Confusion and concern appear to be the order of the day at Nixon Peabody, following the firm’s decision to quietly take on Donald Trump as a client. The decision was met with consternation by many partners, particularly given recent motion filings that echoed controversial public rhetoric linked to Trump’s stance on the events of January 6th.
Indeed, some have called for the firm’s leadership to step down and for any team involved in Trump’s representation to exit the firm, following the precedent set by many a former Trump attorney with Biglaw roots. But, for now, these calls are yet to result in any observable action.
However, beyond the internal conflict and potential reputational damage stemming from this case, the probing question posed by an astute reader offers a seemingly overlooked aspect for consideration: was a retainer secured? If so, how much?
Although seeking a retainer is typical practice, one might question the necessity given that consulting the partnership about taking on potential clients did not appear to be a priority in this case. Speaking of Trump and legal retainers another query arises, familiarly known to Rudy Giuliani, concerning Trump’s notorious history of stiffing lawyers.
In fact, a former Biglaw attorney remarked that his firm suffered a loss after securing a key victory for Trump in the 1980s; Trump, crashing the celebratory party, announced he wouldn’t pay their invoices. The firm did eventually receive payment, but at a compromised rate.
While it is known that the Republican Party, not Trump specifically, referred the case to the firm, it’s uncertain who bore the financial burden. Notably, one could question why exactly the GOP would choose to address the legal implications of instigating a coup via the Fourteenth Amendment.
From a monetary perspective, if the responsibility of payment falls on Trump or his campaign, the firm’s coverage proves critical when considering the potentially hefty costs of ongoing motion practice. Regardless of this outcome, it seems that nothing might irk those Biglaw partners more than the sight of their firm taking risky and potentially embarrassing actions behind their backs, only not to be properly compensated.