In familiar predicament for famously challenging client, multiple Florida lawyers decline to take Trump’s case, people familiar with the matter say.

  • SomeGuyNamedPaul@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The common joke from the other place was MAGA stood for make attorneys get attorneys. It’s one thing to get paid in exposure, but it’s alright another thing to get “paid” in legal exposure. As an attorney what do you do? Can you really include a weasel statement in every filing saying “this is what he told me, I have no idea if it’s true but it’s it’s not then it’s not my ass”?

    Trump’s built a reputation as being a hard client to represent. Even worse is that Trump attorneys have had some notably batshit crazy examples that makes it challenging to one’s reputation to get lumped in with. Good attorneys have had to quit their firms in order to represent Trump.

    Heck, the current vacancies are because they saw what they were up against and noped out. It’s like if a place has 1.2 stars on Glassdoor, are you really gonna risk your career and jump ship to them?

    • TheSaneWriter@vlemmy.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even beyond that, Trump’s known for not paying his staff unless he’s forced to, so some of attorneys literally got paid in exposure. The prospect of not being paid makes him an even more risky client to take on, and I wouldn’t be completely shocked if at this point he ended up with a public defender.

    • ritswd@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      100% agreed with everything there, except for the last paragraph, because it’s a question I’ve asked lawyers before (about representing a clearly losing case). What I was told is that a lawyer’s job (unless they’re paid on commission like personal injury lawyers) is not to win the case, but to accurately represent the case so the whole system works as fairly as it can. Basically, it’s to make sure that people don’t get a punishment because “the king decided so” without the actual situation being looked at, as used to be the case. So, when you represent a pure scum bag who clearly eats babies, it’s fine, because when they get locked up, you did your part in making sure they get there because they did what they did and for no other subjective reason.

      Obviously “representing accurately and fairly” doesn’t work when Trump intentionally misleads his lawyers and puts them in legal hot water, which is the point you make higher and which I wholly agree with. Why would a lawyer want that kind of risk for themselves?