Trump, lawyers part ways after federal indictment

[DB]

With all due respect, that didn't really answer the question.  Should you always vote for whomever is the highest character candidate, regardless of where the candidates stand on the issues?  or is it just kind of the tiebreaker if the candidates are otherwise close on the issues?

Because if that's the case, then political principles don't matter, and a well-mannered socialist is preferred to a boorish believer in freedom.

No.

Character is the foundation. Many different principles can be built on that. Some I agree with, others I don't.

The point is, first comes character but not character alone.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I'm going to say this till I'm blue in my face.. Character Matters.

 

The two Trump attorneys had to step down because Jack Smith ensnared them during the depositions and turned them into witnesses, eliminating all attorney-client privilege.  They had no choice.

cc: @DB

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The two Trump attorneys had to step down because Jack Smith ensnared them during the depositions and turned them into witnesses, eliminating all attorney-client privilege.  They had no choice.

cc: @DB

Hmph. Ok, good to know I guess.

[DB]

Hmph. Ok, good to know I guess.

Actually, it was Trump who "ensnared" his attorneys. He had them testify to false facts because he misled them blowing up his attorney client privilege in the process.

[Kamaji]

Actually, it was Trump who "ensnared" his attorneys. He had them testify to false facts because he misled them blowing up his attorney client privilege in the process.

Why were they testifying at all?  A lawyer, as such, is not supposed to testify.

[DB]

Why were they testifying at all?  A lawyer, as such, is not supposed to testify.

I believe they attested to "facts" regarding their efforts to provide documents on Trump's behalf. They thought Trump was being honest with them when in fact he was hiding things from them.

[Kamaji]

I believe they attested to "facts" regarding their efforts to provide documents on Trump's behalf. They thought Trump was being honest with them when in fact he was hiding things from them.

Ok.  I'll take your word for it; sounds abstruse and not something I am going to dig into.

[DB]

Ok.  I'll take your word for it; sounds abstruse and not something I am going to dig into.

I believe it was something along the lines that they declared that Trump had provided everything he had and they were directly involved with the collection of those documents to attest that was in fact the case. While Trump hid some documents from them putting them in a legal bind due to what they claimed to in court.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Actually, it was Trump who "ensnared" his attorneys. He had them testify to false facts because he misled them blowing up his attorney client privilege in the process.

What/to whom "testimony" was this @DB

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I believe it was something along the lines that they declared that Trump had provided everything he had and they were directly involved with the collection of those documents to attest that was in fact the case. While Trump hid some documents from them putting them in a legal bind due to what they claimed to in court.

That's actually very common in discovery-type issues.  Judge asks the lawyers if the client has turned over all the documents, or if the lawyer themselves has performed a search, etc., and the lawyer answers.  It's generally not referred to as testimony, but rather a representation to the court.

If Trump lied to his attorneys, or moved documents surreptitiously so the lawyers would miss them, then the lawyer looks like crap.  They won't be prosecuted for that, but a client who does that may get in a shitload of trouble from the court, especially if it is a criminal issue.  Sometimes, lawyers make the mistake of trusting their client too much, and then they make an even more firm claim that "no such documents exist" or "all such documents have been turned over".  If that happens, and it turns out to be falls, the lawyer may be disciplined by the Bar or sanctioned by the Court.

[DB]

That's actually very common in discovery-type issues.  Judge asks the lawyers if the client has turned over all the documents, or if the lawyer themselves has performed a search, etc., and the lawyer answers.  It's generally not referred to as testimony, but rather a representation to the court.

If Trump lied to his attorneys, or moved documents surreptitiously so the lawyers would miss them, then the lawyer looks like crap.  They won't be prosecuted for that, but a client who does that may get in a shitload of trouble from the court, especially if it is a criminal issue.  Sometimes, lawyers make the mistake of trusting their client too much, and then they make an even more firm claim that "no such documents exist" or "all such documents have been turned over".  If that happens, and it turns out to be falls, the lawyer may be disciplined by the Bar or sanctioned by the Court.

Thanks for the clarification. Apparently it was serious enough to break attorney client privilege.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Thanks for the clarification. Apparently it was serious enough to break attorney client privilege.

One of the few things that can break the privilege is if it was used to perpetrate a fraud on the court.

[roamer_1]

His biggest problem is finding lawyers that are trustworthy and competent which may be very hard to do considering how corrupt our DOJ is.

I dunno what to make of this... stuff.

He's a private citizen with access to banks of corporate lawyers through his organization. Having trouble finding lawyers seems a stretch.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I dunno what to make of this... stuff.

He's a private citizen with access to banks of corporate lawyers through his organization. Having trouble finding lawyers seems a stretch.

I have zero doubt this is true.  I know personally partners at Firms that have turned down work with him (2020 election work specifically) for a variety of reasons.  Obviously, one of them is that they are concerned about the reaction among other clients, the public, etc..  But a lot of firms are willing to do it anyway if it is otherwise good representation -- sharp client, reliable, pays well and on time, etc..  After all, they represent tobacco companies and all sorts of entities that aren't exactly beloved by the public.

The problem is that Trump's reputation is just crap when it comes to those other factors as well.  Fights on bills, won't take advice, pushes his lawyers to take ethically questionable positions, etc..  Best evidence I can give is that he had that absolute sleazeball Michael Cohen as his primary lawyer for more than a decade.  Really? He couldn't find anyone better than that guy?
But that's exactly the kind of lawyer Trump wants -- a guy willing to skirt the edges (or beyond) of the law, to take a hit if necessary to protect his boss, and is loyal beyond all else.  Basically, the exact same type of lawyers the mob employs.  The Tom Hagen lawyer/consigliere to Trump's godfather likely has a lot of appeal to a New Yorker like Trump.  Maybe not the best and brightest, but loyal and willing to do anything for the client.

Those lawyers aren't the kind of guys you need for a case like this.  You want really smart, really experienced white collar lawyers who are respected and know how to navigate this kind of stuff.  $800+/hour guys.  And those kind of guys generally don't need or want a client like Trump.  They've got good, clean very successful practices going, and are very well respected.  So why go work for a guy who likely won't take your advice anyway, will try to get you in trouble, and then probably refuse to pay the agree-upon rate if you refuse to do unethical crap?

On a partnership vote as to whether to take this guy as a client, I'd vote "no".  Just not worth it from a business perspective.  I'd have said the same thing even before the 2020 election, and I'm someone who voted for him in that election.  He's just a terrible, terrible client who literally has bragged about how he shortchanges people he hires.

This is a problem entirely of his own making.  The really good lawyers don't want to be seen as the next Michael Cohen.

[Kamaji]

I have zero doubt this is true.  I know personally partners at Firms that have turned down work with him (2020 election work specifically) for a variety of other reasons.  Obviously, one of them is that they are concerned about the reaction among other clients, the public, etc..  But a lot of firms are willing to do it anyway if it is otherwise good representation -- sharp client, reliable, pays well and on time, etc..  After all, they represent tobacco companies and all sorts of entities that aren't exactly beloved by the public.

The problem is that Trump's reputation is just crap when it comes to those other factors as well.  Fights on bills, won't take advice, pushes his lawyers to take ethically questionable positions, etc..  Best evidence I can give is that he had that absolute sleazeball Michael Cohen as his primary lawyer for more than a decade.  Really? He couldn't find anyone better than that guy?
But that's exactly the kind of lawyer Trump wants -- a guy willing to skirt the edges (or beyond) of the law, to take a hit if necessary to protect his boss, and is loyal beyond all else.  Basically, the exact same type of lawyers the mob employs.  Basically, the Tom Hagen consigliere to Trump's godfather.  After all, he's a New Yorker, right?  Maybe not the best and brightest, but loyal and willing to do anything for the client.

Those lawyers aren't the kind of guys you need for a case like this.  You want really smart, really experienced white collar lawyers who are respected and know how to navigate this kind of stuff.  $800+/hour guys.  And those kind of guys generally don't need or want a client like Trump.  They've got good, clean very successful practices going, and are very well respected.  So why go work for a guy who likely won't take your advice anyway, will try to get you in trouble, and then probably refuse to pay the agree-upon rate if you refuse to do unethical crap?

On a partnership vote as to whether to take this guy as a client, I'd vote "no".  Just not worth it from a business perspective.  I'd have said the same thing even before the 2020 election, and I'm someone who voted for him in that election.  He's just a terrible, terrible client who literally has bragged about how he shortchanges people he hires.

And that is a problem entirely of his own making.

[roamer_1]

I have zero doubt this is true.  I know personally partners at Firms that have turned down work with him (2020 election work specifically) for a variety of reasons. 

[...]

He's just a terrible, terrible client who literally has bragged about how he shortchanges people he hires.

This is a problem entirely of his own making.  The really good lawyers don't want to be seen as the next Michael Cohen.

Good post... I have said before that I have worked with contractors that came up through the ranks in NYC, and personally know not to do business with him for the same reasons.

Contracting works the same way, sorta... Nothing union, all jobbers... And word gets around who you want to work for... and who you don't.

The sweet spot is getting in with a group of really good subs... If you have a name for good quality and hitting your marks, you'll eventually gravitate into that elite group.

And you'll run into those same boys over and over, serving the same really good contractors. If a contractor calls to ask you for a bid, and drops the name of say, his sheetrock guy, who recommended you - Well that's really the other way around... The reason he can get me to work for him is because he comes bearing the imprimatur of the sheetrock guy... I know he's a good contractor to work for.

The gravy work ain't really about the money... It's about the whole thing running smooth without much drama. And when you land amongst professionals that know their gig, and it gives you that smooth ride, the money just comes.

I can imagine it works the same way among lawyers. Or anyone else.

[Cyber Liberty]

Project 65.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Good post... I have said before that I have worked with contractors that came up through the ranks in NYC, and personally know not to do business with him for the same reasons.

Contracting works the same way, sorta... Nothing union, all jobbers... And word gets around who you want to work for... and who you don't.

The sweet spot is getting in with a group of really good subs... If you have a name for good quality and hitting your marks, you'll eventually gravitate into that elite group.

And you'll run into those same boys over and over, serving the same really good contractors. If a contractor calls to ask you for a bid, and drops the name of say, his sheetrock guy, who recommended you - Well that's really the other way around... The reason he can get me to work for him is because he comes bearing the imprimatur of the sheetrock guy... I know he's a good contractor to work for.

The gravy work ain't really about the money... It's about the whole thing running smooth without much drama. And when you land amongst professionals that know their gig, and it gives you that smooth ride, the money just comes.

I can imagine it works the same way among lawyers. Or anyone else.

100% correct.  The better contractors (and lawyers are contractors...) don't need to take the crappy jobs because the better clients have recognized their worth and generally keep them busy.

The guys I know who took on worse clients tended to do so because they didn't have enough other stuff to keep themselves busy.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Project 65.

They didn't even exist until last year, and Trump's problems getting good lawyers predated that.

In any case, a lawyer can freely ignore Project 65 as long as they're acting ethically -- non-clients are really limited in the types of ethical complaints that can be made.  The targets of Project 65 get in trouble because either 1) they let Trump bully them into doing/saying something they shouldn't, or 2) they themselves were so zealously committed to the cause that they broke those rules of their own accord.

I don't know of anyone who won't work for him because they are worried about Project 65.  What they're worried about is they start doing a ton of work for him, refuse when he asks them to do things they shouldn't, and he then refuses to pay.  So you do all that work for nothing.  Not worth the opportunity cost.

[Cyber Liberty]

They didn't even exist until last year, and Trump's problems getting good lawyers predated that.

In any case, a lawyer can freely ignore Project 65 as long as they're acting ethically -- non-clients are really limited in the types of ethical complaints that can be made.  The targets of Project 65 get in trouble because either 1) they let Trump bully them into doing/saying something they shouldn't, or 2) they themselves were so zealously committed to the cause that they broke those rules of their own accord.

I don't know of anyone who won't work for him because they are worried about Project 65.  What they're worried about is they start doing a ton of work for him, refuse when he asks them to do things they shouldn't, and he then refuses to pay.  So you do all that work for nothing.  Not worth the opportunity cost.

I have no idea what impact Project 65 has had, TBH.  It is concerning to me there even exists a project designed to prevent some people from having good legal representation.

[cato potatoe]

Those lawyers aren't the kind of guys you need for a case like this.  You want really smart, really experienced white collar lawyers who are respected and know how to navigate this kind of stuff.  $800+/hour guys.  And those kind of guys generally don't need or want a client like Trump.  They've got good, clean very successful practices going, and are very well respected.  So why go work for a guy who likely won't take your advice anyway, will try to get you in trouble, and then probably refuse to pay the agree-upon rate if you refuse to do unethical crap?

This is Trump's comeuppance.  Just imagine the incompetence and corruption that will define his administration if he gets a hung jury and defeats a sickly Joe Biden.  I have no idea why the primary voters want to waste another four years on this guy.  As things stand, the party was better off when their candidates were selected by a small group of men in a smoke-filled room.

[corbe]

   Though he inherited (stipulation in the will) his First Personal Lawyer from his dad Fred (who was also a crook, IMHO) He, Roy Cohn dies of Aids in Federal Prison awaiting sentencing on multiple charges.  His replacement was Micheal Cohen.

[LMAO]

This is Trump's comeuppance.  Just imagine the incompetence and corruption that will define his administration if he gets a hung jury and defeats a sickly Joe Biden.  I have no idea why the primary voters want to waste another four years on this guy.  As things stand, the party was better off when their candidates were selected by a small group of men in a smoke-filled room.

It's not just the MAGA primary voters

If it should look like that Trump is in danger of losing, expect the left to vote for him in the GOP primaries, were they can, to keep him in the race. Similar to their 2022 midterm tactic

[Kamaji]

*  *  *
Those lawyers aren't the kind of guys you need for a case like this.  You want really smart, really experienced white collar lawyers who are respected and know how to navigate this kind of stuff.  $800+/hour guys.  And those kind of guys generally don't need or want a client like Trump.  They've got good, clean very successful practices going, and are very well respected.  So why go work for a guy who likely won't take your advice anyway, will try to get you in trouble, and then probably refuse to pay the agree-upon rate if you refuse to do unethical crap?

*  *  *

$800/hr?  Not in NYC, at least.  The guys you'd want would be commanding $1,000 to $1,500 an hour, with $800/hr for the senior associates who manage the discovery and do the underlying research.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

$800/hr?  Not in NYC, at least.  The guys you'd want would be commanding $1,000 to $1,500 an hour, with $800/hr for the senior associates who manage the discovery and do the underlying research.

Well, it would be Miami, not New York, but I take your point.  I was probably low co spidering that's probably around the top rate here in Cleveland.