Tag Archives: lawyers

Makes Me Proud To Be A Lawyer!

Okay, a recovering lawyer…but still.

One of the worst aspects of this traitorous and criminal administration has been its willingness to spit in the eye of those who believe in and support the rule of law. After a period of stunned silence, lawyers who have retained their integrity have begun to respond. 

Above the Law has reported on a lawsuit that–as it says–“Drags the Trump Administratiion to Hell.” I am going to quote liberally from the complaint filed by Williams Connolly on behalf of another law firm–Perkins Coie–because I cannot improve on its language. Trump had issued one of his insane “Executive Orders,” purportedly stripping Perkins Coie lawyers of security clearances, and terminating government contracts with the firm.

From the Complaint:

The Order is an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice. Its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his Administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients. Perkins Coie brings this case reluctantly. The firm is comprised of lawyers who advocate for clients; its attorneys and employees are not activists or partisans. But Perkins Coie’s ability to represent the interests of its clients—and its ability to operate as a legal-services business at all—are under direct and imminent threat. Perkins Coie cannot allow its clients to be bullied. The firm is committed to a resolute defense of the rule of law, without regard to party or ideology, and therefore brings this lawsuit to declare the Order unlawful and to enjoin its implementation.

The document notes that the Order’s “peculiar title” demonstrates that its purpose isn’t executive. “Rather, the Order reflects a purpose that is judicial—to adjudicate whether a handful of lawyers at Perkins Coie LLP engaged in misconduct in the course of litigation and then to punish them.” The purpose is, rather clearly, to deter law firms from representing clients antagonistic to Trump.

Above the Law judges the following lengthy paragraph to be the hardest-hitting:

Because the Order in effect adjudicates and punishes alleged misconduct by Perkins Coie, it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Because it does so without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because it punishes the entire firm for the purported misconduct of a handful of lawyers who are not employees of the firm, it is an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process and of the substantive due process right to practice one’s professional livelihood. Because the Order singles out Perkins Coie, it denies the firm the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order punishes the firm for the clients with which it has been associated and the legal positions it has taken on matters of election law, the Order constitutes retaliatory viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, violates the First Amendment rights of free expression and association, and the right to petition the government for redress. Because the Order compels disclosure of confidential information revealing the firm’s relationships with its clients, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order retaliates against Perkins Coie for its diversity-related speech, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order is vague in proscribing what is prohibited “diversity, equity and inclusion,” it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order works to brand Perkins Coie as persona non grata and bar it from federal buildings, deny it the ability to communicate with federal employees, and terminate the government contracts of its clients, the Order violates the right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendment.

It isn’t just the lawyers.

While the legal profession takes to the courts, other Americans possessing specialized expertise are using that expertise on behalf of the resistance. Heather Cox Richardson recently reported on three recent outages of X, spanning more than six hours. She cited the former head of the United Kingdom’s National Cyber Security Center, who said that the outages appear to have been an attack called a “distributed denial of service,” attack– “an old technique in which hackers flood a server to prevent authentic users from reaching a website.” He added that he couldn’t “think of a company of the size and standing internationally of X that’s fallen over to a DDoS attack for a very long time,” adding that the outage “doesn’t reflect well on their cyber security.” (Musk, of course, blamed hackers in Ukraine for the outages, an accusation Martin called “pretty much garbage.”)

I think the resistance is just getting started…

Comments

Trump’s Frivolous Litigation

Not long after we were married, my husband–who was active in the state chapter of the American Institute of Architects– took me to an AIA-sponsored cocktail party. A somewhat inebriated attendee who had heard that I was a lawyer cornered me and wanted to know why the profession couldn’t keep lawyers from filing so many frivolous lawsuits. 

It turned out that he defined a frivolous suit as one that the plaintiff lost. (I hasten to report that most architects I know are considerably brighter than that particular specimen.)

I thought about that long-ago conversation as I listened to media reports about Trump lawyers filing multiple challenges to the election results. Thus far, those challenges have been overwhelmingly unsuccessful, and in this particular case, those losses–and the reason for them– are evidence of their frivolity. 

Wikipedia addresses the confusion between a claim that is ultimately unsuccessful and one that is frivolous.

Frivolous litigation is the use of legal processes with apparent disregard for the merit of one’s own arguments. It includes presenting an argument with reason to know that it would certainly fail, or acting without a basic level of diligence in researching the relevant law and facts. The fact that a claim is lost does not imply that it was frivolous.

The entry goes on to explain that a frivolous claim may be one that is based on an “absurd” legal theory, or it may involve repeated, duplicative motions or lawsuits–basically, it’s a lawsuit that lacks a genuine, underlying justification in fact, or because existing laws or legal judgments unequivocally prohibit the claim.

The federal courts, and most states, do provide remedies when a lawsuit has been deemed to be frivolous. Most allow the judge to award court costs and attorneys’ fees to the targeted person or company. In several states, lawyers who bring civil actions without probable cause will be liable to the prevailing party for double or even triple damages if the court determines that the action was brought “with malice to vex and trouble.”

The prevailing party may also file a grievance against the attorney who filed the suit for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, which clearly prohibit an ethical lawyer from engaging in such behavior.

Thus far, to the best of my knowledge, only one lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign achieved anything. That was a Pennsylvania case that succeeded in moving the Republican observers of the count–who were already in the room–six feet closer to the people who were actually doing the counting. Every other suit has been summarily dismissed for lack of any evidence of fraud or wrongdoing.

In an earlier post, I quoted Justin Levitt’s observation that–in the absence of facts sufficient to show a legal violation– these lawsuits were simply “tweets with filing fees.”  They aren’t intended to change an election result; they are intended to support the narrative  being conveyed to Trump’s credulous and angry base.

Every lawyer with whom I’ve discussed this PR tactic–including longtime Republicans–has dismissed the flurry of lawsuits as a delaying gimmick, a way to forestall an admission that  Trump lost. 

The Trump Campaign has nevertheless begun fundraising to cover its legal costs (although apparently, the “fine print” notes that monies raised will mostly go to pay off campaign debt). If I were a Biden lawyer defending against one of these petulant exercises masquerading as a lawsuits, I’d ask for whatever damages for frivolous lawsuits are available in that state–and I’d file a grievance with the state’s Disciplinary Commission. 

Evidently, the Lincoln Project intends to publicize the appalling lack of legal ethics being displayed by the lawyers willing to subvert the rule of law for monetary and partisan ends.There are also reports that a few principled lawyers have resigned from the firms that have agreed to handle these cases.

When this bratty tantrum concludes, its inexcusable assault on legal principle will be added to the very long list of norms attacked and weakened by this pathetic excuse for a human and his enablers. 

No one who has lived through the last four years could reasonably expect anything better from Trump–but the lawyers who are facilitating this travesty know better. They should be held to account.

And Bill Barr should be disbarred.

Comments