Firms involved in election litigation Forum

[Iowahawk]

For law students looking at OCI, one consideration might be involvement in the ongoing election litigation. The main firms representing Trump are Consovoy McCarthy, Jones Day, and King & Spalding. Consovoy and Jones Day DC have strong right-wing emphases so they probably won't surprise anyone. Perkins Coie is the main firm representing Biden, but Covington and Munger have been reported to have some level of involvement as well. With the exception of Consovoy, a small number of partners relative to the firm as a whole are involved in these fights--Marc Elias is the reason Perkins Coie dominates political litigation for Democrats for example--but it's something to keep in mind.

[RaceJudicata]

I wouldn’t put this on a top 20 list of things to consider when choosing a firm.

[Anonymous User]

For law students looking at OCI, one consideration might be involvement in the ongoing election litigation. The main firms representing Trump are Consovoy McCarthy, Jones Day, and King & Spalding. Consovoy and Jones Day DC have strong right-wing emphases so they probably won't surprise anyone. Perkins Coie is the main firm representing Biden, but Covington and Munger have been reported to have some level of involvement as well. With the exception of Consovoy, a small number of partners relative to the firm as a whole are involved in these fights--Marc Elias is the reason Perkins Coie dominates political litigation for Democrats for example--but it's something to keep in mind.

Is the point of our adversarial system not to allow pretty much anyone to litigate any case with counsel, at least potentially? If firms have been sanctioned, that would be one thing, but it is unclear what point you are trying to make. Why this issue instead of any other?

[Anonymous User]

For law students looking at OCI, one consideration might be involvement in the ongoing election litigation. The main firms representing Trump are Consovoy McCarthy, Jones Day, and King & Spalding. Consovoy and Jones Day DC have strong right-wing emphases so they probably won't surprise anyone. Perkins Coie is the main firm representing Biden, but Covington and Munger have been reported to have some level of involvement as well. With the exception of Consovoy, a small number of partners relative to the firm as a whole are involved in these fights--Marc Elias is the reason Perkins Coie dominates political litigation for Democrats for example--but it's something to keep in mind.

Is the point of our adversarial system not to allow pretty much anyone to litigate any case with counsel, at least potentially? If firms have been sanctioned, that would be one thing, but it is unclear what point you are trying to make. Why this issue instead of any other?

I have a couple of friends at Jones Day who are trying to avoid returning after clerking in part due to discontent with its role in election litigation. Just like many clients and potential associates avoided Boies Schiller after the Weinstein representation. The system is adversarial, sure, but the players in it freely make decisions about who to represent and lawyers can make decisions about who they are willing to work for based on those decisions. You might not care about this but many people do and there's been a good amount of blowback on Twitter, etc.

On the other hand, if you like this sort of thing, this post tells you to take a look at Consovoy, which does lots of interesting work of various sorts for Republican politicians.

[Whatislaw]

For law students looking at OCI, one consideration might be involvement in the ongoing election litigation. The main firms representing Trump are Consovoy McCarthy, Jones Day, and King & Spalding. Consovoy and Jones Day DC have strong right-wing emphases so they probably won't surprise anyone. Perkins Coie is the main firm representing Biden, but Covington and Munger have been reported to have some level of involvement as well. With the exception of Consovoy, a small number of partners relative to the firm as a whole are involved in these fights--Marc Elias is the reason Perkins Coie dominates political litigation for Democrats for example--but it's something to keep in mind.

This is good to know. It's meaningful to some of us.

[Anonymous User]

As long as the firms obey all laws and rules of ethics, then it's just one more excuse to make a dollar (and I'm neutral on that)

That being said.........this present one is isn't just a shit show, its a shitnado with nukes in it.

[Anonymous User]

I have a couple of friends at Jones Day who are trying to avoid returning after clerking in part due to discontent with its role in election litigation. Just like many clients and potential associates avoided Boies Schiller after the Weinstein representation. The system is adversarial, sure, but the players in it freely make decisions about who to represent and lawyers can make decisions about who they are willing to work for based on those decisions. You might not care about this but many people do and there's been a good amount of blowback on Twitter, etc.

On the other hand, if you like this sort of thing, this post tells you to take a look at Consovoy, which does lots of interesting work of various sorts for Republican politicians.

"Blowback on Twitter" just makes me want to invoke Chanel Oberlin's iconic monologue from Scream Queens, to which I have nothing to add.

The broader question here is why this issue--instead of innumerable other related issues--merits any comment at all. BigLaw firms have (by the standard implied in the OP) sketchy track records on any number of issues. Perkins represents Boeing, which hardly has positive press at the moment. Any thread about that here? Why not?

If someone asked about election representation, this information would make sense. But unsolicited? LOL.

[Anonymous User]

Trump supporters seem to think that he can somehow speed up stuff to the supreme court, and/or stay in office while it is pending (even if goes past Biden's swear in date).

I can't imagine how that would work. Anyone have thoughts on the even potential realistic logistics on that?

[Auxilio]

I think this should merit some (small consideration) because there is more to it than just the lawyers involved. My firm has a relatively liberal reputation, and there have been tons of pro bono opportunities to be involved with groups like Brennan Center/Common Cause/etc. in election rights litigation this cycle (I can't speak to prior ones). I'm also involved in some work re: police reform.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt there's the same level of opportunities and encouragement for those activities at Jones Day.

[Anonymous User]

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.

[jackshunger]

If you feel strongly about it, don't apply, but don't complain if you are debt-fucked post graduation. There are plenty of people over in the Vale that would crawl across broken glass for jobs at these firms.

[bigbeau]

Lawyers who shame other lawyers for providing legal representation should be disbarred. I don’t care if they’re representing Harvey Weinstein (that Harvard Dean that students got kicked out) or Kony 2012, if you don’t understand the fundamental concept that everyone deserves the right to legal representation, you shouldn’t be a lawyer.

That’s not to mention the blatant hypocrisy mentioned in the other posts. Imagine having the gall to be mad at a big law firm for repping a political candidate and then taking $200k+ from the next firm over who I’m sure only reps innocent billion dollar companies who have never done anything wrong.

[jackshunger]

Lawyers who shame other lawyers for providing legal representation should be disbarred. I don’t care if they’re representing Harvey Weinstein (that Harvard Dean that students got kicked out) or Kony 2012, if you don’t understand the fundamental concept that everyone deserves the right to legal representation, you shouldn’t be a lawyer.

That’s not to mention the blatant hypocrisy mentioned in the other posts. Imagine having the gall to be mad at a big law firm for repping a political candidate and then taking $200k+ from the next firm over who I’m sure only reps innocent billion dollar companies who have never done anything wrong.

I really don't see what there is to get that mad about. Anyone who has good grades/options and cares about this isn't going to K&S or Jones Day anyway, nor do the firms care because they have extremely talented people on these cases anyway. And anyone who cares that doesn't have good grades that crosses off firms over this deserves to spend time complaining in the Vale about how they couldn't get a job during OCI because they crossed off giant BigLaw firms because they didn't like one of their 5000 cases.

[lavarman84]

For law students looking at OCI, one consideration might be involvement in the ongoing election litigation. The main firms representing Trump are Consovoy McCarthy, Jones Day, and King & Spalding. Consovoy and Jones Day DC have strong right-wing emphases so they probably won't surprise anyone. Perkins Coie is the main firm representing Biden, but Covington and Munger have been reported to have some level of involvement as well. With the exception of Consovoy, a small number of partners relative to the firm as a whole are involved in these fights--Marc Elias is the reason Perkins Coie dominates political litigation for Democrats for example--but it's something to keep in mind.

Is the point of our adversarial system not to allow pretty much anyone to litigate any case with counsel, at least potentially? If firms have been sanctioned, that would be one thing, but it is unclear what point you are trying to make. Why this issue instead of any other?

I have a couple of friends at Jones Day who are trying to avoid returning after clerking in part due to discontent with its role in election litigation. Just like many clients and potential associates avoided Boies Schiller after the Weinstein representation. The system is adversarial, sure, but the players in it freely make decisions about who to represent and lawyers can make decisions about who they are willing to work for based on those decisions. You might not care about this but many people do and there's been a good amount of blowback on Twitter, etc.

On the other hand, if you like this sort of thing, this post tells you to take a look at Consovoy, which does lots of interesting work of various sorts for Republican politicians.

Challenge with Consovoy is that you appear to need at minimum a COA clerkship with a well-regarded conservative judge.

[plantcoveredbuilding]

Covington? Look at this link OP. https://www.cov.com/en/practices-and-in ... -liability
This is what law firms do. If you don't like it go into PI or government.

Marc Elias is happy that Trump filed these suits, because it means a bigger distribution for him.

[Anonymous User]

The partners at Consovoy were responsible for Shelby Country. If you feel comfortable working with lawyers who gutted the Voting Rights Act, and consider that just "interesting work," then go for it. I can't imagine any scenario where I would ever consider that. Jones Day seems a Fed Society cess pool. Again, no scenario where I'm signing up for that. This certainly goes well beyond controversial clients for me. Make your own decision but do your homework first.

[plantcoveredbuilding]

The partners at Consovoy were responsible for Shelby Country. If you feel comfortable working with lawyers who gutted the Voting Rights Act, and consider that just "interesting work," then go for it. I can't imagine any scenario where I would ever consider that. Jones Day seems a Fed Society cess pool. Again, no scenario where I'm signing up for that. This certainly goes well beyond controversial clients for me. Make your own decision but do your homework first.

Did the Supreme Court judges who decided the case play any role? If your firm is so much better than others, name it so we can see how y'all make your money.

[Anonymous User]

The partners at Consovoy were responsible for Shelby Country. If you feel comfortable working with lawyers who gutted the Voting Rights Act, and consider that just "interesting work," then go for it. I can't imagine any scenario where I would ever consider that. Jones Day seems a Fed Society cess pool. Again, no scenario where I'm signing up for that. This certainly goes well beyond controversial clients for me. Make your own decision but do your homework first.

Did the Supreme Court judges who decided the case play any role? If your firm is so much better than others, name it so we can see how y'all make your money. Hypocrite. This "my firm works on good cases and yours works on bad ones" bullshit is obnoxious.

Anon from above. I work in BigFed. If I decide to pursue BigLaw, I will certainly aim for firms with attorneys who don't build their careers paving the way for voter suppression. I feel very comfortable in taking the high road on this one. You do you.

[jackshunger]

The partners at Consovoy were responsible for Shelby Country. If you feel comfortable working with lawyers who gutted the Voting Rights Act, and consider that just "interesting work," then go for it. I can't imagine any scenario where I would ever consider that. Jones Day seems a Fed Society cess pool. Again, no scenario where I'm signing up for that. This certainly goes well beyond controversial clients for me. Make your own decision but do your homework first.

Did the Supreme Court judges who decided the case play any role? If your firm is so much better than others, name it so we can see how y'all make your money. Hypocrite. This "my firm works on good cases and yours works on bad ones" bullshit is obnoxious.

Anon from above. I work in BigFed. If I decide to pursue BigLaw, I will certainly aim for firms with attorneys who don't build their careers paving the way for voter suppression. I feel very comfortable in taking the high road on this one. You do you.

As Consovoy has a total of 7 associates, 2-3 of whom have clerked or will clerk for SCOTUS, I doubt this will be an issue for brave anon.

[Iowahawk]

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.

First, brave use of anon.

Second, I’m not in a practice area where I’d ever come near something like this but I *personally* would have no problem working at a firm that did even though I oppose it. Just like I oppose working on management-side labor work on principle but will work at biglaw firms with labor practices. But this information may be useful to others who draw their moral lines differently. Many law students who frequent this forum are in a position to be choosy.

[Anonymous User]

The partners at Consovoy were responsible for Shelby Country. If you feel comfortable working with lawyers who gutted the Voting Rights Act, and consider that just "interesting work," then go for it. I can't imagine any scenario where I would ever consider that. Jones Day seems a Fed Society cess pool. Again, no scenario where I'm signing up for that. This certainly goes well beyond controversial clients for me. Make your own decision but do your homework first.

Did the Supreme Court judges who decided the case play any role? If your firm is so much better than others, name it so we can see how y'all make your money. Hypocrite. This "my firm works on good cases and yours works on bad ones" bullshit is obnoxious.

Anon from above. I work in BigFed. If I decide to pursue BigLaw, I will certainly aim for firms with attorneys who don't build their careers paving the way for voter suppression. I feel very comfortable in taking the high road on this one. You do you.

As Consovoy has a total of 7 associates, 2-3 of whom have clerked or will clerk for SCOTUS, I doubt this will be an issue for brave anon.

The legal profession has really warped your brain if it's now "brave" to consider your morals when deciding how to conduct our career. You get to decide what work you consider appealing and acceptable, but not sure if "brave" is the word I would use to describe that calculation.

That is correct--the firm is tiny and mostly former, of future, SCOTUS clerks. I believe many of the partners worked at Wiley Rein before they started the firm, and the firm is effectively a spinoff of a practice group there. No one on this thread will probably ever work there or have a chance to work there. Others brought up the firm as an example of a firm practicing election law. I did not. I simply pointed out the lawyers at the firm were largely responsible for Shelby County, which is relevant if you want to know the landscape of election law. I understood the OP was asking about the landscape for practicing election law.

[Iowahawk]

The partners at Consovoy were responsible for Shelby Country. If you feel comfortable working with lawyers who gutted the Voting Rights Act, and consider that just "interesting work," then go for it. I can't imagine any scenario where I would ever consider that. Jones Day seems a Fed Society cess pool. Again, no scenario where I'm signing up for that. This certainly goes well beyond controversial clients for me. Make your own decision but do your homework first.

Did the Supreme Court judges who decided the case play any role? If your firm is so much better than others, name it so we can see how y'all make your money. Hypocrite. This "my firm works on good cases and yours works on bad ones" bullshit is obnoxious.

Anon from above. I work in BigFed. If I decide to pursue BigLaw, I will certainly aim for firms with attorneys who don't build their careers paving the way for voter suppression. I feel very comfortable in taking the high road on this one. You do you.

As Consovoy has a total of 7 associates, 2-3 of whom have clerked or will clerk for SCOTUS, I doubt this will be an issue for brave anon.

Consovoy in particular is a hard firm to stumble into on accident, as political stuff is largely their specialty and it’s very small, but it’s far easier at e.g. Jones Day.

(Also, Consovoy isn’t *that* selective if you’re at a top school and conservative and the SCOTUS factor is partially exogenous due to the firm’s fairly unique SCOTUS connections).

[Anonymous User]

Lawyers who shame other lawyers for providing legal representation should be disbarred. I don’t care if they’re representing Harvey Weinstein (that Harvard Dean that students got kicked out) or Kony 2012, if you don’t understand the fundamental concept that everyone deserves the right to legal representation, you shouldn’t be a lawyer.

That’s not to mention the blatant hypocrisy mentioned in the other posts. Imagine having the gall to be mad at a big law firm for repping a political candidate and then taking $200k+ from the next firm over who I’m sure only reps innocent billion dollar companies who have never done anything wrong.

You need to google what frivolous lawsuits and meritless cases mean for ethics. Yes, every criminal defendant has rights to defense but you can't let them knowingly lie on the stand. Civil goes even beyond that in limitations. Take the MPRE.

[Anonymous User]

I think this should merit some (small consideration) because there is more to it than just the lawyers involved. My firm has a relatively liberal reputation, and there have been tons of pro bono opportunities to be involved with groups like Brennan Center/Common Cause/etc. in election rights litigation this cycle (I can't speak to prior ones). I'm also involved in some work re: police reform.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt there's the same level of opportunities and encouragement for those activities at Jones Day.

Google Laredo Project

[Anonymous User]

I think this should merit some (small consideration) because there is more to it than just the lawyers involved. My firm has a relatively liberal reputation, and there have been tons of pro bono opportunities to be involved with groups like Brennan Center/Common Cause/etc. in election rights litigation this cycle (I can't speak to prior ones). I'm also involved in some work re: police reform.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt there's the same level of opportunities and encouragement for those activities at Jones Day.

Google Laredo Project

Anon b/c of my direct involvement in the above. Very happy someone brought this up in response to the implication that Jones Day shuns "righteous" pro bono opportunities b/c of its work for other revenue-generating clients (the ones whose dollars make pro bono work possible). To my knowledge, JD has the largest on-the-ground semi-permanent operations providing pro bono legal services to asylum seekers of any BigLaw firm. The operations are affectionately referred to as JD's 44th office (or whatever the current number of offices + 1 would be). That JD *doesn't* more publicly discuss this project is IMHO a testament to the firm's belief that this is simply what lawyers *should* do, regardless of who's paying attention (laugh if you want, I won't blame you).

tl;dr: Does JD take on "right wing" revenue-generating clients? yes. Does JD also take on "right wing" cases pro bono? yes. Does that mean if you go to JD you'll be first-chairing DJT's deposition defense, will pledge allegiance to the GOP, and never have an opportunity to work on things nearer to your heart, like immigration? No.

You can choose not to go to JD for a lot of valid reasons, lack of access to pro bono work isn't one of them.