Explain the attacks on law firms

Forum Index » Political Discussion
[Post New]03/28/2025 16:53
Anonymous
Apparently there are two more law firms targeted.

What I don't understand is how these actions can possibly be legal. How can you bar an attorney from representing his client in a meeting with federal officials in a federal building, for example? I haven't read a lot about the Perkins Coie case but it just seems to me this should have been able to be an emergency restraining order with serious consequences.

Trump's use of his legal troubles throughout his campaign was "if it can happen to me, it can happen to you." And MAGA took that as a message that DOJ could go after them and they needed Trump to protect them. Heck, what if your lawyer in a regulatory dispute with a federal agency has the same name as one from one of the firms they're targeting? (We know how well their AI and keyword searches work with that). What if you need someone with specific experience in, say, public land use law and the person with the requisite experience has also contributed to work for the Sierra Club and is now blacklisted?
[Post New]03/28/2025 16:57
Anonymous
I forgot, Perkins is the case where the govt introduced their motion to recuse with this gem:
Fair proceedings free from any suggestion of impartiality are essential to the integrity of
our country’s judiciary and the need to curtail ongoing improper encroachments of President
Trump’s Executive Power playing out across the country.

But I also notice now they used it TWICE--second was in the very next paragraph:

Accordingly, to ensure that these proceedings are free from any suggestion of impartiality,
the Defendants move to disqualify this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
[Post New]03/28/2025 16:59
Anonymous
And a THIRD time in closing:
In order to remove the possibility of any impartiality to these proceedings, Defendants respectfully request
that this Court recuse itself
[Post New]03/28/2025 17:00
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Apparently there are two more law firms targeted.

What I don't understand is how these actions can possibly be legal. How can you bar an attorney from representing his client in a meeting with federal officials in a federal building, for example? I haven't read a lot about the Perkins Coie case but it just seems to me this should have been able to be an emergency restraining order with serious consequences.

Trump's use of his legal troubles throughout his campaign was "if it can happen to me, it can happen to you." And MAGA took that as a message that DOJ could go after them and they needed Trump to protect them. Heck, what if your lawyer in a regulatory dispute with a federal agency has the same name as one from one of the firms they're targeting? (We know how well their AI and keyword searches work with that). What if you need someone with specific experience in, say, public land use law and the person with the requisite experience has also contributed to work for the Sierra Club and is now blacklisted?


Yeah the ramifications are huge on the attacks against the law firms. As far as I can tell, Trump's argument is basically national security, that these firms cannot be trusted with national secrets, so cannot do business with the federal govt.
[Post New]03/28/2025 17:00
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Apparently there are two more law firms targeted.

What I don't understand is how these actions can possibly be legal. How can you bar an attorney from representing his client in a meeting with federal officials in a federal building, for example? I haven't read a lot about the Perkins Coie case but it just seems to me this should have been able to be an emergency restraining order with serious consequences.

Trump's use of his legal troubles throughout his campaign was "if it can happen to me, it can happen to you." And MAGA took that as a message that DOJ could go after them and they needed Trump to protect them. Heck, what if your lawyer in a regulatory dispute with a federal agency has the same name as one from one of the firms they're targeting? (We know how well their AI and keyword searches work with that). What if you need someone with specific experience in, say, public land use law and the person with the requisite experience has also contributed to work for the Sierra Club and is now blacklisted?


A bar license is a special monopolistic license granted and/or recognized by the state. The state can change the rules of the licensure game at any time it wishes.

If the government does not have the right to determine who may or may not appear as a legal representative on behalf of third parties—especially on issues involving national security—then the whole system falls apart.
[Post New]03/28/2025 17:12
Anonymous
They are not legal.

The administration will not win in the long run but the attempt will have a chilling effect across the industry. At last two huge firms have already obeyed rather than fight a clear wining battle. That’s huge.
[Post New]03/28/2025 17:13
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Apparently there are two more law firms targeted.

What I don't understand is how these actions can possibly be legal. How can you bar an attorney from representing his client in a meeting with federal officials in a federal building, for example? I haven't read a lot about the Perkins Coie case but it just seems to me this should have been able to be an emergency restraining order with serious consequences.

Trump's use of his legal troubles throughout his campaign was "if it can happen to me, it can happen to you." And MAGA took that as a message that DOJ could go after them and they needed Trump to protect them. Heck, what if your lawyer in a regulatory dispute with a federal agency has the same name as one from one of the firms they're targeting? (We know how well their AI and keyword searches work with that). What if you need someone with specific experience in, say, public land use law and the person with the requisite experience has also contributed to work for the Sierra Club and is now blacklisted?


A bar license is a special monopolistic license granted and/or recognized by the state. The state can change the rules of the licensure game at any time it wishes.

If the government does not have the right to determine who may or may not appear as a legal representative on behalf of third parties—especially on issues involving national security—then the whole system falls apart.


This has nothing to do with a bar association. This has nothing to do with ethics or professional responsibility. And you know that. Why are you defending this?
[Post New]03/28/2025 17:14
jsteele
Site Admin Online
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1261864.page
DC Urban Moms & Dads Administrator
http://twitter.com/jvsteele
https://mastodon.social/@jsteele
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: 

Search   Recent Topics   Hottest Topics