Why Trump Is Losing His Lawyers

moved to withdraw on Monday. The Lincoln Project, group of Republicans who opposed President Trump, had started a media campaign against the law firms helping the Trump administration to contest Joe Biden's victory, specifically naming Porter Wright and Jones Day, the nation's tenth largest law firm. Trump's communications director Tim Murtas said leftist mobs descended upon some of the lawyers

representing the president's campaign and they buckled. The President's team is undeterred and will move forward with rock solid attorneys to ensure free and fair elections for all Americans. Trump has picked Rudy Giuliani, his personal attorney, to lead his post election legal battles, and Giuliani filed an application to join the case in Pennsylvania, which the other lawyers had left just hours before a hearing was set to start. Joining me is Christopher for Bloomberg Law Team leader for

the Business of Law. So Chris tell us about jones Day. Sure, Jay is one of these just massive law firms. It's the tenth largest firm in the country with more than a billion dollars with a b in gross revenue per year. I think they've got more than a thousand attorneys across the country. Based originally founded in Cleveland, Ohio, but has been come to be known as one of these white

shoe Washington d C firms. UM. That's really been a revolving door with sending attorney into high ranking positions in the federal government throughout the years, but certainly in during the Trump administer ration. Jones Day has been the law firm most closely associated by many people with the Trump administration. The firm itself UM advise the Trump's campaign back for the election, continued to advise the campaign UH and the RNC throughout the next four years leading up to the

most recent election. UM and has continued to be involved in lawsuits related to the election. UM since election Day, just a few weeks ago, and so during Trump's administration we saw several notable jones Day lawyers bill top roles within the government. The one that most people are familiar with, of course, is Don McGann, who was formerly White House

Council before returning to Jones Day last year. Another lawyer named Noel Francisco was Solicitor General, which is essentially the fate of the Trump administration in the Supreme Court, arguing any cases on behalf of government in the High Court. He was there for most of President Trump's first term before returning to jones Day last year. The Lincoln Project started a social media campaign about Jones Day. What was

the message of that campaign and how successful was it? Well, the message was really that the Jones Day attorneys and the firm itself, in the eyes of the folks, that the Lincoln Project should be ashamed of themselves for participating in these post election lawsuits um which at least according to the folks that at the Lincoln Projects are nothing more than an assault on American democracy, baseless attempt to undo the the results of the fair and free election.

And so it was too prong number one. They were building and sort of a online public sense of outrage against the firm itself, and then they were attempting to pressure major Jones Day clients, including companies like General Motors, to stop doing business with the firm over this issue. Did it work? What kind of repercussions did Jones Day have from this media campaign? Well, it certainly had some impact.

Um so that the same campaign was also aimed at a smalller law firm called Supporter Right, which was involved in some of the other cases involving the Trump administration, and that firm has been pretty quickly backed away and withdrawn from participating in those studs. Jones Days involved in one single suit right now, and they're actually representing the Republican Party of Pennsylvania rather than the Trump campaign itself.

But it's one of those lawsuits that aimed it challenging the results of the election in Pennsylvania overall, and and and certainly is affiliated with the Trump administration and the campaign efforts there. And so they have not sacked and it seems unlikely that they will back away given the firm's history and leadership just not the type of folks

who will to this sort of public pressure. But um it has caused quite a stir within UM the halls of Jones Staying, particularly at his Washington, d C. Office. We reported that late last week a large group of attorneys there at jones Days CC office, in a series of meetings with the head of the DC office, raised some um a number of concerns regarding the firms involvement in the case. That meeting was described as very tense

by some of the people who were there. Basically, the attorneys were saying that the firm is risking it's good name, it's sort of professional names in in getting involved in something like this. So Chris Jones Day said, it's not representing any entity in any litigation challenging or contesting the results of the general election in light of that Pennsylvania case.

Is that strict true? That is incorrect, UM. And so John Stay has has made a big deal of not representing the Trump campaign or the RNC itself in much of the ongoing litigation. And it is true that the firm is not involved in many of the cases UH that have already been thrown in out the court, both in Pennsylvania and Michigan, Arizona and elsewhere. But the case that the firm is involved in is representing the Republican

Party of Pennsylvania. Essentially, they're challenging UM Pennsylvania's mail in ballot system. They say that the state has created this two tier system where people who sent their ballots in via mail did not have to jump through the various hoops uh to prove that they are who they say they are, that folks who voted in person had to do things like uh, signatures, UM, just sort of all the id requirements that you face when you go into

vote in person. And a say, the jones Day lawyers say that this is created in a constitutional two tier system where the restrictions and the requirements for voting depend on whether or not you do it in by mail or in person. And so, while that may not be UM directly aligned with the Trump campaign, if the court were to rule in favor of jones Day certainly would be helpful to the Trump campaign's effort to disrupt the election force recounts, UM and just generally so some uncertainty

into the entire election process. So jones Day is might be feeling pressure tell us about it's a leadership structure. Whether or not it pulls out of these suits, is that dependent on the managing partner certainly seems that way. The managing partner, Steve Brogan, who's been there for quite a while, is a hard nose leader that some say are very much in the mold of the Donald Trumps

and that the buck stops with him. He's making UM a lot of these decisions, and certainly in such a high profile case like this one, a decision to remain on the case sort of withdrawal certainly wouldn't wouldn't happen without Brogan's UM uh input for sure. And you know, by by all accounts, he's just not the title guy who's going to UM decide not to do something simply

because of the public pressure. What's interesting is that Brogan, of course comes from UM sort of a Republican leaning background. He's a Notre Dame law school guy UM and some of the most high profile Jones State attorneys in DC are also Republican background, including some of the folks who

works for the Trump administration. But when we went back and look at the Federal Election Commission records, we found that eighty percent of donations UM for political candidates in the last cycle from Jones State turneath individually of those went to Democratic candidates, And what we've heard from people inside the building is that they've always thought of it

as an largely a political place. And while there may be some um grumbling about Jones Day's work on behalf of the Trump administration, it wasn't until recently with these election cases where folks really thought this is different, this is something where we're actively working to potentially undo a free and fair elections. Jones Days of October nineteenth had received two point nine million dollars in legal fees from

the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee. But that's just a drop in the bucket to Jones Day, isn't it. It sure is. Yeah, we're talking about a firm that um clock more than a billion dollars in gross revenue every year and so certainly not doing it for the money, UM, although you could say that, um, they're developing a client relationship and certainly making clear here that they're not going

to stand down when they're representing their clients. UM. But you know, one of the arguments that the firm has been making, including in response to some of the concerns that were raised by his own attorneys about their involvement in this particular Pennsylvania case is that they're fighting for the rule of law. And so their argument is that we filed this case long before the election because we thought that there was a problem with Pennsylvania's um election system.

We did not know at the time um, at least according to Jones, say that this was going to become this uh closely uh tightly contested election and that all of these other lawsuits were going to follow. The firm is simply telling their their attorneys that we're fighting for the rule of law here. We want to make sure that the Pennsylvania election system is constitutional um, whether that

favorite Democrats or Republicans. The other law firm you mentioned port to right, they withdrew from the Pennsylvania case and that they no longer represent the Trump campaign and didn't say why. And the Trump communications director said leftist mobs descended upon some of the lawyers representing the president's campaign

and they buckled. Any hints as to why report or write Withdrew Well, we can say for sure that it came after some of the same pressure, much of the same pressure really that that Jones stay was facing both externally and internally. Reportedly there were similar meanings to quarter right, where associates at the firm we're raising very similar concerns UM and reportedly at least one lawyer resigned as a

result of those concerns. But at the same time, I think it's interesting to keep an eye on the dockets and what happens in these cases because myself and some of my reporters have been talking to legal ethics experts who have said, you really want to watch and see how long some of these lawyers stay on these cases because of the potential ethics concerns and potential penalty, sanctions, etcetera. For pushing baseless cases. Um, anybody can do any one

else for just about anything. But as the legal process goes on, at some point you have to present some evidence to back up what you're claiming. And if you don't have that evidence and it becomes clear that these cases are nothing more than trying to clog up the system or slow down election counts, uh, those attorneys may

be facing some sort of sanctions or penalty. And so the ethics folks that we spoke to said, if you see them start dropping out, that may be very well a recognition that there towing up against those ethical lines, and their professional integrity is on the line. So do you see that as a concern to some of the lawyers within these firms that the integrity of the whole firm gets tarnished because of these cases. I think so. And you you've particularly see that from attorneys at these

huge firms. Remember we're talking about Jones Day is a firm with more than a thousand attorney, So there are just tons and tons of attorneys who are jones Day attorneys who have absolutely no involvement in this case whatsoever. And you can see that they're saying, you know, we're being tarnished because of the jones Day name, despite having

no involvement in the case. What seems like a clear example of the pressure is a lawyer for Trump's campaign yesterday said they're dropping out of the Pennsylvania lawsuit challenging the election results. And this is a day after complaining about being harassed for her work, including by an attorney from a firm representing the state of Pennsylvania. Absolutely so, Linda Tarns, who is a solo practitioner there in Pennsylvania. She actually became the lead attorney on that state after reporter,

Wright dropped out in the face of pretty significant public pressure. Uh. And then shortly after that, she told the court that she had received a threatening phone call from an attorney at Kirklin and Ellis, which is one of the firms on the opposite side of that litigation representing the state of Pennsylvania. Um and and she told the court straight up that she was bowing out because of some of

these attacks. Interestingly enough, the attorney who is now the lead Trump campaign attorney in that case, some some eagle eyed reporters noticed that on his firm's website, they're already calling President elect Joe Biden the president elect. Um and so there's some question there about how the campaign will feel about that. Interesting. So, Chris, you study law firms.

Have we seen law firms before? Law firms are sort of viewed in a different light than companies, at least to my mind, because they don't necessarily they aren't necessarily endorsing the views of the people that they represent. You know, everyone's entitled to a lawyer. So is this attack on lawyers for whom they represent a change or has it been going on for a while. I think you're you're hearing voices opposing and criticizing law firms work on behalf

of certain clients. Uh. Louder and growing certainly over time, you know, going back decades. Particularly firms that work in criminal defense are often get a hard time and get a significant amount of public criticism for representing people or companies that have been accused of these just really heinous things.

But but there has always been this idea that lawyers represent clients and the and the fact that a lawyer is representing a client doesn't necessarily mean that the lawyer um supports the client, agrees with the client, thinks that what they did was right or what they're arguing is correct, um. But that everyone gets their day in court, and everyone's entitled to a lawyer. What we'll be looking to see

is that if any of the sticks and what happened next. Uh. Just because Porter Wright dropped out of these particular cases, that doesn't mean that the firms are going to stop representing either the Trump campaign or the RNC going forwards. Uh. And just because Jones States getting some heat here over this one case, I don't expect that to stop the firm from continuing to work in this space. Thanks for being the Bloomberg Law Show Chris. That's Chris Offer, Bloomberg

Law Team leader for the Business of Law. President Trump has resumed with one of his most successful priorities as president, the appointment of federal judges, to make the judiciary more conservative and set a majority. Leader Mitch McConnell is poised to continue pushing the confirmations to the lifetime appointments through until Trump's term is over. The Fair confirmed more than two lifetime judicial appointees to the federal courts, including three

Supreme Court justices. Joining me is Professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond School of Law. Carl, So far, have any judges been confirmed during the lame duck session, Yes, they have. Two were confirmed last week for the district bench, and this week five are scheduled. One was just confirmed this morning and the other four will be confirmed this week, a second one today and then the others by Thursday, and so the seven will have been confirmed in the

lame ducks so far for the district courts. Are these openings that have been in place for a while? Did they just come up? Most of them have existed for some time, and of course, as someone's confirmed this week, it means they've been through the process. They've been nominated and had committee hearings, approval votes in the committee, and then up for debate, and then a vote on the floor. So they are not new, virtually all of them. So

there are a few that are. And so for example, there is a UH circuit they can see that was just created when one Torriella died who served on the first circuit, and someone was just recently nominated for that position after the election. Let's concentrate on the district court nominations for a moment. Are these going through on party line votes as we've seen with most of the circuit

court nominations, or are these different? Well, some are. For example, the one this morning nominee for the Southern District of Mississippi was relatively close to forty three UH. And so we may see that with some of these nominees, especially if there's some controversy. And there's also the feeling I think among some Democrats that Mitch McConnell is jamming through people at the last minute after the voters have spoken UH in terms of who they want to be nominating judges.

Has this happened before. Yes, Um, you know, in recent administrations, at the end of Obama's time the Senate, when McConnell was in the majority, Republican Senate confirmed no one after July. So that gives you a sense of discrepancy between then

and now. On the other hand, at the end of Bush in two seven two eight, uh, Democrats were in the majority and they confirmed fifty eight district judges and ten circuit judges, as opposed to Republican majority in two thousand, fifteen sixteen confirmed only two circuit judges and eighteen district judges. And so there have been disparities depending on who's in the White House and who is in the control of

the Senate. Just explain once again the difference between these district court judges, who are sort of like the trial judges in the federal system, and what we normally concentrate on, which is the circuit court judges. Well, Um, this administration, the Trump administration, has focused like a laser on the appeals courts, and so there are only three vacancies now and there were no vacancies for a short period, which

is the fewest since Ronald Reagan was president. Um, but has neglected to some extent the district vacancies and emergency vacancies. But the difference is at the appellate level, the rulings cover all of the states in a particular circuit, as opposed to a district judge who really only can't even buying people in the judge's own courthouse. And so essentially

the appellate judges make more policy and of cases. The court of last resort is the appellate court that decides because of Supreme Court here so few cases and so that's why the administration has tried to keep all of those seats filled and may fill all three vacancies. Now I think tomorrow will have just this Amy Cony Barrett's replacement, who's been nominated before Judiciary for hearing, and then the idea is to confirm him to her seventh Circuit vacancy.

So what do we know about Thomas Kirsch who has been nominated Phil Coney Barrett's seat. He is presently the U S Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana and has experience in private practice with Winston Strawn, I believe in Chicago from and hasn't served in and out of the Justice Department. You have attorney's office in Northern District of Indiana in his career, and I think is well regarded.

But he looks like a number of other nominees of President Trump, I think, but we'll see, has some strong support from the home state senators in Indiana. So tell us about Judge roll Arius Mark Squatt, who was nominated to fill the vacancy on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. And he is a district judge whom Trump appointed to the District of Puerto Rico and has served for eighteen months in that capacity, and so he's a nominee for the First Circuit, and I think they will try to

move his nomination as well. There's a third vacancy on the seventh Circuit. Judge Blom assumed senior status on November and the Republicans may try to feel that they can see as well. And so I think it was a smart or choice on the part of the administration to try to elevate someone who was already on the district bench and someone from Puerto Rico, because there's a bit of a tradition there um to have someone from Puerto

Rico on the first Circuit um. And so the administration as someone Uh, they've already sent through the process, and the Puerto Rico District judge was confirmed on a nineties three vote. Um, and I had a very smooth nomination confirmation process. Uh. And so I think the hope is that he would be as smoothly confirmed h in this situation. So again, it's after the election when he was mainated and would be confirmed if that happens. Is there enough

time to get all the confirmations for the seventh Circuit done? Well? Maybe I think the one that's already been made and has the hearing tomorrow the courage. I think that could be done because then he would just need a committee vote, which could happen in December, and then a final vote, which could happen in December. The others are more difficult. It depends on when the first circuit nominee has a hearing,

and then there's no nominee yet for Judge Blaumbsy. So that could be tight because they only have a small number of working days after Thanksgiving when they come back, and then the Senate turns over I believe on the fifth or so of January. And so um, it's just not clear that there are enough, you know, legislative days two approve all three of the of circuited judges, and

then the questions also about district judges. There are five others who um are on the floor and so they've had hearings and committee votes, and those five could easily be confirmed in December. But there are twenty more who have been nominated by the President but not even had a hearing yet. And I think there's a big question mark as to those we'll know. We don't know yet

who's gonna be on the hearing tomorrow. Besides Kurse, it could be some district nominees, but that's not clear, and so it's not at all clear that any of those twenty would be able to get through the process if the earrings are not held till December. That's a very tight time frame given what has to happen in that period. So look back and on the four years of judicial nominations and tell us what is it in Trump and

Mitch McConnell have accomplished well. They've named three extremely conservatives and confirmed three extremely conservatives Supreme Court justices fifty three so far and counting similar Appellate Court judges and one and sixty nine district judges after this week, which is relatively strong record, especially at the appellate level. So, for example, President Obama in two terms was able to confirm fifty five appellate judges, so if only two more are confirmed

in President Trump would have matched that. And if he has all three confirmed, that would mean he named more in one term than Obama did in two. Since Mitch McConnell has filled and looks likely to fill every single opening, what are the prospects for Joe Biden to appoint judges? Well, there are some because, as I said, there are twenty two vacancies at the district level where there are no

nominees yet, so he's likely to inherit those. And then there's twenty more who have been nominated for vacancies they haven't had a hering yet, so that would come to forty two even if everybody else were confirmed by McConnell um. And then there'll be uh more people who assume senior

status uh and retire in the next year. So he may have a fair number of vacancies that he can feel, but mostly at the district level, not very many at the appellate level, unless judges presently sitting Assudan senior status, and there are a number of appellate judges who are eligible under the rule of our sixty five and have fifteen years of service. Uh, and so some of them may well assume senior status. So then Biden would to put it, in colloquial terms, take back the nominations of

those who haven't been confirmed yet. They would expire when the new Senate and President Trump of course could renominate them in that period right between the new Senate coming in and inauguration day. But I don't think that much is going to happen in that period. The Senate is getting organized, inaugurations being planned, the Senate may not even be in session much of that early part of January, so that's probably not realistic. Uh, that much would happened

by way of confirmations in that period of time. President Trump has been able to nominate and get confirmed some very conservative judges. As we've discussed, what will happen when a President Biden nominates a very liberal judge. Are they likely to get through if the Senate remains in Republican hands. Well, A lot depends on what happens in the two Georgia

races that will be decided on January six. Uh. If Democrats were able to win both of those, then they would have a Senate majority because the tiebreaking vote would be the vice president. Uh. There is that possibility. Um. If not, then McConnell, I think, would be the leader and there would be a very thin majority in the Senate. And I think it will be a matter of negotiation between the White House and McConnell and Biden may to some extent have to moderate the type of people he chooses.

I think he has a good relationship with Mitch McConnell and with many other senators with whom he served, and so he knows the process very well. Chaired the Judiciary Committee and was honored for three decades or more, and has very good people around him to help with judicial selection. Cautiously optimistic that that will go smoothly. That's Carl Tobias at the University of Richmond Law School. And that's it for the edition of the Bloomberg Laws Show. I'm June Grasso.

Thanks so much for listening, and remember to tune to The Bloomberg Glass Show every weeknight at ten pm Eastern right here on Bloomberg Radio,