He’s been through a lot of lawyers and has not proven to be a delightful client. Yet, Donald Trump is now the defendant and, like any defendant, has a constitutional right to a defense. That, of course, doesn’t mean any particular lawyer has a responsibility to be the one to defend him.
Would you do it?
There are issues involved. The probability of prosecution. The harm to your reputation. Getting stiffed (assuming Trump would be disinclined to put a few mil in the till up front) and the embarrassment of trying to defend a client who refuses to cooperate, refuses to take instruction, refuses to keep lawyers out of his lies and obstructive conduct and, despite having the right to remain silent, refuses to shut his yap. Has any lawyer who has represented Trump walked away looking good?
South Florida has no shortage of excellent criminal defense lawyers. Indeed, it’s one of the hotspots for the practice in light of its centrality in the drug trade. And yet, these excellent lawyers want nothing to do with “the nightmare client.” And yet, every defendant has a right to counsel, and your love of the Constitution leaves you thinking that if no one else will take up the mantle of counsel for the defense, the duty falls to you. Can you do it? Would you do it? What conditions would you place on representing Trump, and what is the likelihood that he would agree to them or, even if he did, adhere to them for more than an hour or two?
https://twitter.com/GayPatriot/status/1668395160089116672
Would you defend Trump?
*Tuesday Talk rules apply, within reason.
IANAL but as I understand it lawyers are not supposed to assert as fact things that they know to be false.
However that may not leave Trump lawerless, Florida being centre of the drug trade their must be many Mafia lawyers he could employ.
Of course on second thoughts any competent mafia lawyer may work out that Trump is the kind of client liable accidentally to expose the fact that his lawyer is telling porkies and and sensibly pass up the opportunity to represent him.
I love the Southern District, and I’ve had some very fun long trials in each of the 8 courthouses. But I don’t need this one. Why take a job knowing I’d have to withdraw following the second conversation with the client? Yes, there are many fine CDLs roaming Miami-way, but I don’t think he’s going to get any of them, neither. Too bad Flee is gone.
Aside–this would be a lot more entertaining if one of the crusty old judges caught this one
Did this get wheeled to Cannon or assigned as a related case?
Asked over email whether normal procedures were followed and Judge Cannon’s assignment was random, Ms. Noble [the “chief clerk”] wrote: “Normal procedures were followed.”
Mar-a-Lago is in the West Palm Beach division, between the Fort Lauderdale division and the Fort Pierce division, where Judge Cannon sits. The district court’s website shows that seven active judges have chambers in those three divisions, as do three judges on senior status who still hear cases.
Ms. Noble wrote that certain factors increased the chances that the case would land before Judge Cannon.
For one, she said, senior judges are removed from the case assignment system, or wheel, once they fulfill their target caseload for the year. At least one of the senior judges is done, she wrote, adding that she was highly confident that the other two “are very likely at their target,” too.
In addition, she wrote, one of the seven active judges with chambers in Fort Lauderdale is now a Miami judge for the purpose of assignments. Another is not currently receiving cases.
Judge Cannon, Ms. Noble wrote, “draws 50 percent of her cases from West Palm Beach, increasing her odds.”
Not practising in US or criminal law is the easy out. Lots of lawyers willing to represent him another, I’m not needed.
But, ethically, if in some weird hypo I were able to represent him and no-one else was reasonably available, I think I’d have to. With the huge out that, as my client he’d have to agree to shut up in public with lies that made my job more difficult or denigrated the justice system, and if he didn’t I’d be free to leave. So I’d be free to leave within about 5 minutes.*
*Again not a criminal lawyer I think it’s not necessarily easy to cease representation merely because client violates terms of retainer? But this is a Tuesday hypo!
So we worry about a known known… (we know he can’t resist, and we know he’ll say something) instead of the outrageous display of so-called lawyers throwing attorney client privilege into the acid vat? ..whatever.
Mr. Don ain’t the only one who need’s to…
I’m not licensed in that court, but I suppose I can get pro haced (sp?) in without much trouble. So here’s some of my terms. If he’ll agree to them, I’ll consider it.
1 Cash up front.
2. If he does or says anything that damages his case, that’s on him, not me. I don’t promise he won’t fuck up his own case – or any part of his life.
3. I won’t lie or make legally frivolous arguments.
4. I won’t promise to say anything positive about him unless it’s necessary for legal purposes.
4. He gets to choose the ends. I get to choose the means.
5. No guarantee on results.
Don’t sit on the fence considering, please. Would you do it or not? He accepts all those conditions and is ready to pay at least a few mil up front. Would you actually sign him up?
There’s no world where I would. I’m not up to it in any sense. Even the idea of attempting to hold a conversation with Trump is horrifying. Defending him is out of the question.
Those terms are ordinary. What special terms besides #4, which is hilarious, would he get?
No. I don’t knowingly take engagements that waste my time, even if the client pays like a clock. Trump is too undisciplined, impulsive and ignorant to listen to what his counsel tell him or to follow their advice. Representing him is a fool’s errand.
Whoever decides to represent him better get a very large up front retainer, don’t you think?
Not a lawyer, but if I were, I’d steer clear. He’s burned at least 6 lawyers in the last 4-5 years with sanctions. Why would I want to be #7? Looks like he tried to burn 2 more on this case already.
Then there’s the fact that he can’t stay out of his own way, can’t follow basic legal advice, can’t avoid asking his lawyers to do illegal things. Who needs that kind of headache?
No. Not because the big T is uniquely reprehensible (tho maybe…). Wouldn’t because the defense belongs to the defendant, and this one’s history of having lawyers say total BS in court (that can be proven to be BS) and his treatment of his lawyers and minions as disposable would make me just say no.
Ahh, the classic conundrum of when the client values their 1AM rights uber alles.
Even if he pays up front (which he won’t), and you refuse to become embroiled in his lies and shenanigans, representing Trump will be a career killer. Other than other MAGAs, who wants to be represented by a Trump lawyer?
His lawyers in the case where the Trump organization was prosecuted are not considered Trump lawyers, because they got him to take the fifth and didn’t drink the koolaid.
That said, I have no confidence in my ability to repeatedly say no to Mr. Jones, so I would invoke the One License rule*.
* You only have one license to practice law, so don’t do anything to risk it.
By that logic, what attorney would want to represent drug dealers, murderers, child molesters, and even those accused of espionage (such as Snowden and Manning)? If you let your client’s reputation define you, then we no longer have a system where every client is entitled to representation unless they are the flavor of the month on social media.
On the contrary, there’s no problem defending the usual assortment of criminals. That’s the nature of being a CDL. Trump, however, is different in kind, not because of being accused of committing crimes, but because of his demand of fealty even from lawyers. The problem is Trump, not the offenses.
IANAL, so couldn’t serve as his atty. If I were a lawyer, I most likely couldn’t get security clearance sufficient to allow me access to documents that highly classified. Whether that should DQ me, I don’t know.
I’m not a CDL or even close to any kind of trial lawyer, but if I were, given that one of the things that got me interested in the law in the first place was the movie Reversal of Fortune and the principles espoused by Alan Dershowitz’s Harvard criminal defense clinic in the movie, I’d throw my hat in the ring to represent Trump. Claus von Bulow was superficially similar to Trump as a client: extremely wealthy, widely detested by the public, a personality that was very difficult to work with, an apparent two-faced liar, and believed by everyone to a near certainty of having committed the crime he was accused of. I know the movie is almost 35 years old and the ideas it stands for are woefully out of fashion now, but it’s the difficult cases that are worth standing up for.