EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland's testimony before Congress last week was described as a "Bombshell" (The Washington Post), "Explosive" (Forbes), "Historic" (CNN) and "A seminal moment in the impeachment inquiry" (The Hill).

But for Sondland's lawyers Robert Luskin and Kwame Manley of Paul Hastings, who were by his side in the hearing room when he testified for six hours on Nov. 20, it was business as usual. More or less.

After all, Luskin has represented hot seat clients including Karl Rove in the special counsel's investigation into the leak of covert CIA official Valerie Plame's identity, members of Congress from both parties in trouble for various reasons, the gubernatorial campaign of Governor Chris Christie in the "Bridgegate" scandal, a former Navy Seal who took part in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and many more.

This was not unfamiliar territory.

Still, Luskin acknowledged that "It became relatively clear early on that Gordon was going to be a significant witness."

Just how significant shifted when Sondland in early November updated his original, closed-door testimony to include recollections such as speaking with Andriy Yermak, a top Zelenskiy adviser, and telling him that the "resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks." 

The updated testimony also included a recollection of telling Ukrainians that "satisfying Mr. Giuliani was a condition for scheduling a White House visit."

So … why the changes?

"Memory is not like accessing a thumb drive," Luskin said. "What happens to you doesn't go into your brain that way and become significant only in hindsight."

Manley added, "It happens all the time. People sometimes just don't remember."  Also, he noted that Sondland did not have access to all the relevant documents and records, which could have aided his initial recollections.

Luskin said that up until now, he's "steered clear of most opportunities to represent people associated with [the Trump administration], not so much out of any political concerns," but rather because he was wary of how they viewed the legal system.

"I was not interested in being a utensil—a dinner fork you pick up and use to stab somebody," Luskin said. "Any potential client had to have some respect for the process, for the integrity of the process. Gordon fit the bill from our perspective."

The call from Sondland, who was referred by one of Luskin's former clients, came at the end of September. Once on board, the Paul Hastings team had about 10 days to prepare the ambassador for his first "transcribed interview" (read: deposition) before members of the House committees on intelligence, oversight and foreign affairs. 

"It was an enormous challenge getting our arms around the facts and circumstances," Luskin said. "We had incredibly limited access" to supplemental documents and other resources due to "a decision by the State Department not to share all that information with us."

Luskin and Manley view their role as going well beyond advising on strictly legal matters.

At times, that means "essentially talking the client off the roof … helping someone keep their life on an even keel," Luskin said. "The pressure is so overwhelming … the sheer ugliness is so overwhelming."

In Sondland's case, Luskin said the ambassador is a "lovely and substantial and important guy, but he's never been in a situation like this—the poisonous goldfish bowl that is a Washington crisis."

Media attention is one of the biggest issues, although Luskin noted that it tends to be obsessive but fickle. He compared it to his cat staring at a crack in a wall for five hours until getting distracted by something else—and never returning to look at the crack again.

What do Luskin and Manley tell their clients before assuming the hot seat? Top 10 tips?

"Numbers 1 through 6 are tell the truth," Luskin said, laughing.

Past that, he counsels clients that it's counter-productive to attempt to massage their answers out of concern for how what they say might affect someone else. 

"You can't help others. You can only hurt yourself," Luskin said.

Sondland's performance as a witness won praise from some onlookers. USA Today called him "jocular and unflappable," adding that the ambassador "exuded self-assurance as he parried with lawmakers."

But Fox news anchor Chris Wallace said Sondland "took out the bus and ran it over" President Donald Trump and his allies. "I think what Gordon Sondland was trying to do here is protect himself more than he is [trying to] protect anybody else," Wallace said.

In other words, he followed the advice of his counsel?

Why did Sondland ultimately decide to cooperate when other members of the Trump administration have refused?

"He felt a legal obligation to comply with the subpoena," Luskin said. "And he felt a moral obligation to account for his role."