Well-known Washington lawyers cited several reasons for declining the President in recent weeks, according to multiple sources familiar with their decisions. Among them, Trump appears to be a difficult client and has rebuked some of his lawyers’ advice. He’s perceived as so politically unpopular he may damage reputations rather than boost them. Lawyers at large firms fear backlash from their corporate clients if they were to represent the President.
CNN adds that no previous president has struggled this hard to build a legal team for himself. Trump continues to outshine his predecessors!
some of the fancier lawyers in the piece: methinks they doth protest too much or they are just pretending to have zero knowledge of what many of their colleagues do for a livin'. This one strikes me as speaking reality:
But former top Justice Department official Harry Litman said that, while the admission might complicate the NDA somewhat, the biggest takeaway is that it protects Trump.
“It’s also the expected and smartest — in the sense of most-insulated — tack: Cohen the Mr. Fix-it who knows what the president needs and gets it for him without even putting him in the potentially vulnerable position of having to discuss it,” Litman said.
Whether true or not in this case, this is what lots of lawyers do for big clients. Heckuva way to make a living, but it does indeed happen.
Whether true or not in this case, this is what lots of lawyers do for big clients. Heckuva way to make a living, but it does indeed happen.
Never held the slightest appeal for me. The justification (rationalization?) many law students who entered idealistic expressing interest in public interest law offered in my day for why they chose to go the law firm or corporate attorney route was typically that in "greasing the wheels of commerce", one was performing a valuable service for society.
Some lawyers do engage in acts of greasing, as you note.
Ancient lawyer joke I heard from a college prof back in the day:
Did you hear that Sloan-Kettering is switching from rats to lawyers?
Comments
He might have to have a court-appointed lawyer to represent him at the rate things are going.
From Greg Sargent's Morning Plum at WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/03/28/another-sho...
by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 03/28/2018 - 11:05am
When the lawyer needs a lawyer (or at least a spokesperson):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/29/we-finally-got...
by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 03/29/2018 - 1:14pm
some of the fancier lawyers in the piece: methinks they doth protest too much or they are just pretending to have zero knowledge of what many of their colleagues do for a livin'. This one strikes me as speaking reality:
Whether true or not in this case, this is what lots of lawyers do for big clients. Heckuva way to make a living, but it does indeed happen.
by artappraiser on Thu, 03/29/2018 - 1:47pm
Never held the slightest appeal for me. The justification (rationalization?) many law students who entered idealistic expressing interest in public interest law offered in my day for why they chose to go the law firm or corporate attorney route was typically that in "greasing the wheels of commerce", one was performing a valuable service for society.
Some lawyers do engage in acts of greasing, as you note.
Ancient lawyer joke I heard from a college prof back in the day:
Did you hear that Sloan-Kettering is switching from rats to lawyers?
Three reasons:
1) More of them.
2) The researcher gets less emotionally attached.
3) There are certain things that *rats* won't do.
by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 03/29/2018 - 2:48pm
Trump's Russian mobster ties too
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 04/09/2018 - 2:19am