Reading an interesting article in the NYT about the ethics of Trump challenging the outcome of the upcoming election if he loses for any reason. It’s a good article, and I link it below. But I was surprised to read the paragraph below. Is it substantially accurate?
Lawyers today have come of age in a legal profession that takes seriously its ethical obligations. That wasn’t always the case. In fact, it was the Nixon White House counsel John Dean’s question to the Senate Watergate Committee — “How in God’s name could so many lawyers get involved in something like this?” — that set in motion a reckoning for the legal profession.. Watergate led to an extensive American Bar Association study and a set of ethics guidelines that to this day provide the foundation of the ethics instruction for law students and lawyers.
FWIW this article goes on to say this about the Republicans making advanced preparations to litigate election outcomes if they lose.
Brief excerpt:
The election this year could be closer. And Mr. Trump will most likely be, if anything, more determined to win at all costs — driven not only by desire for power but also by fear of what might come of the pending legal cases against him.
In his criminal cases, Mr. Trump has a right to competent and effective counsel, and it is important that he be well represented. But the right to counsel guaranteed by our Constitution does not extend to efforts to subvert that very document.
Lawyers cannot, consistent with their ethical obligations, participate in devising litigation that is retrofitted to support the position Mr. Trump seems to hold — that the only “real” Americans are those who cast their ballots for him and that those who vote against him are by definition engaging in fraud.
Attorneys at prominent law firms should already know that they cannot defensibly assist in Mr. Trump’s specious efforts. If they waver, their corporate clients should make clear they do not want their attorneys associating with a candidate who has already told us he will not respect the will of the voters if they do not choose him. General counsels at the companies whose businesses employ these firms, who are also members of the bar and members of the electorate, must also make their objections known. Where appropriate, state bars should be aggressive in sanctioning egregious professional conduct.
There is growing evidence that prominent conservative lawyers understand the dangers Mr. Trump poses. The former George W. Bush attorney general Alberto Gonzales recently announced his support for Ms. Harris. And a group of conservative lawyers, including the former Trump attorney Ty Cobb, sent Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia a letter last month urging him to investigate and potentially remove highly partisan members of the state’s election board.
Other prominent conservative attorneys should add their voices to this chorus, helping to convey the message that it is inconsistent with the basic obligations of the legal profession to aid Mr. Trump in a potential power grab.