Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I heard that the first time. I suppose it's a slow news day when we bother arguing about something like this. When a law firm announces they were asked by Trump to represent him and they refused, I will laugh. Until then I'm suspicious. This is too much like the "we won't dress Melania" and "we won't come to the WH" and "we won't come to the inaugural parade." Mean spirited and in this case, as likely to be made up as real. IMO.Morality almost certainly has nothing to do with it. It's all about risk management and revenue. In professional services firms, there are certain risks that aren't worth the revenue the may yield.It's hard to imagine 130 lawyers refusing a crack at Trump's checkbook. They're not the most morals-bound types, as a rule.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.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.
Careful. You're going to make me feel bad for the guy.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.
The other thing is few attorneys want to take on high profile cases for clients who won't listen - it can be disasterous.
Bullshit. Attorneys don't care as long as they get paid for their time. Besides, what makes you think that attorneys tell their clients what to do????Attorneys don't care as long as they get paid for their time.
You just keep thinking that. Run your own business that way if you like. In the mean time, providers of professional services will continue to refrain from taking engagements that bode to increase the risk of their not obtaining a host of future engagements.
That's going to be more so for defense attorneys than for, say, civil litigators, arbitrators, and family law practitioners, for unless the client in question is an inveterate miscreant for whom the attorney successfully prevails at trial, a defense attorney will not expect to get much repeat business from a given client -- either because they lost the case or because the client isn't "rotten to the bone" and "keeps their nose clean" enough to not again need representation in a criminal proceeding -- as they will get referrals from prior clients and/or be solicited by people who feel comfortable with their reputations.
With most famous potential clients, and most especially POTUSes, there would be little to no issue with representing them. Indeed, representing them would be a boon to the attorney's business for more than the quantifiable fees earned. Trump, however, is not most famous potential clients. The man, if he wasn't before becoming POTUS [1], is the most polarizing human on the planet. Though millions of people support him, the fact of the matter is that many of people who can afford the fees of a first rate defense attorney's representation, which is not most if Trumpkins, have no respect for him as a man. Even the ones who favor one or several of his policy proposals do so while also being very careful to make clear their approbation is for the policy not the person.
In short, top defense attorneys in Washington, which,for obvious reasons, is from where he's hoping to find one, don't need Trump as a client because taking him on carries more professional/business risk than does not taking him a client. It's essentially the opposite side of the very same "coin" Trump himself used when he gave free honorary and unrequested memberships at Mar-a-Lago to luminaries including Prince Charles and Princess Diana, Steven Spielberg, Henry Kissinger, Lee Iacocca, Denzel Washington, Michael Ovitz, Norman Mailer, and Elizabeth Taylor, thereby speciously attempting to give his club the appearance of social legitimacy, That is something Trump's billions cannot (and has yet to) buy, as shown by the fact that he's been blackballed at all three of the relevant clubs in Palm Beach, FL.
Note:
- Trump, unlike his parents, has never garnered the respect of a majority of his social peers. To wit, it's long been understood in certain circles that the main reason Trump bought Mar-a-Lago and converted it into a country club is because he couldn't get admitted to Everglades, B&T or Palm Beach Country Club
Exactly. Professional ethics standards prevent individuals like attorneys, accountants, and consultants from accepting fees for work they cannot adequately perform. In very few instances does that requirement come to the fore; however, when one's client comports themselves such that they become the reason the professional cannot deliver, the client needs to find a different professional to help them."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.
The other thing is few attorneys want to take on high profile cases for clients who won't listen - it can be disasterous.
Bullshit. Attorneys don't care as long as they get paid for their time. Besides, what makes you think that attorneys tell their clients what to do????
I would think the last thing a defense attorney wants is a loose cannon who's responses are unpredictable. Usually these things are well coached and the client is told what to shut his mouth about and how not to go off on the wrong tangents. That's the impression I get.
I would think that any reputable attorney would jump at the chance to represent the president. Look at the referrals. Attorneys make or break off of high profile clients. Sorry to have brought facts into this.
Possibly, but if their client is unwilling to listen to advice it's a risky endeavor.
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
Careful. You're going to make me feel bad for the guy.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.
The other thing is few attorneys want to take on high profile cases for clients who won't listen - it can be disasterous.
Bullshit. Attorneys don't care as long as they get paid for their time. Besides, what makes you think that attorneys tell their clients what to do????Attorneys don't care as long as they get paid for their time.
You just keep thinking that. Run your own business that way if you like. In the mean time, providers of professional services will continue to refrain from taking engagements that bode to increase the risk of their not obtaining a host of future engagements.
That's going to be more so for defense attorneys than for, say, civil litigators, arbitrators, and family law practitioners, for unless the client in question is an inveterate miscreant for whom the attorney successfully prevails at trial, a defense attorney will not expect to get much repeat business from a given client -- either because they lost the case or because the client isn't "rotten to the bone" and "keeps their nose clean" enough to not again need representation in a criminal proceeding -- as they will get referrals from prior clients and/or be solicited by people who feel comfortable with their reputations.
With most famous potential clients, and most especially POTUSes, there would be little to no issue with representing them. Indeed, representing them would be a boon to the attorney's business for more than the quantifiable fees earned. Trump, however, is not most famous potential clients. The man, if he wasn't before becoming POTUS [1], is the most polarizing human on the planet. Though millions of people support him, the fact of the matter is that many of people who can afford the fees of a first rate defense attorney's representation, which is not most if Trumpkins, have no respect for him as a man. Even the ones who favor one or several of his policy proposals do so while also being very careful to make clear their approbation is for the policy not the person.
In short, top defense attorneys in Washington, which,for obvious reasons, is from where he's hoping to find one, don't need Trump as a client because taking him on carries more professional/business risk than does not taking him a client. It's essentially the opposite side of the very same "coin" Trump himself used when he gave free honorary and unrequested memberships at Mar-a-Lago to luminaries including Prince Charles and Princess Diana, Steven Spielberg, Henry Kissinger, Lee Iacocca, Denzel Washington, Michael Ovitz, Norman Mailer, and Elizabeth Taylor, thereby speciously attempting to give his club the appearance of social legitimacy, That is something Trump's billions cannot (and has yet to) buy, as shown by the fact that he's been blackballed at all three of the relevant clubs in Palm Beach, FL.
Note:
- Trump, unlike his parents, has never garnered the respect of a majority of his social peers. To wit, it's long been understood in certain circles that the main reason Trump bought Mar-a-Lago and converted it into a country club is because he couldn't get admitted to Everglades, B&T or Palm Beach Country Club
Norman Mailer is still alive? Good God. I'll bet he and Trump would get along well, though. Shock jocks from way back.
Careful. You're going to make me feel bad for the guy.
I heard that the first time. I suppose it's a slow news day when we bother arguing about something like this. When a law firm announces they were asked by Trump to represent him and they refused, I will laugh. Until then I'm suspicious. This is too much like the "we won't dress Melania" and "we won't come to the WH" and "we won't come to the inaugural parade." Mean spirited and in this case, as likely to be made up as real. IMO.Morality almost certainly has nothing to do with it. It's all about risk management and revenue. In professional services firms, there are certain risks that aren't worth the revenue the may yield.It's hard to imagine 130 lawyers refusing a crack at Trump's checkbook. They're not the most morals-bound types, as a rule.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.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.
For the defense attorneys who've refused to represent Trump, being mean spirited need not come into play. There're legitimate business reasons, business risks, for not taking on Trump's "Russia" matter.Mean spirited and in this case, as likely to be made up as real.
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
Of course you would question any story critical of your orange faced baboon. Pay no attention to the fat, vain narcissist cowering behind the curtain.
Careful. You're going to make me feel bad for the guy."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.
The other thing is few attorneys want to take on high profile cases for clients who won't listen - it can be disasterous.
Bullshit. Attorneys don't care as long as they get paid for their time. Besides, what makes you think that attorneys tell their clients what to do????Attorneys don't care as long as they get paid for their time.
You just keep thinking that. Run your own business that way if you like. In the mean time, providers of professional services will continue to refrain from taking engagements that bode to increase the risk of their not obtaining a host of future engagements.
That's going to be more so for defense attorneys than for, say, civil litigators, arbitrators, and family law practitioners, for unless the client in question is an inveterate miscreant for whom the attorney successfully prevails at trial, a defense attorney will not expect to get much repeat business from a given client -- either because they lost the case or because the client isn't "rotten to the bone" and "keeps their nose clean" enough to not again need representation in a criminal proceeding -- as they will get referrals from prior clients and/or be solicited by people who feel comfortable with their reputations.
With most famous potential clients, and most especially POTUSes, there would be little to no issue with representing them. Indeed, representing them would be a boon to the attorney's business for more than the quantifiable fees earned. Trump, however, is not most famous potential clients. The man, if he wasn't before becoming POTUS [1], is the most polarizing human on the planet. Though millions of people support him, the fact of the matter is that many of people who can afford the fees of a first rate defense attorney's representation, which is not most if Trumpkins, have no respect for him as a man. Even the ones who favor one or several of his policy proposals do so while also being very careful to make clear their approbation is for the policy not the person.
In short, top defense attorneys in Washington, which,for obvious reasons, is from where he's hoping to find one, don't need Trump as a client because taking him on carries more professional/business risk than does not taking him a client. It's essentially the opposite side of the very same "coin" Trump himself used when he gave free honorary and unrequested memberships at Mar-a-Lago to luminaries including Prince Charles and Princess Diana, Steven Spielberg, Henry Kissinger, Lee Iacocca, Denzel Washington, Michael Ovitz, Norman Mailer, and Elizabeth Taylor, thereby speciously attempting to give his club the appearance of social legitimacy, That is something Trump's billions cannot (and has yet to) buy, as shown by the fact that he's been blackballed at all three of the relevant clubs in Palm Beach, FL.
Note:
- Trump, unlike his parents, has never garnered the respect of a majority of his social peers. To wit, it's long been understood in certain circles that the main reason Trump bought Mar-a-Lago and converted it into a country club is because he couldn't get admitted to Everglades, B&T or Palm Beach Country Club
Norman Mailer is still alive? Good God. I'll bet he and Trump would get along well, though. Shock jocks from way back.Careful. You're going to make me feel bad for the guy.
Frankly, I think pity is an appropriate emotion to have for Trump. I pity him every time I think of him.
You have that correspondence backwards. It is prosecutors who prevail at trail as a result of defendants being "lose cannons." Defense attorneys make their mark, among other ways, by prevailing at trial, and a "lose cannon" client is the last thing that can facilitate that happening.The other thing is few attorneys want to take on high profile cases for clients who won't listen - it can be disasterous.
Bullshit. Attorneys don't care as long as they get paid for their time. Besides, what makes you think that attorneys tell their clients what to do????
I would think the last thing a defense attorney wants is a loose cannon who's responses are unpredictable. Usually these things are well coached and the client is told what to shut his mouth about and how not to go off on the wrong tangents. That's the impression I get.
HAHAHAHAHAAAAA
Defense attorneys thrive on loose cannons.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be defense attorneys. They'd be prosecutors.
Who also thrive on loose cannons.
Conflict is their bread and butter.
Surely you don't think the handful of defense attorneys who are at the top of their profession and whose names are recognized by the general public achieved their renown by losing? Fame aside, no attorney makes a name for themselves by losing cases. I mean really. Would you, if you are of a mind to assert your lack of guilt, engage a defense attorney who's reputation is that of being a great plea bargainer? I'm suspect there's a place in the legal profession for that skill, but one would need to admit guilt if that's the type of advocate one should hire. About the last thing Trump'll do is admit guilt, so that'd definitely not the kind of defense attorney he wants.
Of what state bars are you a member?You are wrong if you think "winning" is dependent upon a client "minding".
You are also wrong if you think defense attorneys freak out at the thought of a client who doesn't do as he's told. The good ones take cases because they believe they can win on what already exists...not based on how good their client behaves before trial.
Careful. You're going to make me feel bad for the guy.The other thing is few attorneys want to take on high profile cases for clients who won't listen - it can be disasterous.
Bullshit. Attorneys don't care as long as they get paid for their time. Besides, what makes you think that attorneys tell their clients what to do????Attorneys don't care as long as they get paid for their time.
You just keep thinking that. Run your own business that way if you like. In the mean time, providers of professional services will continue to refrain from taking engagements that bode to increase the risk of their not obtaining a host of future engagements.
That's going to be more so for defense attorneys than for, say, civil litigators, arbitrators, and family law practitioners, for unless the client in question is an inveterate miscreant for whom the attorney successfully prevails at trial, a defense attorney will not expect to get much repeat business from a given client -- either because they lost the case or because the client isn't "rotten to the bone" and "keeps their nose clean" enough to not again need representation in a criminal proceeding -- as they will get referrals from prior clients and/or be solicited by people who feel comfortable with their reputations.
With most famous potential clients, and most especially POTUSes, there would be little to no issue with representing them. Indeed, representing them would be a boon to the attorney's business for more than the quantifiable fees earned. Trump, however, is not most famous potential clients. The man, if he wasn't before becoming POTUS [1], is the most polarizing human on the planet. Though millions of people support him, the fact of the matter is that many of people who can afford the fees of a first rate defense attorney's representation, which is not most if Trumpkins, have no respect for him as a man. Even the ones who favor one or several of his policy proposals do so while also being very careful to make clear their approbation is for the policy not the person.
In short, top defense attorneys in Washington, which,for obvious reasons, is from where he's hoping to find one, don't need Trump as a client because taking him on carries more professional/business risk than does not taking him a client. It's essentially the opposite side of the very same "coin" Trump himself used when he gave free honorary and unrequested memberships at Mar-a-Lago to luminaries including Prince Charles and Princess Diana, Steven Spielberg, Henry Kissinger, Lee Iacocca, Denzel Washington, Michael Ovitz, Norman Mailer, and Elizabeth Taylor, thereby speciously attempting to give his club the appearance of social legitimacy, That is something Trump's billions cannot (and has yet to) buy, as shown by the fact that he's been blackballed at all three of the relevant clubs in Palm Beach, FL.
Note:
- Trump, unlike his parents, has never garnered the respect of a majority of his social peers. To wit, it's long been understood in certain circles that the main reason Trump bought Mar-a-Lago and converted it into a country club is because he couldn't get admitted to Everglades, B&T or Palm Beach Country Club
Norman Mailer is still alive? Good God. I'll bet he and Trump would get along well, though. Shock jocks from way back.Careful. You're going to make me feel bad for the guy.
Frankly, I think pity is an appropriate emotion to have for Trump. I pity him every time I think of him.
That served you well in the election, after all.
Interestingly, none of the law firms in question have denied the story.
"Brendan Sullivan of Williams & Connolly, Ted Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Paul Clement and Mark Filip of Kirkland & Ellis and Robert Giuffra of Sullivan & Cromwell are reportedly among those who turned the White House down. None of them returned requests for comment to Yahoo."
Four top law firms turned down Trump: report
Why was there no denial? Inquiring minds want to know.
Interestingly, none of the law firms in question have denied the story.
"Brendan Sullivan of Williams & Connolly, Ted Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Paul Clement and Mark Filip of Kirkland & Ellis and Robert Giuffra of Sullivan & Cromwell are reportedly among those who turned the White House down. None of them returned requests for comment to Yahoo."
Four top law firms turned down Trump: report
Why was there no denial? Inquiring minds want to know.
This is key. Whether they are pro-trump or anti, they would not want to be known for turning him down.
And, yes, there are reasons why he would choose to use a different firm than his own.
SassyIrishLass -- If you knew as much as you say you do, you would also know that there's no privilege. You would also know there's not a soul on the entire planet who does not already know that trump does not pay his bills and does not listen.
You've gotten caught in this lie before. Why don't you stop digging?
Interestingly, none of the law firms in question have denied the story.
"Brendan Sullivan of Williams & Connolly, Ted Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Paul Clement and Mark Filip of Kirkland & Ellis and Robert Giuffra of Sullivan & Cromwell are reportedly among those who turned the White House down. None of them returned requests for comment to Yahoo."
Four top law firms turned down Trump: report
Why was there no denial? Inquiring minds want to know.
This is key. Whether they are pro-trump or anti, they would not want to be known for turning him down.
And, yes, there are reasons
why he would choose to use a different firm than his own.
SassyIrishLass -- If you knew as much as you say you do, you would also know that there's no privilege. You would also know there's not a soul on the entire planet who does not already know that trump does not pay his bills and does not listen.
You've gotten caught in this lie before. Why don't you stop digging?
babble & GassyIriahAss commenting on serious matters lol
He's a horrible client because he's a loose cannon who threw his own Deputy Attorney General, not to mention other staff members, under the bus idiots
^ thatTrump's famous for not paying and certainly for not listening.
