That is playing into this, no doubt. There are serious questions even regarding standing (how can Boehner claimed to be harmed by delaying an employer mandate that he himself has tried to abolish entirely over 50 times??), let alone they are trying to create a Constitutional principle out of the air, something most judges aren’t particularly fond of seeing done.
To further complicate matters from an attorney’s prospective, the client isn’t even sure what he is suing about. Notice that Boehner is already talking about shifting the target and wants to sue over some yet to be released executive order on immigration.
So now its the Speaker of the House, arguably one of the individuals best equipped to respond to any executive order he dislikes already by simply passing legislation over riding them, wants to sue the President because he MIGHT release some executive order in the future that Boehner doesn’t like, and despite that being a power that the President clearly has, he shouldn’t. Except when he/she is a republican. (And yes, that last caveat is probably making a lot of conservative attorneys uncomfortable about this sort of thing…it would apply regardless of party)
Once the GOP has control of both houses this idiocy will look quaint by comparison to what will be coming. I hope Obama has his veto pen ready and is prepared to use it LIBERALLY.
That and, well, you know, that whole thing about the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct prohibiting us from filing claims we know or have reason to believe are entirely meritless and frivolous. Having to be honest is damn inconvenient when all you really want to do is shake someone down or destroy them.
…rather than through law firms that are susceptible to political pressure from wealthy, Democratic-leaning clients
Ummm…something tells me the pressure may not just be coming from Democratic clients. Probably any client with a lick of sense would be against this. It will not end well for Republicans.
But, having said that, please proceed conservatives…
@DaveyJones these are all good reasons why the case may eventually fail. They are not good reasons why Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan would fire the client and drop the case. This is not a contingency case. The firm has no financial stake in the outcome. On the contrary, the complexity and difficulty of the argument just means that their billable hours would go through the roof. From what little I have read about this firm, they are really not bashful when it comes to either making ‘original’ arguments or taking their client’s money in the pursuit of a ‘lost cause’.
Could be they also came to realize that the House is more interested in the politics of the suit than in the substance of it, and is perfectly content to let it sit in limbo indefinitely.
Well, it’s probably on track for what it was really supposed to do, and that is to kick up a lot of dust and distract people from the dearth of substantive ideas coming out of the Republican camp.
My guess is that A) some clients probably did raise concerns, which always puts a chilly look on finding new clients, and B) The client is already talking about changing the entire case. The suit was supposed to be about delaying the employer mandate a year (and by the time it would get in front of a judge now, a moot point, as the delay will have been lifted) to suing over some yet to be announced but anticipated, so nobody has a clue what they are, executive orders on immigration.
Building an original argument and pursuing lost causes is one thing. You are signing on to become the House’s pet while they play a dangerous Constitutional game, not litigate. And that sort of relationship can have a VERY chilly impact upon finding new business. You cut your market in half or more.
You are right… it looks like the truth is a bit more complex. According to the National Law Journal and contrary to what was reported here the House moved the suit out from under Baker & Hoestetler (previous lawyer) because of a contract dispute. (http://goo.gl/I40otQ ) Specifically, the firm was not permitted to lobby for any clients that were in the health care industry. The linked article listed two of Baker’s clients that put them in violation to this conflict clause to the tune of $880,000 / year. The article did not explicitly say that the house canceled the Baker contract but it implied as much. Furthermore, if you read the actual contract for services between the House and the law firm (http://goo.gl/NU2lm0) there is no provision for the firm being able to cancel the contract. The only party that can walk away from the contract is the General Counsel for the House.
I find the idea that other clients are pressuring firms not to take the case odd. Who are these clients and why would they care so much if the House GOP embarrasses themselves? I find it more likely the firms don’t want to take a high profile and totally merit free case and are using “other clients” as an excuse. Or it’s republican clients, not democrats, who are worried about the repercussions for their own party. After all, not every republican is stupid.
It might surprise some people, but when a law firm really thinks a case is poor and the client is still adamant that they want to go ahead, the law firm will often refuse to take it on. Partly it is down to scruples, not wanting to take money for a lost cause. And partly it is because clients in such cases can be real nightmares, often blaming the lawyer for the eventual inevitable loss.
