Jabin
Botsford/The
Washington
Post/Bloomberg
via
Getty
Images)
For
years,
Donald
Trump
was
radioactive
in
elite
legal
circles.
No
white-shoe
law
firm
would
touch
him.
Todd
Blanche
had
to
quit
Cadwalader
when
he
took
on
Trump’s
defense
in
2023
—representing
Trump
was
a
redline
for
deep-pocketed
clients
who
wanted
nothing
to
do
with
Muslim
bans
or
rape
allegations.
After
January
6,
they
definitely
didn’t
want
to
be
associated
with
storming
the
Capitol
and
toilet
bowl
nuclear
secrets.
And
that’s
before
one
factors
in
the
unpaid
bills,
public
humiliation,
and
professional
ruin
that
came
along
with
the
role.
Back
then,
one
of
the
firms
that
reportedly
told
Trump
“no”
was…
Sullivan
&
Cromwell.
But
now
Sullivan
&
Cromwell
will
step
in
as
Trump
prepares
another
challenge
to
his
conviction
in
the
New
York
hush
money
case.
What
a
difference
eight
years
and
a
dose
of
obsequiousness
can
make.
Unlike
eight
years
ago,
this
time
all
those
big-money
corporate
clients
got
seats
right
behind
Trump
at
the
inauguration.
The
best
strategy
the
Democrats
have
come
up
with
is
“Jesus
take
the
wheel.”
All
those
hard-charging
#Resistance
folks
have
largely
settled
into
detached
horror.
Firms
can
read
the
room
and
see
an
opportunity
to
cozy
up
to
the
ascendent
autocrat
without
fear
of
compromising
their
client
base.
The
cost
of
open
collaboration
has
gone
down,
and
Sullivan
&
Cromwell
is
wasting
no
time
cashing
in.
Robert
Giuffra,
the
firm’s
co-chair,
will
quarterback
the
effort.
Politico
reports
that
James
McDonald,
Morgan
Ratner,
Jeff
Wall,
and
Matthew
Schwartz
will
join
the
effort.
This
marks
a
turning
point
for
Trump
—
trading
in
parking
garage
lawyer
Alina
Habba
for
one
of
the
most
prestigious
firms
in
the
world.
A
real
representational
glow-up.
“President
Donald
J.
Trump’s
appeal
is
important
for
the
rule
of
law,
New
York’s
reputation
as
a
global
business,
financial
and
legal
center,
as
well
as
for
the
presidency
and
all
public
officials,”
Giuffra
said
in
a
statement.
“The
misuse
of
the
criminal
law
by
the
Manhattan
DA
to
target
President
Trump
sets
a
dangerous
precedent,
and
we
look
forward
to
the
case
being
dismissed
on
appeal.”
The
legal
foundation
of
the
hush
money
case
—
weirdly
bootstrapping
a
misdemeanor
into
a
felony
—
may
be
bizarre,
but
it’s
nonetheless
exactly
what
the
New
York
law
says.
Last
year,
I
argued
that
it
was
a
case
of
“coulda
but
shouldna”
because
it
struck
me
as
a
Catch-22
that
if
campaign
funds
couldn’t
legally
be
used
to
pay
hush
money,
it
seems
unfair
that
a
personal
payment
for
this
purpose
could
be
an
illegal
campaign
contribution.
But
despite
my
misgivings,
that
is
how
the
law
reads.
The
legislature
may
want
to
change
it
but
as
far
as
the
“rule
of
law”
goes,
Trump
violated
this
statute.
Looks
like
the
legal
profession’s
brief
flirtation
with
principles
ended
with
a
quiet
ghosting.
Earlier:
The
Biglaw
Firms
That
Said
No
To
Trump
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.