And yet people keep working for him.
I’ve commented before that Trump is almost like the Mule in the Foundation series. It’s almost as if he can override their common sense and create an emotional bond to him.
I would think the client insisting on the lawyer doing unethical/illegal things would be cause to allow dropping him.
Just because a statement is made – even under oath – doesn’t mean a juror has to believe it. Knowing Donnie Two-scoops’ reputation for veracity, I would want some evidence in addition to the testimony.
I’ve read at least one where a group of friends did it the opposite way. When anyone of the group was accused, they all claimed to have done it on, IIRC, the theory that there’d be no way for the prosecutors or juries to figure out which one was actually responsible. This was written well before DNA evidence was known about.
I don’t think they (or the author) ever considered what might happen if the prosecutors and juries took the Roman approach to all the Sparticuses.
He has the ability to convince people that they are in on the take.
Nothing would be hard about a lawyer making that request to Trump. The interview would be over at that moment and the lawyer would not get the job.
It’d be easier for the lawyer simply to not return Trump’s calls asking for them to come in for an interview. They already know their conditions and his do not intersect.
Demanding a huge retainer upfront may not work. I seem to recall cases where, after the case was over, the client turned around and sued to get most of it returned, claiming excessive legal fees. I don’t know if Trump has ever done this, but it would not surprise me if he had.
Trump would probably claim “executive privilege” over the money.
Sure, at that point they are quibbling over fees. But the lawyer has the money, and it is a question about how much to return (based on hours worked and expenses), as opposed to billing Trump for expenses and him not paying.
As my lawyer brother told me when I was contemplating suing a contractor for return of funds after I fired him, the guy who has the money has the power. And in that case, it possibly would have cost me more in legal fees to get the money back then I thought the guy owed me (much less what a jury/judge might have thought), so he won.
Is there not something called joint enterprise or some such?
I have no idea. I am not a lawyer. I think the idea was that it wasn’t physically possible for all of them to be guilty but since they all said they were … I’m dubious about the theory, though.
I probably read this once 15 or so years ago. If I remembered who the author was, or the title, I could probably find it in my library. I’m just not motivated enough.
This post really gets it. There are certain potential clients that are absolutely toxic. The longer you are in practice the more you learn to stay clear. No precautions will save you from their poison.
Trump’s not the only person who has criminal intentions. There are plenty of people who would like to hang around Trump because it gives them opportunities to commit much more lucrative crimes than the ones they would normally have access to. And a lot of them are probably competent criminals who have gotten away with their crimes.
One wonders if this same lawyer represented Danae when she discovered some hackers in an underground lair, and hired a sewage truck to deposit the tank’s contents into the hackers’ cave; upon learning of this, her father says, "This has Danae written all over it.
Up front, AND IN CASH.
could I interest you in a deal involving breakfast cereal coupons? …
More on the lawyer front:
Paywall. Looks like I need to subscribe.
~VOW
Like this?
Ha! That was a very funny sequence! Thanks for the link.