1 ... ney-436764

Anyone any clue as to what the associate's voicemail message actually said?

The article saw fit to mention how the associate "had a baby babbling in the background during the voicemail." Now wondering if said associate volunteered an unflattering comparison to opposing counsel's client.

I am really curious what of the contents too, in a morbid way. It seems like this attorney was pretty junior and clear he was acting unilaterally. Why did he name drop K&E? Did he think that would hold weight or be intimidating? Setting aside the merits of whether ppl should be calling these attorneys, think we can all agree that it is a bad idea to call and tie yourself to your firm or otherwise open up a way for someone to attack you professionally.

Think it was a d*ck move for the Trump attorney to seek sanctions against this attorney individually given that this attorney is clearly young and dumb, but am morbidly curious whether this attorney at least learned not to name drop when it is not appropriate to do so.

[nealric]

No sanctions for the K&E Attorney:

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/11/n ... judge.html

Not surprising. As the judge said, it was "bad form", but under the circumstances I don't see it as sanctionable.

[deference]

All people/organizations who are rich, famous and powerful are represented by BigLaw or high-powered firms/attorneys.

"Bad" people/organizations are usually, if not necessarily, rich, famous, and powerful.

So if you're deciding to whether join a firm because of its representation of "bad" people, then almost by a process of elimination you won't be joining a high-powered firm.

[lavarman84]

No sanctions for the K&E Attorney:

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/11/n ... judge.html

Not surprising. As the judge said, it was "bad form", but under the circumstances I don't see it as sanctionable.

If there's anybody breaching "professional norms," it's the Trump lawyer, Kerns.

[nealric]

All people/organizations who are rich, famous and powerful are represented by BigLaw or high-powered firms/attorneys.

"Bad" people/organizations are usually, if not necessarily, rich, famous, and powerful.

So if you're deciding to whether join a firm because of its representation of "bad" people, then almost by a process of elimination you won't be joining a high-powered firm.

I'm not sure being rich and powerful has any particular correlation to whether someone is good or bad.

In many ways, large organizations have more guardrails to unethical behavior. A public company is going to have a lot more people watching its behavior (external auditors, institutional investors, internal controllers) than a smaller outfit, so there is less possibility of outright fraud.

It's also worth noting that the most wealthy/powerful law firms aren't involved in any of this election litigation. Jones Day is hardly up there with Watchtell, despite its vanity SCOTUS practice that isn't representative of the firm as a whole.

[jimmythecatdied6]

I've posted hardly anything about my personal opinions in this thread, I'm just reporting news on a public controversy.

Thanks for proving my point. Any number of controversies could have generated threads about going into BL despite ethical concerns, but for some reason, you picked this one. How many others have you created threads for? How many others have seen you so defensive about your motivations four pages in? I really did not care who won the election; this is not about me, my views, or "reporting news on a public controversy." This is about the propriety of suggesting that others view a particular issue as arbitrarily more significant in their career decisions despite no clear suggestion from the user base that the controversy was especially salient before you started this thread.

More significantly, the fact that you feel comfortable lying to your readers given the content of your response directly above this is rather shocking given the already-low standards of ethics lawyers seem to adhere to.

I'm glad to hear you disapprove of derailment of this thread with "screeds." I'll let readers judge the merits of your "arguments," I have no interest in a debate with you beyond correcting and/or clarifying your "factual" statements.

I never mentioned "derailment." If it were up to me, this entire thread would be deleted as a derailment from the objectivity that I believe should accompany all career-related fora.

I'll let readers judge the merits of your "arguments."

I have not made any, though.

I have no interest in a debate with you beyond correcting and/or clarifying your "factual" statements.

Nothing I said warranted clarification or correction, and nothing you have posted has demonstrated otherwise. I will take a cue from your trust in the readership and assume they are not comatose and/or idiotic, so I wish you much-needed luck in continuing to press your point.

BOOM. Thank you for putting the icing on the cake. LOL