House Sues To Force Don McGahn To Sit There And Not Answer Their Questions

Don McGahn (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

I have three competing theories about the House Democrats’ appetite for impeachment, and which one I subscribe to seems to depend on which side of the bed I wake up on in the morning. Like, from 30,000 feet, it’s clear that their plan is “stupid.” But as I drill down, it becomes more difficult to see what exactly motivates their ineffective meanderings. It’s like “dark energy.” We theorize that it’s there, because we can’t explain the movement of the cosmos without it. But we can’t see it, do not understand its nature, don’t know where it comes from, and hypothetically it doesn’t exist at all but we’re too stupid to know what’s really going on.

Here are my theories:

  • Democrats, the real ones, want to do impeachment, and believe the only way is through these not-actually-impeachment hearings. The Trump administration blocks their attempts at gathering evidence, and the Democrats, ignorantly but earnestly, believe that the slow march through the federal courts will eventually get them the testimony they need to move public opinion and DINOs towards impeachment.
  • Democrats do not want to do impeachment, know that the Trump administration will block them at every turn, and know that the court process does not move quickly enough to break Trump’s logjam. They want to look like they’re doing something, without actually doing anything, and the federal courts are the perfect patsy in their long-con of their base voters.
  • Democrats exist in a state of perma-shock that Trump exists and Republicans don’t care that he exists. Every new act of obstruction and non-compliance honestly catches them by surprise. They’re unable to mentally process the reality of their situation, like a man slowly choking to death from smoke inhalation who doesn’t run because his smoke alarm hasn’t gone off. Unless Robert Mueller or Joe Biden or Mitch McConnell saves them, they’re all gonna die.

I think Democrats want me to believe they’re hopelessly ignorant, but trying, when the reality is that they can’t possibly be that stupid, which will lead to the result that we all die in a fire.

House Judiciary’s latest stratagem to compel Don McGahn to testify is a Rorschach test for how you personally believe the Democrats are screwing this up.

To set the stage: Former White House Counsel Don McGahn was an eyewitness to Donald Trump’s many, many attempts to obstruct justice. He essentially testified to all of it, under oath, to former special counsel Robert Mueller. He didn’t say “the president obstructed justice” (hold that thought) because he’s not a mouth-breathing idiot like most of the president’s employees. But he told Mueller, who eventually told the country, all of the evidence needed to make an obstruction case against Donald Trump.

The House subpoenaed McGahn to testify in front of them, and Donald Trump said “no.” Trump has no credible legal theory on which to block McGahn’s testimony. He doesn’t even really have a discredited legal theory to block McGahn’s testimony. He hasn’t even asserted executive privilege, and he can’t because he waived executive privilege by allowing McGahn to sit down with Mueller in the first place. I want to repeat this because the mainstream sources are really bothering about this point: DONALD TRUMP HAS NO AUTHORITY TO BLOCK MCGAHN’S TESTIMONY, AT ALL. Anybody who tells you he does is either an idiot, a grifter, or likely both.

Speaking of grifters, McGahn has decided to ignore the Congressional subpoena and go with his former-boss’s NON-THEORY of obstruction of a Congressional inquiry. This should not be surprising. McGahn is a weasel who “resisted” Trump’s effort to make him an accomplice to obstruction of justice not out of some deep moral or ethical principle, but out of pure self-preservation. Don McGahn is no hero. He’s a man adept at swimming through sewers without drowning. He was only in the sewer to promote an alleged attempted rapist to the Supreme Court, and having accomplished his mission, he is hiding out at Jones Day just waiting for the stink to get out of his clothes.

Confronted with McGahn’s unwillingness to comply with a Congressional subpoena, buttressed only by Trump’s legally useless directive that he do so, yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee sued to compel McGahn’s testimony. Here’s the complaint. I’m sure that lawyers can appreciate that, when faced with a person who refuses to follow the law, getting a court order to compel him to follow the law seems like the right thing to do.

There are a couple of obvious problems with this approach, however. First is that it doesn’t really take into account the fourth dimension: time. The House sued, so now the Trump administration gets to respond. You can bet they’ll take all the time possible before so doing. Then we’ll need the court, even on an expedited time frame, to rule. Then we’ll need an appeal. Then we’ll need an appeal from that appeal to the Supreme Court. Then we’ll need to see if the Supreme Court, emboldened by five conservatives who like to do Trump’s bidding, grants cert. Tic Tok on the clock, but the party don’t stop, Democrats. While you’re waiting on the McGahn saga to play out in court, Donald Trump is still the president and you are not any closer to impeaching him for his crimes.

The second problem is that all this legal maneuvering only gets McGahn in the chair. I’m assuming the Democrats will win this fight because, again, DONALD TRUMP HAS NO AUTHORITY TO BLOCK MCGAHN’S TESTIMONY! Once he’s in that chair, all McGahn is going to say is “my conversations with the president are privileged.” Boom. END OF HEARING. You can thunder questions at him and read back passages of the Mueller report and all of that, but you can’t make the man give voice to the things he knows and has already told Robert Mueller. And you certainly can’t get him to say anything he hasn’t already told Robert Mueller.

Oh, you can sue him over his assertion of privilege (tic tok), or you can hold him in contempt of Congress (tic tok), but if you thought the Mueller testimony went “poorly” because Mueller did not act out a compelling narrative of the President’s obvious crimes, wait till you get a load of the McGahn testimony.

It would be one thing if the Democrats honestly didn’t know what McGahn was going to say. But in this case, we know what McGahn is going to say because HE’S ALREADY SAID IT. And it was recorded and written down in the Mueller report. Honestly, House Judiciary would be better off just getting David Morse to come in a READ McGahn’s testimony from the Mueller report to them, instead of wasting their time try to force McGahn to repeat himself under oath.

And so I come back to my original problem. I already know how the McGahn testimony is going to play out, and anybody even slightly paying attention does too. The Democrats are marching, uphill, both ways, into a cul-de-sac. WHY? WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS?

Do you know how the universe ends? In a “Big Rip.” The forces of dark energy increasingly expands the universe until galaxies, stars, and eventually atoms are pulled apart. If you were still alive and on a planet before the end, you’d look up into the sky and see no stars, no light, and feel no heat. It ends dark, and it ends cold.

Pondering Impeachment, House Sues Don McGahn, Ex-White House Counsel, for Testimony [New York Times]


Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Prepare For World War III

Ray Dalio says it’s not gonna happen, and based on his track record, we’re doomed.

The Most Effective Tech Tools for Lawyers? New Survey Says they Ain’t What You Think | LawSites

What technology tools rank most important to lawyers in driving efficiency? Given all the hype these days around artificial intelligence, it must be at or near the top of the list, right?

Actually no. In a survey being released today, AI and another much-ballyhooed technology, blockchain, rank at the bottom of the list.

Out today is the 2019 Aderant Business of Law and Legal Technology Survey, published by Aderant, a global provider of business management software for law firms.

As with last year’s survey, which I wrote about here, the 2019 survey covers a range of business and technology topics, including the business health of firms, their challenges and competition, billing processes, and change management.

But I, predictably, went right to the section on technology tools and cloud adoption, where the survey asked lawyers about the technology tools that have the greatest impact on their ability to work efficiently and manage their work effectively.

And here is what stood out there: Out of 18 categories of tools, the two lowest ranked were AI and blockchain.

So which tools did lawyers rank as having the greatest impact on their efficiency? Turns out they are the tools lawyers use day in and day out, the bread-and-butter tools of a modern law practice:

  1. Document management.
  2. Time and billing.
  3. Case management.
  4. Financial management.
  5. E-discovery.
  6. Docketing.
  7. Knowledge management.
  8. Mobility and mobile applications.
  9. Business intelligence.
  10. Matter pricing and planning.

The survey also asked law firms about their adoption of cloud technologies. Three-quarters say their firm is “somewhat” or “slightly” in the cloud. But only 2% say their firm is completely cloud based and just 12% are mostly cloud based. Another 12% do not use the cloud at all. These numbers were generally consistent across firms of all sizes, the survey reported.

When asked the follow-up question about their plans to move to the cloud in the future:

  • 7% said 6-12 months.
  • 4% said 12-18 months.
  • 14% said 18-24 months.
  • 37% said not in the foreseeable future.
  • 1% said never.
  • 28% said they were unsure.

On the topic of ebilling, the survey found that 29% of law firms process half or more of their invoices through client spend-management or ebilling systems. That is up 9 percent from the prior year.

Another area of inquiry in the survey involved the challenges and benefits of change management. One question asked whether it is a challenge to obtain leadership support or partner buy-in for new business initiatives or technology projects. Here is how they answer:

  • Yes, 32%.
  • No, 18%.
  • Sometimes, 43%.
  • Unsure, 7%.

Interestingly, the firms that answered no to that question were also 24% more likely to say that their business this year was better than last.

Other topics covered in the survey included:

  • Business compared to last year. More than 90% of respondents said this year is at least as good
    as last year.
  • Top challenges facing firms. Operational efficiency (31%) and pricing (29%) are the top challenges facing law firms in 2019. Cybersecurity dropped to seventh place with 18%. Other top challenges were technology adoption (26%), change management (22%), and growing business from existing client accounts (19%).
  • Where firms see competition. Law firms see other firms as the top source of competition (53%), followed by clients taking work in-house (22%) and alternative service providers (15%).
  • Time to publish an invoice. Including prebills, about 38% of law firms say they publish client invoices within a week or less.

The survey questioned 147 business-of-law and legal professionals from law firms all over the world, with 87% of responses from North America. Most respondents (87%) were from larger firms in the U.S.

Abusive Partners Are Still A Problem Firms Have A Hard Time Facing

The “screamer” was a creature that existed in law firm lore to terrorize new associates and staff. There was always some partner — or partners — within the firm structure whose book of business shielded them from common workplace courtesy. Screamers didn’t have to actually scream at anyone. Sure, there were tales of partners hurling objects out the window — or at other attorneys — but more often than not the abuse manifests in the sort of passive-aggressive dress downs that systematically undermine a person’s basic sense of self-worth.

While mental health initiatives are getting some press these days, but these programs almost always focus on providing wellness services to those facing stress, without directly confronting those in management positions about treating employees better, and by extension, keeping stress down.

A series of tips received here at Above the Law — hodgepodged together into one cohesive narrative below — tell a story that, if true, would be a stark reminder that in Biglaw circles, management maintains a stigma when it comes to mental health and a significant blindspot when it comes to the possibility that a partner might be contributing to a hostile environment:

An associate left the office in an ambulance. An abusive partner had pushed the associate hard for years and it apparently became too much on the latest matter. The group is dismissing it and trying to sweep it under the rug as the associate’s shortcomings because it was mental health related.

We’ve only heard from people sympathetic to the associate in this instance so we’re not going to speculate on the truth of the matter, but the fact that associates feel that the firm would not only downplay an abusive relationship, but would see mental health as an excuse to shift blame entirely upon the victim, speaks to the fractured sense of trust in the work environment. If mental health enters the vocabulary of the legal profession, it can’t come in only as a means to whitewash bad management.

In another story, a legal secretary has filed suit over a pair of Venable partners who “yelled, humiliated and demeaned her to such an extent that their conduct constituted sex discrimination under California’s fair employment law.”

“The days when an attorney can make enough money to excuse the verbal abuse and humiliation of the women that work for him are over,” the suit says. “Legal staff is not required to tolerate and even babysit lawyers through tantrums supposedly caused by ‘stress’ or ‘pressure.’ Verbal abuse and humiliation alter the terms and conditions of employment. When this conduct is directed at women, it is sex discrimination.”

While there are certainly scenarios where this sort of abuse comes from a place of gender dynamics and only targets women, this abuse is not always a matter of sex discrimination and it’s unfortunate that this rubric is one of the only effective means of addressing it. Too many instances can slip through the cracks when sex isn’t the clear impetus behind the abuse.

But more important than finding the right legal redress, firm leadership across the industry needs to get its act together and start holding peers accountable. There’s no amount of rainmaking that justifies keeping a hurricane in a corner office. We often point out that a law degree doesn’t necessarily provide business acumen, but it also fails to train management skills. Biglaw firms should start taking this seriously too.

Legal secretary’s suit claims partners’ tirades constituted sex bias, caused panic attack [ABA Journal]


HeadshotJoe 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 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.

California Bar’s New Leasing Tactics Prompt Demise Of Beloved Coffee Shop

Officials in Sacramento have been critical of the State Bar of California for not maximizing revenue from leasing space in its San Francisco headquarters, as I recently reported.

Apparently, the Howard Street Coffee Roastery was a victim of the State Bar altering its approach to real estate management.

The coffee shop long housed on State Bar property permanently closed its doors at the end of July.

Owner Jane Heng said the shop was told months ago its lease would not be renewed, which she suspected was because the bar wanted to raise its lease rates. She said the news the coffee shop would have to leave left her in tears.

“All of the small businesses are being kicked out, and the giants are coming in,” Heng said, speaking about broader trends in the city. “It is so sad.”

State Bar spokeswoman Teresa Ruano said the bar’s goal “is to maximize the profitability of its assets.”

“As leases expire, new leases are negotiated at current market rates,” Ruano wrote in an email. “The Coffee Roastery did not communicate a desire to continue leasing the space at current market rates. The State Bar is currently negotiating a lease for this space with another food operator.”

Attorneys who defend practitioners facing State Bar Court charges are among those disappointed to see the coffee shop go.

Samuel C. Bellicini, an ethics lawyer based in San Rafael, said he would visit the Coffee Roastery every time he visited the State Bar.

“I saw Jane, bought a cup of coffee and tipped her,” Bellicini said. “We loved and adored her.”

He questioned the bar’s priorities, amid all that is on the agency’s plate.

“Don’t we have bigger fish to fry than to kick out a coffee shop everybody loved?” Bellicini said.

Jonathan I. Arons, a San Francisco ethics lawyer, is another fan of the Coffee Roastery who bemoaned its closing.

“I’ve been a devotee almost since they opened,” he said. “When I had trial at the State Bar, I would go in every morning.”

“I’m a fan of the smaller places rather than the Starbucks-type places,” Arons added.

Heng said there are no plans for the Coffee Roastery to open in another location.

The news about the coffee shop’s closure comes in the aftermath of the state auditor reporting that the California bar is leasing spaces in its headquarters at below-market rates.

“In 2018 and 2019, [the] State Bar entered into four leases for its San Francisco building with below-market rates that range from $12 to $28 per square foot less than those of comparable properties,” the audit said. “Even if [the] State Bar had leased its space at the lowest of the appraiser’s market rates, it would have earned $777,000 in additional revenue in just the first year of the four leases.”

Meanwhile, the California Assembly recently amended the bar’s annual funding bill to express the Legislature’s intent that “all leases entered into by the State Bar for lease of State Bar property on and after January 1, 2020, be at or above market rate in order to reduce licensing fees.”


Lyle Moran is a freelance writer in San Diego who handles both journalism and content writing projects. He previously reported for the Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Diego Daily Transcript, Associated Press, and Lowell Sun. He can be reached at lmoransun@gmail.com and found on Twitter @lylemoran.

Zimbabwean Banks Plan to Fight $100 Million Paynet Lawsuit – The Zimbabwean

The Bankers Association of Zimbabwe, which represents the nation’s 21 lenders, “would defend the action,” the organization’s legal representatives said in the court documents, filed last week. The association had been served with a summons on July 24 giving them 10 days to respond to claims from Cambria’s Paynet and Payserv units in Zimbabwe.

The battle between London-based Cambria and the association reached boiling point in June when Paynet, one of the country’s largest providers of bulk payments such as salaries, suspended services to banks, citing unpaid bills. It forced the lenders to switch to smaller providers or resort to manually managing payments, hindering the flow of money in the cash-starved $31 billion economy, already grappling with rampant inflation and mass unemployment.

Cambria on Tuesday said banks had closed their Paynet gateway, preventing compliant lenders from transacting with them and hindering the orderly flow of payments. The company is betting a partnership with Ecocash, the mobile-money unit of Econet Wireless Ltd., will help it recover some of the lost revenue from the dispute with the banks.

“If not successful, Cambria will need to significantly downsize its operations in Zimbabwe, as it continues to pursue legal recourse through the courts of Zimbabwe,” the company said, adding it may also approach courts in neighboring South Africa, or the U.K..

Second Major Sex Crime Charge Against Jeffrey Epstein Jogs Lex Wexner’s Memory About Being Embezzled From That One Time

Now that you mention it, that federal sex trafficking charge is reminiscent of Les catching Epstein stealing “vast sums” of money from him back in 2007.

Conservative Law Student Objects To Being Negatively Stereotyped For Wearing MAGA Hat, #BuildTheWall T-Shirt

Wearing a MAGA hat or any other conservative paraphernalia does not make me a white supremacist, anti-Semite, bigot or any other stereotype that may be misapplied. The purpose of wearing a MAGA hat is to identify as a supporter of Donald Trump and as a believer in conservative values. …

Freedom of speech is also what allows a student to wear a MAGA hat or a #BuildTheWall T-shirt. Freedom of speech allows me to tell [Professor] Omari that he is wrong, and that his interpretation of a MAGA hat is nothing but a grotesque attack on the politics of a student. …

This is my struggle and the struggle of the conservative law student. With an overwhelming majority of faculty falling left on the political spectrum, some will inevitably take strides to not only push their ideology on students, but to also ensure that conservative voices are not heard in the conversation. This happens through contrived dress codes and insinuating, or even enforcing, the mandatory removal of MAGA hats in the classroom.

— Austin Phelps, a third-year student at Gonzaga University School of Law, in response to Professor Jeffrey Omari’s commentary piece in the ABA Journal where he said he believed that Phelps, who was then unnamed, was attempting to “intimidate and/or racially antagonize” him by wearing a MAGA hat. Phelps, who was once reprimanded for wearing a T-shirt which read “#BuildTheWall” to his internship, goes on to note that conservative law students are hesitant to identify with their politics out loud because they want “untainted employment references,” “do not want a target on our back[s],” and “simply want to finish law school without any major incidents.”


Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.