(Photo by Oliver Contreras – Pool/Getty Images)
Is it ethical to represent two different candidates for president in the same electoral cycle? Asking for Lane Ruhland of Husch Blackwell, LLP, whose clients include both the Trump campaign and Kanye West’s sham effort to peel off black voters from Joe Biden by getting his name on the ballot.
As previously noted, Ruhland serves as counsel for Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. in its suit to force tiny NBC affiliate in northern Wisconsin to yank a pro-Biden ad off the air.
Ruhland, whose bio reports that she “enjoys helping clients navigate the intersection of law, politics and media awareness” should probably have realized that showing up in person to drop off those hinky signatures might garner some attention. The media was probably going to figure it out anyway, but appearing in public to all but announce she was working both sides of the street was probably not the “due diligence in this legal sector [which] must go beyond compliance and encompass campaign image” promised on the firm’s website. Husch Blackwell told everyone there’s nothing to see here.
But someone is doing their diligence, and it is the Campaign for Accountability, which filed a bar complaint against Ruhland with the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation demanding an investigation into the conflict, which it characterizes as non-waivable.
Simultaneous legal representation of two candidates competing for the same office is a paradigmatic example of a conflict of interest. With limited and express exceptions, Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, Supreme Court Rule 20, prohibits layers from representing a client “if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest.” A conflict is defined to include circumstances where “the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client” or where “there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the client’s responsibilities to another client.” Rule 1.7(a).
The interests of Kanye West’s 2020 campaign for U.S. President are clearly adverse to the interests of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., as both individuals cannot simultaneously obtain the office and hence legal steps that advance the interests on one candidacy harm the interests of the other candidacy.
CfA also notes Ruhland’s extensive work for the Wisconsin GOP and the Republican National Committee which raises “questions regarding whether she has personal commitments and interests inconsistent with zealously representing the interests of Kanye West’s presidential campaign.”
But NYU law professor Stephen Gillers disagrees, pointing out that the suit against the television station does not pertain to ballot access, and thus there is no inherent conflict.
“If West’s goal is to be a spoiler, not a serious candidate, there is no conflict at all,” Gillers told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in an email. “The candidates have the same goal — to help Trump get the votes by drawing votes from Biden.”
By which he means Black votes. So all Ruhland has to do to answer the charges is explain that she’s engaged in a cynical ploy to trick African Americans into throwing away their ballots on a spoiler candidate, and she’s home free!
Complaints to keep Kanye West off Wisconsin ballot cite phony signatures, including from Mickey Mouse and Bernie Sanders [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]
Earlier: Biglaw Leaders Reassure Firm That Representation Of Kanye West And Donald Trump Is Not A Conflict Of Interest
Donald Trump’s Biglaw Attorney Is Helping Kanye West Get On The Presidential Ballot…