Major Law Firms Won't Defend Trump

[mamooth]

Oh dear. Trump's reputation as a deadbeat has caught up with him.

Four top law firms turned down requests to represent Trump
---
“The concerns were, ‘The guy won’t pay and he won’t listen,’” said one lawyer close to the White House who is familiar with some of the discussions between the firms and the administration, as well as deliberations within the firms themselves.
---

In addition, law firms are concerned about losing other clients and losing employees if they sign on with Trump. Trump's stench of failure is pervasive. It's the reason why so many government positions are unfilled -- nobody wants "Worked with the Trump admin" on their resume.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Not much of a firm would reveal this info after speaking with a potential client.

Which leads me to question the validity of the story

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course "real" firms would do so.

He does not pay and he does not listen sounds like who do we know who is president?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No they wouldn't, my husband manages a firm....what's your background?

 

[koshergrl]

Mamooth pushing the fake narrative. Yeah, everybody hates Trump.

That's why this:

WOW! Dem Lawmaker Walks Out of Town Hall Event After Crowd Starts Chanting “We Love Trump!” (VIDEO)

 

[usmbguest5318]

From the linked article:

Other factors, [a White House] lawyer said, were that it would “kill recruitment” for the firms to be publicly associated with representing the polarizing president and jeopardize the firms’ relationships with other clients.
​

Though I'm not an attorney, my firm "lives and dies" on its reputation more than anything else. Of all the things one might have learned about Trump, one of them most certainly is that the only reputation that may matter to him is his. It's simply not acceptable for consultancies, law advocacies, accountancies, etc. to risk their existing revenue streams and recruitment stance by involving themselves with Trump. It's simply absurd to do so.

Accordingly, while the cited article presents the factor described above as an "other" one, the risk management assessment principals at law firms surely performed in considering the pros and cons of taking Trump as a client more than likely comprised the controlling reason for why they were unamenable to accepting any actual or potential offer of engagement. Everything else the firms said rung to me (a senior principal in a professional services firm) as nothing more than polite verbiage for saying "no."

 

[SassyIrishLass]

From the linked article:

Other factors, [a White House] lawyer said, were that it would “kill recruitment” for the firms to be publicly associated with representing the polarizing president and jeopardize the firms’ relationships with other clients.
​

Though I'm not an attorney, my firm "lives and dies" on its reputation more than anything else. Of all the things one might have learned about Trump, one of them most certainly is that the only reputation that may matter to him is his. It's simply not acceptable for consultancies, law advocacies, accountancies, etc. to risk their existing revenue streams and recruitment stance by involving themselves with Trump. It's simply absurd to do so.

Accordingly, while the cited article presents the factor described above as an "other" one, the risk management assessment principals at law firms surely performed in considering the pros and cons of taking Trump as a client more than likely comprised the controlling reason for why they were unamenable to accepting any actual or potential offer of engagement. Everything else the firms said rung to me (a senior principal in a professional services firm) as nothing more than polite verbiage for saying "no."

Bullshit, this reeks of fake news

 

[usmbguest5318]

everybody hates Trump.

"Everybody" doesn't hate Trump, but the people and firms at the top of the legal profession have little or nothing to gain by affiliating themselves with Trump and being thus exposed to and having therefore to mitigate the impacts of his shenanigans. Trump needs to reach out to attorneys/firms for whom the value proposition of being bothered with him can be quantifiably be shown, with regard to their revenue streams and reputations, to be a positive one.

 

[GHook93]

Oh dear. Trump's reputation as a deadbeat has caught up with him.

Four top law firms turned down requests to represent Trump
---
“The concerns were, ‘The guy won’t pay and he won’t listen,’” said one lawyer close to the White House who is familiar with some of the discussions between the firms and the administration, as well as deliberations within the firms themselves.
---

In addition, law firms are concerned about losing other clients and losing employees if they sign on with Trump. Trump's stench of failure is pervasive. It's the reason why so many government positions are unfilled -- nobody wants "Worked with the Trump admin" on their resume.

No it is a business decision. They are afraid of the liberal wrath. Business leaders fear the hit they will take. Law firms are not different!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[usmbguest5318]

From the linked article:

Other factors, [a White House] lawyer said, were that it would “kill recruitment” for the firms to be publicly associated with representing the polarizing president and jeopardize the firms’ relationships with other clients.
​

Though I'm not an attorney, my firm "lives and dies" on its reputation more than anything else. Of all the things one might have learned about Trump, one of them most certainly is that the only reputation that may matter to him is his. It's simply not acceptable for consultancies, law advocacies, accountancies, etc. to risk their existing revenue streams and recruitment stance by involving themselves with Trump. It's simply absurd to do so.

Accordingly, while the cited article presents the factor described above as an "other" one, the risk management assessment principals at law firms surely performed in considering the pros and cons of taking Trump as a client more than likely comprised the controlling reason for why they were unamenable to accepting any actual or potential offer of engagement. Everything else the firms said rung to me (a senior principal in a professional services firm) as nothing more than polite verbiage for saying "no."

Bullshit, this reeks of fake news

I'm not surprised you think so.

 

[Preacher]

Oh dear. Trump's reputation as a deadbeat has caught up with him.

Four top law firms turned down requests to represent Trump
---
“The concerns were, ‘The guy won’t pay and he won’t listen,’” said one lawyer close to the White House who is familiar with some of the discussions between the firms and the administration, as well as deliberations within the firms themselves.
---

In addition, law firms are concerned about losing other clients and losing employees if they sign on with Trump. Trump's stench of failure is pervasive. It's the reason why so many government positions are unfilled -- nobody wants "Worked with the Trump admin" on their resume.

More FAKE news bullshit. You don't go Lawyer shopping when you have a GREAT lawyer you have used for DECADES and has done a great job for you. As usual more "anonymous" sources...YAWN.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

From the linked article:

Other factors, [a White House] lawyer said, were that it would “kill recruitment” for the firms to be publicly associated with representing the polarizing president and jeopardize the firms’ relationships with other clients.
​

Though I'm not an attorney, my firm "lives and dies" on its reputation more than anything else. Of all the things one might have learned about Trump, one of them most certainly is that the only reputation that may matter to him is his. It's simply not acceptable for consultancies, law advocacies, accountancies, etc. to risk their existing revenue streams and recruitment stance by involving themselves with Trump. It's simply absurd to do so.

Accordingly, while the cited article presents the factor described above as an "other" one, the risk management assessment principals at law firms surely performed in considering the pros and cons of taking Trump as a client more than likely comprised the controlling reason for why they were unamenable to accepting any actual or potential offer of engagement. Everything else the firms said rung to me (a senior principal in a professional services firm) as nothing more than polite verbiage for saying "no."

Bullshit, this reeks of fake news

I'm not surprised you think so.

I'm not surprised you're buying it....see how this works?

Unnamed sources should be your first clue, moron

 

[GHook93]

Oh dear. Trump's reputation as a deadbeat has caught up with him.

Four top law firms turned down requests to represent Trump
---
“The concerns were, ‘The guy

won’t pay (CODE)and he won’t listen,’said one lawyer close to the White House who is familiar with some of the discussions between the firms and the administration, as well as deliberations within the firms themselves.
---[/QUOTE]

What a dishonest ****. You added the line won't pay! That wasn't in the article or the quote. YOU ADDED IT. It said "the guy won't listen." You added "won't pay."

Scumbag


Sent from my iPhone using [url=http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=82210]USMessageBoard.com[/url]

 

[JakeStarkey]

No they wouldn't, my husband manages a firm....what's your background?

You don't speak for your husband's firm.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trump does not pay and does not listen.

 

[usmbguest5318]

From the linked article:

Other factors, [a White House] lawyer said, were that it would “kill recruitment” for the firms to be publicly associated with representing the polarizing president and jeopardize the firms’ relationships with other clients.
​

Though I'm not an attorney, my firm "lives and dies" on its reputation more than anything else. Of all the things one might have learned about Trump, one of them most certainly is that the only reputation that may matter to him is his. It's simply not acceptable for consultancies, law advocacies, accountancies, etc. to risk their existing revenue streams and recruitment stance by involving themselves with Trump. It's simply absurd to do so.

Accordingly, while the cited article presents the factor described above as an "other" one, the risk management assessment principals at law firms surely performed in considering the pros and cons of taking Trump as a client more than likely comprised the controlling reason for why they were unamenable to accepting any actual or potential offer of engagement. Everything else the firms said rung to me (a senior principal in a professional services firm) as nothing more than polite verbiage for saying "no."

Bullshit, this reeks of fake news

I'm not surprised you think so.

I'm not surprised you're buying it....see how this works?

Unnamed sources should be your first clue, moron

I'm not surprised you're buying it

If you construe my comments above as my "buying" anything, you either didn't fully read them or didn't fully comprehend them. I don't know which, but it's one of the two.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

From the linked article:

Other factors, [a White House] lawyer said, were that it would “kill recruitment” for the firms to be publicly associated with representing the polarizing president and jeopardize the firms’ relationships with other clients.
​

Though I'm not an attorney, my firm "lives and dies" on its reputation more than anything else. Of all the things one might have learned about Trump, one of them most certainly is that the only reputation that may matter to him is his. It's simply not acceptable for consultancies, law advocacies, accountancies, etc. to risk their existing revenue streams and recruitment stance by involving themselves with Trump. It's simply absurd to do so.

Accordingly, while the cited article presents the factor described above as an "other" one, the risk management assessment principals at law firms surely performed in considering the pros and cons of taking Trump as a client more than likely comprised the controlling reason for why they were unamenable to accepting any actual or potential offer of engagement. Everything else the firms said rung to me (a senior principal in a professional services firm) as nothing more than polite verbiage for saying "no."

Bullshit, this reeks of fake news

I'm not surprised you think so.

I'm not surprised you're buying it....see how this works?

Unnamed sources should be your first clue, moron

I'm not surprised you're buying it

If you construe my comments above as my "buying" anything, you either didn't fully read them or didn't comprehend them. I don't know which, but it's one of the two.

Nobody cares, you're not important, now go bother someone else

 

[JakeStarkey]

From the linked article:

Other factors, [a White House] lawyer said, were that it would “kill recruitment” for the firms to be publicly associated with representing the polarizing president and jeopardize the firms’ relationships with other clients.
​

Though I'm not an attorney, my firm "lives and dies" on its reputation more than anything else. Of all the things one might have learned about Trump, one of them most certainly is that the only reputation that may matter to him is his. It's simply not acceptable for consultancies, law advocacies, accountancies, etc. to risk their existing revenue streams and recruitment stance by involving themselves with Trump. It's simply absurd to do so.

Accordingly, while the cited article presents the factor described above as an "other" one, the risk management assessment principals at law firms surely performed in considering the pros and cons of taking Trump as a client more than likely comprised the controlling reason for why they were unamenable to accepting any actual or potential offer of engagement. Everything else the firms said rung to me (a senior principal in a professional services firm) as nothing more than polite verbiage for saying "no."

Bullshit, this reeks of fake news

I'm not surprised you think so.

I'm not surprised you're buying it....see how this works?

Unnamed sources should be your first clue, moron

I'm not surprised you're buying it

If you construe my comments above as my "buying" anything, you either didn't fully read them or didn't comprehend them. I don't know which, but it's one of the two.

Nobody cares, you're not important, now go bother someone else

Ah, talking to yourself in the mirror again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not much of a firm would reveal this info after speaking with a potential client.

Which leads me to question the validity of the story

The law firm of Obama, Clinton, Podesta and D4E

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Bullshit, this reeks of fake news

I'm not surprised you think so.

I'm not surprised you're buying it....see how this works?

Unnamed sources should be your first clue, moron

I'm not surprised you're buying it

If you construe my comments above as my "buying" anything, you either didn't fully read them or didn't comprehend them. I don't know which, but it's one of the two.

Nobody cares, you're not important, now go bother someone else

Ah, talking to yourself in the mirror again.

Run along Fake, you're just an annoyance, never right about anything, you report anyone that challenges you and now you've bought into this BS that is an obvious fake fluff piece...because you're not a lawyer, you don't understand how a firm operates and it gives you yet another chance to expose you as a fake republican.

Now scram