For a fleeting moment on Tuesday, the legal world contemplated the prospect of Ted Olson joining Donald Trump's team of lawyers on the Russia investigation.

The collective reaction—think Edvard Munch's “The Scream”—underscores just how difficult it would be for the president now to attract a big-name, establishment litigator.

As “Above the Law” executive editor Elie Mystal opined, “There is literally nothing to gain for ANY respected lawyer from working for Trump, much less one as respected as Ted Olson.”

Which considering we're talking about the president of the United States, is a remarkable statement indeed.

The Washington Post on Tuesday reported that Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway recommended hiring the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner, and that the president was “supportive of the idea.”

Her recommendation seems plausible. Conway, who is married to Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz litigator George Conway III, would know good lawyers, and Olson is one of the best.

But within two hours, Olson's colleague Theodore Boutrous shut down the speculation, tweeting, “I can confirm that @gibsondunn and Theodore B. Olson will not be representing @realDonaldTrump.”

Because conflicts. Yeah that's it, too many conflicts. Darn.

And of course there are conflicts—For instance, Boutrous represents Fusion GPS, the company behind the Steele dossier.

Then again, perhaps if Olson really wanted to join Trump's team, he could have pulled a Ty Cobb and left the firm. (In July, Cobb quit his partnership at Hogan Lovells to represent Trump.)

But as the collective denizens of Twitter pointed out, why in the world would Olson want to do that?

A sampling:

“Is Ted Olson considering ending his career in disgrace and accepting Trump's offer?” tweeted civil rights lawyer John Hergt.

“I can't imagine why Ted Olson (or any good lawyer, really) would want to have Trump as a client. Impossible to control, makes his lawyers look like fools, doesn't pay his bills. Pass” tweeted Greg Lipper, a trial and appellate litigation partner at Clinton Brook & Peed.

“Would be disappointing if Ted Olson joined Trump's team. As long as Trump's survival strategy depends on tearing down the institutions that uphold the rule of law, you can't represent him without being complicit,” tweeted Matthew Miller, the former DOJ spokesman.

“I don't agree with Ted Olson's views, but he's too much of a class act to represent Trump,” tweeted Victor Li of the ABA Journal.

“I'd have been very surprised if Ted Olson had taken on a client like Trump. He's a criminal attorney's worst nightmare. Doesn't listen, doesn't follow instructions, thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. No upside to representing him – can you even be sure you'll be paid?” tweeted lawyer K Helzer.

“We've done battle in court, Ted, and you and Ted Olson are formidable, serious attorneys. Unsurprised you wouldn't want to join the Trump clown lawyer show,” tweeted lawyer James Moo.

“Ted Olson is an A-list lawyer who doesn't need the work or the aggravation. Good luck convincing him to defend a pathological liar who doesn't pay his legal bills,” tweeted author Molly Knight.

You get the idea. It's not just that people don't like Trump or his policies. What seems unforgivable is that he's also proven to be such a bad client.

Still, if you take a step back, it's a truly bizarre state of affairs. No one wants POTUS as a client?

OK that's not entirely true. Lawyers like Larry Klayman are dying to represent him. While I don't usually see eye-to-eye with the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, Klayman's observations here are on point.

“The lawyers of the president—Ty Cobb, Jay Sekulow and John Dowd … they want to keep their standing, they want to play the game the way it's always been played,” Klayman said on his podcast. “You've got to have guts. Most lawyers won't do that because they don't want to jeopardize their standing in the Washington, D.C. legal community or legal communities around the country.”

He continued, “This is not something that you take lightly. It takes a very particular type of person to do it.”

That's for sure.

 

Best. Legal. Ad. Ever.

Lawyer.com unveiled a new ad campaign, and it's brilliant. The website, which matches people with “a qualified and interested lawyer” and bills itself as “similar to a dating site,” has hired Lindsay Lohan as its spokesperson.

Lohan, the star of movies such as “Mean Girls” and “Freaky Friday,” has had multiple brushes with the law.

“When Lawyer.com first reached out to me, um, I was confused and a little scared, because I thought I was in trouble,” Lohan says in the 40-second ad. “But when they asked me to be their spokesperson, I was intrigued. After meeting with the team, I realized Lawyer.com is just about helping people. From getting a DUI—let's not pretend like I didn't get one. Or two. Or three. Or some others.”

Seriously, just watch the whole thing here.

See also Legal Tech Gets Its First Celebrity Spokesperson: Lindsay Lohan

 

Shout-Out: Keker Defeats Fraud Suit Against Kleiner Perkins

A team from Keker Van Nest & Peters beat back an $800 million securities fraud class action against venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers stemming from now-defunct electric car manufacturer Fisker Automotive Holdings.

Fisker was one of the biggest VC failures in Silicon Valley history, with more than $1 billion in investments going down the drain.

The company briefly made a (beautiful) electric car, the Karma, but was plagued with problems and filed for bankruptcy. As U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer of the Northern District of Illinois noted, “An explosion of litigation in courts around the country followed.”

Kleiner Perkins itself lost $109 million—but as the last solvent entity standing, the VC firm faced accusations that it misled prospective investors in order to save its own investment and reputation.

Keker lawyers Michael Celio, Laurie Mims, Nicholas Goldberg, Eric MacMichael, as well as co-counsel Joseph Duffy and Corey Rubenstein of Loeb & Loeb got the suit dismissed with prejudice on March 19 based on the statute of limitations.

“The Plaintiffs' argument is, in effect, that while investors suing in Delaware under Delaware law are subject to a three-year statute of limitations, and investors suing in Illinois under Illinois law are subject to a three-year statute of limitations, investors suing in Illinois under Delaware law must be afforded a five-year statute of limitations,” Pallmeyer wrote. “There is no support in the case law, nor any principled basis for lengthening the limitations period for securities actions in Illinois in this way.”

 

What I'm Reading

Ex-Perkins Coie Partner Sues His Firm, Again

Ex-partner Nicholas Rockefeller practiced as a “Christian fundamentalist” when he was at the firm, and other lawyers referred to it as a “kook religion,” he alleges.

SCOTUS Says Securities Class Actions Can Stay in State Court

In a blow to the defense bar, the high court held that state courts maintain jurisdiction over class actions brought under the federal Securities Act of 1933.

At Gibson Dunn, This Facebook Lawyer Inked FTC Privacy Deal Now in Spotlight

1. Ashlie Beringer was “the principal signer of the consent decree. She was actively involved in negotiating the decree. My impression of her is she's one hell of a good lawyer.”

AT&T Pushes to Keep Antitrust Fight Public as Opening Arguments Near

AT&T counsel Daniel Petrocelli of O'Melveny & Myers stressed that the trial should be held in an open courtroom and “in the light of day” as much as possible. Thank you.

Ex-'Apprentice' Contestant's Defamation Claim Against Trump May Proceed, NY Judge Rules

“No one is above the law,” the judge said in the 18-page ruling. “It is settled that the president of the United States has no immunity and is 'subject to the laws' for purely private act.”

Ex-MLB Pitcher Gets $2.3M Verdict for Injuries From Brawl With LSD-Tripping Partygoer

The injuries were to the pitcher's hand, when he punched the guy—who was running around naked and covered in poop. (Kids, say no to drugs.)