re: How does DJT end up with such a disparate group of attorneys?

Hush, nothing but the best.

quote:

---

she's actually a really good lawyer.

---

Setting aside the decorum issues how can you call someone a "really good lawyer" who doesn't know the process for impeachment by deposition or the proper basis for a hearsay objection? If her area of practice never involved trial advocacy neither of those might ever rear their head but both are likely in a defamation case. I can't stress how rudimentary these skills are in trial advocacy. For a seasoned trial attorney, both of those skills require as much bandwidth as putting on a pair of pants and getting the zipper in the front.

I have a lot of familiarity with a number of lawyers & law firms in NYC-- though I'm a relative nobody and am not an attorney myself. Although many attorneys have a level of autonomy to bring in new business as they please and are encouraged to do so, when they're part of law firms-- especially as they become larger and more diversified in their practice areas (antitrust, general litigation, corporate, M&A, real estate, and so on)-- this decision can get more complicated. One such complication revolves around conflicts of interest, which makes sense in an overt way. Obviously, if a firm is handling the plaintiff of a case, it wouldn't make a lot of sense for the defendant to use the same firm. But politics and PR can play a role in such decisions and sometimes the Board/Executive Committees of larger firms will discuss the potential impact of taking on certain clients. A partner I know at one prominent firm told me of one such meeting, in which the Board discussed whether or not they would represent a significant foreign entity, and due to the potentially sensitive nature of it, they declined.

While I can't prove it here, I would suggest that this type of discussion has happened in many executive committees at nearly every AM 100 law firm if Trump has approached them, and every one of these firms would undoubtedly discourage-- if not prohibit-- their attorneys from working for Trump.

One notable instance that comes to mind is Marc Kasowitz, a highly successful NYC litigator who worked with Trump on several matters over several years, including a dispute with Carl Icahn and at least one of Trump's divorces. According to this old NY Times article:
LINK
Kasowitz was as brash as Trump, enjoyed a good fight, and enjoyed the spotlight, which should've made him a natural fit to continue representing Trump. Certainly, he would get publicity.

Then Trump becomes President and becomes persona non grata in NYC circles. Shortly after winning, Kasowitz still represents Trump on a couple of matters, including against the NY Times for defamation. Then that's it. Kasowitz leaves Trump's legal team.

Is it possible that Trump did something to piss him off / drive him off? Sure. But I can also say that I was familiar with Kasowitz' firm since it had only one or two offices with something like 15-20 attorneys in the late 1990's and early 2000's. And by the time Trump won in 2016, Kasowitz had 300 or so attorneys in several cities, and had somewhat recently opened Los Angeles and Silicon Valley offices. At this point, with so many attorneys competing with other firms for clients, the decision to continue representing Trump becomes more complicated and risks alienating other clients.

The idea that this is why Kasowitz left Trump's team is speculative. But it isn't speculation to say:

1) Numerous Google execs were upset when Trump won in 2016. If you google "google upset when trump won in 2016", a number of hits come up, like:
CNN - Leaked Video: Google Execs Upset Over Trump Win

2) Kasowitz had a relatively new Silicon Valley office. If you look at the profiles of the current attorneys in that office (I'll filter the attorneys to that office here):
kasowitz firm site
almost all of them list experience representing Google, as well as Uber and Reddit (and I believe Reddit's Ohanian was not a fan of Trump). While the Silicon Valley office is small, these are potentially huge clients and it isn't hard to imagine that Kasowitz and other senior members had to weigh the odds of losing Google as a client if he kept supporting Trump.

To repeat-- this is not proof and I could be wrong. But I wondered if this was the case when it happened and still do.

One notable exception to this appears to be Jones Day (an old, established, big firm)... undoubtedly in part because Donald McGahn of Jones Day was Donald Trump’s first White House counsel. And the firm has a strong Republican presence. According to this Guardian article:
LINK
Jones Day was willing to work for Trump. Regrettably, Trump turned them down and picked Dowd instead, which I think was a big mistake since Jones Day has a lot of talented lawyers and Dowd didn't last. But note this part of the article:

quote:

---

Enrich reports that some at Jones Day thought such a deal would tie the firm too closely to Trump as his presidency pitched into controversy and chaos. Brogan was advised to pull back but pushed to land the client.

---

... which supports my earlier premise that a lot of big firms are going to weigh the political/PR risks of a client like Trump with regards to potentially alienating other clients.

Unless something changes, I think Jones Day was Trump's best last chance at having a high power law firm with resources work with him. And he's going to be stuck with small firms and solo attorneys now who don't have the resources to fight Perkins Coie & the full weight of the DOJ.

edit to add: I was extremely slow to type this out and moving back & forth between a couple of things... so didn't see your comments on pg 2, which I largely agree with and which cover a good bit of what I said, but more succinctly.

quote:

---

Hush, nothing but the best.

---

He has terrible legal advice.

He listened to those fools about the election bullshite, he will listen to anyone who tells him what he wants to hear.

quote:

---

Cohen had no real legal issues until Trump became POTUS

---

Not really

i think she is a bad arse - looks or no, she is still a badass

quote:

---

Why don’t you send in a resumé.

---

Well a professional friend is under indictment for working for Trump so I think I'll pass

It's simple: Bad attorneys and bad clients tend to find each other. I've seen it happen timecand again in my opponents.

quote:

---

What would you apply for, janitor?

---

*pats head*