As happens so often in the Trump administration, a Tweet set this story in motion:

So … that sounds a bit like the president just admitted to obstruction of justice. Previously, he said he fired Flynn for lying to Vice President Mike Pence. If he also fired him because he knew up front that Flynn lied to the FBI—and then Trump went on to ask James Comey to back off the Flynn investigation—well, that's a problem.

But then came a report from the Washington Post. Trump didn't write the tweet. His lawyer, John Dowd, did it.

Say what?

The reaction from fellow lawyers on Twitter was swift—and skeptical.

Illinois AG candidate and former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti wrote: “Most lawyers I know are so careful about what they write that they triple-check every letter they send out. We're supposed to believe Trump's lawyer wrote a false tweet about the Mueller investigation and sent it out through the President's account?

He followed up with, “So Dowd claims he sent a false tweet under Trump's name? Does anyone really believe that?”

Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe responded, “Not for a New York minute. It's a pile of crap. Not to put too soft a point on it.”

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Ted Boutrous offered, “The 'my-lawyer-wrote-my-tweet' defense seems like a privilege waiver and an invitation to the Special Counsel to interview or subpoena the lawyer.”

National security/ whistleblower specialist Mark Zaid added, “It's not entirely the writing of the tweet that raises legal privilege issues—as lawyers we write client statements all the time. It's more that he now revealed that fact, which normally would require client permission, that could cause a waiver & open him to questioning. Fun!”

Think Progress editor Ian Millhiser: “Just so we're clear, a vetted statement drafted by counsel that admits to a crime is MUCH MORE INCRIMINATING than a tweet tossed off by a suspect with a well-known reputation for saying things that aren't true.”

Former White House ethics lawyer Norm Eisen: “I know Dowd, he is smarter than to send that tweet. How do we know 'two unnamed WH officials' aren't lying? Have they offered any proof? How can we believe anything anyone says in this WH anyhow? Finally, did the Prez see it or hit send himself? Just asking some questions…”

Former Office of Government Ethics Head Walter Shaub: “Dowd's explanation to CNN makes no sense. He claims he wrote the tweet claiming Flynn was fired partly for lying to the FBI, but he also rejects the idea that POTUS knew Flynn had lied. Why would you write the tweet then, Dowd? Or did you?”

Revolution LLC general counsel Ronald Klain: “Hey Twitter: It doesn't matter who DRAFTED the Trump/Dowd tweet. What matters is that it confirms that Trump knew Flynn had committed a crime when he asked Comey to let it go. THAT is obstruction.”

Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal: “Whatever the Dowd kerfuffle facts may be, tweet reminds us of need for Mueller investigation. So many shifting stories, about an improbable + increasing number of Russians & what Trump knew + when he knew it, anyone who thinks 'there is nothing there' has more than their head in the sand.”

|

Sanctions Slugfest Between Star Litigators from Dechert, Gibson Dunn and Morgan Lewis

It was 10:30 in the morning on Thursday when top litigators including Gibson Dunn & Crutcher's Randy Mastro; Dechert's Andrew Levander; Thompson & Knight's Marion Bachrach and Morgan Lewis & Bockius' Christopher Parlo assembled in the Foley Square courtroom of U.S. District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan.

The topic: motions for sanctions in a high-profile suit against Fox News by ex-host Andrea Tantaros.

Almost eight hours later, they were still there. Daniels finally shut it down at 6 pmwithout making a decision—underscoring what a hornet's nest of case this is.

As Parlo wrote to the judge on Nov. 29, “Respectfully, in my nearly 30 years of practice I have never seen a group of lawyers so quick to threaten sanctions against other members of the bar or who would try to use our response to such threats to seek an advantage with this court in other pending motions (and all without giving the court the full background and context).”

Whoa, not so fast there.

“[W]e recognize and appreciate that sanctions are reserved for the most egregious abuses,” Mastro wrote on Sept. 1, before Parlo was hired. “We respectfully submit that this is such a circumstance. There must be a consequence for counsel who lie, bully, and threaten innocent parties to try to extort millions of dollars from them under peril of adverse publicity damaging to their personal reputations.”

Pull up a chair—this fight is juicy. Read the whole story here on the Lit Daily website.

More Legal News

Coyle's Cases to Watch: Masterpiece Cakeshop and NJ Sports Gambling
The fabulous Marcia Coyle spotlights two cases set for argument this week.

SeaWorld Seeks Sanctions Against Covington in Suit Over Orca Claims
SeaWorld's lawyers at Norton Rose Fulbright claim “the entire case stands on a false foundation created to advance the anti-captivity agenda of the Earth Island Institute.”

Bananas for Breakfast … And More Advice for SCOTUS Advocates
News you can use. Like eat salmon for dinner the night before.

Defense Lawyer in Mueller Probe Rejects Suggestion of Conflict
“In this case, the government seeks to intrude upon the attorney-client relationship by requesting a Curcio hearing based solely on the fact that the two defendants have had a business relationship unrelated to the matters at issue in their respective cases,” wrote Walter Mack.

Ex-Paul Weiss Lawyer Gets Five Years for Child Porn
As part of his sentence, former staff attorney Jason Mark Sims must write an article for publication about his crime in an “effort to achieve general deterrence.”

Dewey Execs Near Deal to Resolve SEC Suit Following Firm's Collapse
The SEC alleges in its civil suit that the executives and others misled investors about the shaky state of Dewey's finances to help facilitate a $150 million bond placement.

As happens so often in the Trump administration, a Tweet set this story in motion:

So … that sounds a bit like the president just admitted to obstruction of justice. Previously, he said he fired Flynn for lying to Vice President Mike Pence. If he also fired him because he knew up front that Flynn lied to the FBI—and then Trump went on to ask James Comey to back off the Flynn investigation—well, that's a problem.

But then came a report from the Washington Post. Trump didn't write the tweet. His lawyer, John Dowd, did it.

Say what?

The reaction from fellow lawyers on Twitter was swift—and skeptical.

Illinois AG candidate and former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti wrote: “Most lawyers I know are so careful about what they write that they triple-check every letter they send out. We're supposed to believe Trump's lawyer wrote a false tweet about the Mueller investigation and sent it out through the President's account?

He followed up with, “So Dowd claims he sent a false tweet under Trump's name? Does anyone really believe that?”

Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe responded, “Not for a New York minute. It's a pile of crap. Not to put too soft a point on it.”

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Ted Boutrous offered, “The 'my-lawyer-wrote-my-tweet' defense seems like a privilege waiver and an invitation to the Special Counsel to interview or subpoena the lawyer.”

National security/ whistleblower specialist Mark Zaid added, “It's not entirely the writing of the tweet that raises legal privilege issues—as lawyers we write client statements all the time. It's more that he now revealed that fact, which normally would require client permission, that could cause a waiver & open him to questioning. Fun!”

Think Progress editor Ian Millhiser: “Just so we're clear, a vetted statement drafted by counsel that admits to a crime is MUCH MORE INCRIMINATING than a tweet tossed off by a suspect with a well-known reputation for saying things that aren't true.”

Former White House ethics lawyer Norm Eisen: “I know Dowd, he is smarter than to send that tweet. How do we know 'two unnamed WH officials' aren't lying? Have they offered any proof? How can we believe anything anyone says in this WH anyhow? Finally, did the Prez see it or hit send himself? Just asking some questions…”

Former Office of Government Ethics Head Walter Shaub: “Dowd's explanation to CNN makes no sense. He claims he wrote the tweet claiming Flynn was fired partly for lying to the FBI, but he also rejects the idea that POTUS knew Flynn had lied. Why would you write the tweet then, Dowd? Or did you?”

Revolution LLC general counsel Ronald Klain: “Hey Twitter: It doesn't matter who DRAFTED the Trump/Dowd tweet. What matters is that it confirms that Trump knew Flynn had committed a crime when he asked Comey to let it go. THAT is obstruction.”

Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal: “Whatever the Dowd kerfuffle facts may be, tweet reminds us of need for Mueller investigation. So many shifting stories, about an improbable + increasing number of Russians & what Trump knew + when he knew it, anyone who thinks 'there is nothing there' has more than their head in the sand.”

|

Sanctions Slugfest Between Star Litigators from Dechert, Gibson Dunn and Morgan Lewis

It was 10:30 in the morning on Thursday when top litigators including Gibson Dunn & Crutcher's Randy Mastro; Dechert's Andrew Levander; Thompson & Knight's Marion Bachrach and Morgan Lewis & Bockius' Christopher Parlo assembled in the Foley Square courtroom of U.S. District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan.

The topic: motions for sanctions in a high-profile suit against Fox News by ex-host Andrea Tantaros.

Almost eight hours later, they were still there. Daniels finally shut it down at 6 pmwithout making a decision—underscoring what a hornet's nest of case this is.

As Parlo wrote to the judge on Nov. 29, “Respectfully, in my nearly 30 years of practice I have never seen a group of lawyers so quick to threaten sanctions against other members of the bar or who would try to use our response to such threats to seek an advantage with this court in other pending motions (and all without giving the court the full background and context).”

Whoa, not so fast there.

“[W]e recognize and appreciate that sanctions are reserved for the most egregious abuses,” Mastro wrote on Sept. 1, before Parlo was hired. “We respectfully submit that this is such a circumstance. There must be a consequence for counsel who lie, bully, and threaten innocent parties to try to extort millions of dollars from them under peril of adverse publicity damaging to their personal reputations.”

Pull up a chair—this fight is juicy. Read the whole story here on the Lit Daily website.

More Legal News

Coyle's Cases to Watch: Masterpiece Cakeshop and NJ Sports Gambling
The fabulous Marcia Coyle spotlights two cases set for argument this week.

SeaWorld Seeks Sanctions Against Covington in Suit Over Orca Claims
SeaWorld's lawyers at Norton Rose Fulbright claim “the entire case stands on a false foundation created to advance the anti-captivity agenda of the Earth Island Institute.”

Bananas for Breakfast … And More Advice for SCOTUS Advocates
News you can use. Like eat salmon for dinner the night before.

Defense Lawyer in Mueller Probe Rejects Suggestion of Conflict
“In this case, the government seeks to intrude upon the attorney-client relationship by requesting a Curcio hearing based solely on the fact that the two defendants have had a business relationship unrelated to the matters at issue in their respective cases,” wrote Walter Mack.

Ex-Paul Weiss Lawyer Gets Five Years for Child Porn
As part of his sentence, former staff attorney Jason Mark Sims must write an article for publication about his crime in an “effort to achieve general deterrence.”

Dewey Execs Near Deal to Resolve SEC Suit Following Firm's Collapse
The SEC alleges in its civil suit that the executives and others misled investors about the shaky state of Dewey's finances to help facilitate a $150 million bond placement.