帮特朗普竞选翻案，这家律所惹上了大麻烦
乔·拜登赢得美国总统大选几天之后，许多法律界人士震惊地发现，竟然有一家知名律师事务所要协助现任总统特朗普挑战大选结果，尽管特朗普翻案的这种做法极其荒谬。这家律师事务所就是有127年历史的众达律师事务所（Jones Day），在业内备受尊敬，沃尔玛和通用汽车等公司都是该律所的客户。
在遭到媒体和社交网络的谴责之后，众达发布了一篇言辞激烈的文章，为自己的行为辩护。但这似乎无助于平息法律界内外对这家律师事务所的怒火和嘲笑。周四，宪法律师、民主党支持者约翰·博尼法斯分享了周五前往众达律所曼哈顿办事处外抗议的详细计划。
众达内部的多位律师匿名告诉《纽约时报》，批评者之所以感到不满，是因为特朗普总统的诉讼预计在法律上不会取得任何有意义的胜利，反而是总统试图打击公众对选举程序的信心的一项策略。与此同时，美国各地的法官都拒绝受理特朗普的诉讼，理由是特朗普竞选团队有关选举舞弊或选民遭到胁迫的指控都是道听途说或者子虚乌有。
从2015年至今，众达律所从特朗普关联的团体中赚取了超过2,000万美元律师费。对于批评其参与选举诉讼的声音，该律所回应称其并不代表总统或他的竞选团队。众达律所表示其委托人是宾夕法尼亚州共和党。
众达律所在其网站上发表了一篇博客，声称其并不代表总统。周二，由于访问量激增，该网站曾短暂崩溃。这篇博客最后写道：“众达律所希望媒体能够纠正各种虚假报道。”这似乎在呼应特朗普总统最爱用的诋毁“虚假新闻”的策略。
有说法认为众达律所提起的诉讼毫无意义，该律所在文章中反驳了这个说法。它表示，有四位最高法院的法官已经表示支持宾夕法尼亚州共和党的立场，即该州认为计算大选日之后收到的选票，这不符合宪法规定。
该律所的支持者引用最高法院一小部分人的观点。这部分人认为本案（仍在审理当中）诉讼当事人有聘请律师的权利，而且众达律所的行为完全符合职业和道德准则。但并非所有人都认同这种说法。
乔治华盛顿大学法律教授兰德尔·伊莱亚森专门从事白领刑事法律研究。他认为，人人有权聘请律师的宪法原则，在本案中并不适用。
他说：“区别在于，该律所在本案中代理的并不是被政府起诉的刑事被告。【特朗普竞选团队】在主动提起诉讼，属于攻方，众达律所没有义务代表他们。”伊莱亚森补充说，众达律所不是小规模的公民权利律所，而是一家大型律所，因此它必定会因为代理的委托人遭到公众批评。
其他律师也认同这种观点。纽约市一位曾在两家顶级律所工作过超过15年的律师承认，宾夕法尼亚州的诉讼确实涉及到法律争议，但他对众达律所选择接下这起诉讼的原因提出了质疑。
这位律师表示：“有自尊、有尊严的律师都不应该代理他们的案件。”担心激怒众达律所，这位律师要求匿名。他表示，这起诉讼由一家知名的人身伤害律所代理更适合。他说：“应该让Jacoby & Meyers律师事务所代理本案。”
众达律所的委托人似乎不必急于打这场官司，因为涉及到截止日期争议的选票数量只有约1万张，并不会影响大选结果。当选总统拜登在宾夕法尼亚州领先超过5万张选票。国会议员刘云平（加州民主党）周三在Twitter上提出了这种观点。他表示，其他律师事务所显然都知道这场官司不会成功，所以都拒绝接受代理。
很开心看到曾经支持@realDonaldTrump的律师们正在抛弃他。
@JonesDay什么时候停止毫无意义的诉讼？这场诉讼仅涉及到极少数宾州选票，对于大选结果毫无影响。令人恼火的是，他们试图用一份让人讨厌的声明，为这场毫无意义的诉讼辩护。https://t.co/UUcegvEyPs
—— 刘云平（@tedlieu）2020年11月12日
随着时间的推移，连共和党内的重量级人物卡尔·罗夫都在《华尔街日报》的社论中直截了当地说大选结果有效，这更证明这些诉讼没有任何意义。
与此同时，反特朗普团体林肯计划（The Lincoln Project）表示将拿出50万美元来羞辱众达律所，并向沃尔玛和亚马逊等该律所的客户施压，要求他们终止与该律所的合作。
林肯计划鼓励人们向LinkedIn联系人里的众达律所员工发信息，在社交媒体上分享他们的信件，有些人已经在这样做了。
众达律所和另外一家大型律所铂睿律师事务所（Porter Wright）协助特朗普挑战大选结果所引发的争议，也被法律媒体大量报道，有一位资深记者表示，以前从未见过一家律所会遭到如此严格的审查。
在特朗普削弱民众对选举程序的信任的计划中，这些律所扮演的角色所引发的争议，是否会对其商誉产生长期影响，还是会像社交媒体上的许多意外事故一样很快就会被淡忘，目前仍无法确定。
纽约市的资深律师表示，众达律所的律师不太可能因为当前的争议辞职，尤其是辞职意味着在动荡的经济环境中放弃丰厚的薪水，但在这家律所工作，可能会使他们在曼哈顿的法律界遭到排挤，因为当地法律圈以民主党为主，有排外的传统。他补充说，众达律所的做法可能导致其无法招聘到出色的律师和优秀的法学院学生。
法律教授伊莱亚森也认为，有些顶级法学院的学生可能会拒绝该律所的邀请，因为以前法学生曾经避免在代理大型烟草公司的律所工作。
众达律所的发言人拒绝评价其当前面临的争议是否会影响未来的招聘。铂睿律师事务所发布了如下声明：
“铂睿恪守我们的法律伦理义务，对我们与当前和以前的委托人的关系与合作保密。铂睿有参与选举法律工作的悠久历史，曾经代理过民主党、共和党和独立竞选团队以及各种问题。有时候这需要我们代理具有争议的案件。我们预料到会遭到批评，而且我们也尊重任何人表达担忧和异议的权利。”（财富中文网）
翻译：刘进龙
审校：汪皓
乔·拜登赢得美国总统大选几天之后，许多法律界人士震惊地发现，竟然有一家知名律师事务所要协助现任总统特朗普挑战大选结果，尽管特朗普翻案的这种做法极其荒谬。这家律师事务所就是有127年历史的众达律师事务所（Jones Day），在业内备受尊敬，沃尔玛和通用汽车等公司都是该律所的客户。
在遭到媒体和社交网络的谴责之后，众达发布了一篇言辞激烈的文章，为自己的行为辩护。但这似乎无助于平息法律界内外对这家律师事务所的怒火和嘲笑。周四，宪法律师、民主党支持者约翰·博尼法斯分享了周五前往众达律所曼哈顿办事处外抗议的详细计划。
众达内部的多位律师匿名告诉《纽约时报》，批评者之所以感到不满，是因为特朗普总统的诉讼预计在法律上不会取得任何有意义的胜利，反而是总统试图打击公众对选举程序的信心的一项策略。与此同时，美国各地的法官都拒绝受理特朗普的诉讼，理由是特朗普竞选团队有关选举舞弊或选民遭到胁迫的指控都是道听途说或者子虚乌有。
从2015年至今，众达律所从特朗普关联的团体中赚取了超过2,000万美元律师费。对于批评其参与选举诉讼的声音，该律所回应称其并不代表总统或他的竞选团队。众达律所表示其委托人是宾夕法尼亚州共和党。
众达律所在其网站上发表了一篇博客，声称其并不代表总统。周二，由于访问量激增，该网站曾短暂崩溃。这篇博客最后写道：“众达律所希望媒体能够纠正各种虚假报道。”这似乎在呼应特朗普总统最爱用的诋毁“虚假新闻”的策略。
有说法认为众达律所提起的诉讼毫无意义，该律所在文章中反驳了这个说法。它表示，有四位最高法院的法官已经表示支持宾夕法尼亚州共和党的立场，即该州认为计算大选日之后收到的选票，这不符合宪法规定。
该律所的支持者引用最高法院一小部分人的观点。这部分人认为本案（仍在审理当中）诉讼当事人有聘请律师的权利，而且众达律所的行为完全符合职业和道德准则。但并非所有人都认同这种说法。
乔治华盛顿大学法律教授兰德尔·伊莱亚森专门从事白领刑事法律研究。他认为，人人有权聘请律师的宪法原则，在本案中并不适用。
他说：“区别在于，该律所在本案中代理的并不是被政府起诉的刑事被告。【特朗普竞选团队】在主动提起诉讼，属于攻方，众达律所没有义务代表他们。”伊莱亚森补充说，众达律所不是小规模的公民权利律所，而是一家大型律所，因此它必定会因为代理的委托人遭到公众批评。
其他律师也认同这种观点。纽约市一位曾在两家顶级律所工作过超过15年的律师承认，宾夕法尼亚州的诉讼确实涉及到法律争议，但他对众达律所选择接下这起诉讼的原因提出了质疑。
这位律师表示：“有自尊、有尊严的律师都不应该代理他们的案件。”担心激怒众达律所，这位律师要求匿名。他表示，这起诉讼由一家知名的人身伤害律所代理更适合。他说：“应该让Jacoby & Meyers律师事务所代理本案。”
众达律所的委托人似乎不必急于打这场官司，因为涉及到截止日期争议的选票数量只有约1万张，并不会影响大选结果。当选总统拜登在宾夕法尼亚州领先超过5万张选票。国会议员刘云平（加州民主党）周三在Twitter上提出了这种观点。他表示，其他律师事务所显然都知道这场官司不会成功，所以都拒绝接受代理。
很开心看到曾经支持@realDonaldTrump的律师们正在抛弃他。
@JonesDay什么时候停止毫无意义的诉讼？这场诉讼仅涉及到极少数宾州选票，对于大选结果毫无影响。令人恼火的是，他们试图用一份让人讨厌的声明，为这场毫无意义的诉讼辩护。https://t.co/UUcegvEyPs
—— 刘云平（@tedlieu）2020年11月12日
随着时间的推移，连共和党内的重量级人物卡尔·罗夫都在《华尔街日报》的社论中直截了当地说大选结果有效，这更证明这些诉讼没有任何意义。
与此同时，反特朗普团体林肯计划（The Lincoln Project）表示将拿出50万美元来羞辱众达律所，并向沃尔玛和亚马逊等该律所的客户施压，要求他们终止与该律所的合作。
林肯计划鼓励人们向LinkedIn联系人里的众达律所员工发信息，在社交媒体上分享他们的信件，有些人已经在这样做了。
众达律所和另外一家大型律所铂睿律师事务所（Porter Wright）协助特朗普挑战大选结果所引发的争议，也被法律媒体大量报道，有一位资深记者表示，以前从未见过一家律所会遭到如此严格的审查。
在特朗普削弱民众对选举程序的信任的计划中，这些律所扮演的角色所引发的争议，是否会对其商誉产生长期影响，还是会像社交媒体上的许多意外事故一样很快就会被淡忘，目前仍无法确定。
纽约市的资深律师表示，众达律所的律师不太可能因为当前的争议辞职，尤其是辞职意味着在动荡的经济环境中放弃丰厚的薪水，但在这家律所工作，可能会使他们在曼哈顿的法律界遭到排挤，因为当地法律圈以民主党为主，有排外的传统。他补充说，众达律所的做法可能导致其无法招聘到出色的律师和优秀的法学院学生。
法律教授伊莱亚森也认为，有些顶级法学院的学生可能会拒绝该律所的邀请，因为以前法学生曾经避免在代理大型烟草公司的律所工作。
众达律所的发言人拒绝评价其当前面临的争议是否会影响未来的招聘。铂睿律师事务所发布了如下声明：
“铂睿恪守我们的法律伦理义务，对我们与当前和以前的委托人的关系与合作保密。铂睿有参与选举法律工作的悠久历史，曾经代理过民主党、共和党和独立竞选团队以及各种问题。有时候这需要我们代理具有争议的案件。我们预料到会遭到批评，而且我们也尊重任何人表达担忧和异议的权利。”（财富中文网）
翻译：刘进龙
审校：汪皓
In the days after Joe Biden won the election, many in legal circles were appalled to see a high-profile law firm assisting President Trump’s far-fetched attempts to challenge the results: Jones Day, a venerable 127-year-old firm that boasts the likes of Walmart and General Motors among its clients.
As criticism mounted in the press and social media, Jones Day shot back with a fiery blog post defending its actions. But that appears to have done little to quell the anger and mockery directed at the firm from inside and outside the legal community. On Thursday, constitutional lawyer and Democratic Party supporter John Bonifaz shared details of a planned Friday protest outside Jones Day’s offices in Manhattan.
The source of critics’ frustration is that President Trump’s legal challenges are not expected to produce any meaningful legal victories, but instead appear to be part of a strategy on the part of the President to undermine public confidence in the electoral process—according to several of Jones Day’s own lawyers who spoke anonymously to the New York Times. Meanwhile, judges across the country have been tossing out cases on the grounds that the Trump campaign’s claims of fraud or voter intimidation are hearsay or simply baseless.
Jones Day, which has made more than $20 million in fees from Trump-affiliated groups since 2015, has responded to criticism over its role in the election litigation by saying it is not representing the President or his campaign. Instead, the firm says, its client is the Pennsylvania Republican Party—which may be a distinction without a difference if the allegations about the collective lawsuits being part of a coordinated strategy to sow doubt about the electoral process are true.
Jones Day’s claim not to represent the President came in a blog post on its website, which briefly crashed after a flood of visits on Tuesday. And in a seeming echo of President Trump’s favored tactic of decrying “fake news,” the post concluded by saying, “Jones Day expects that the media will correct the numerous false reports.”
Jones Day’s statement also pushed back against the notion that the litigation it has filed is frivolous—noting that four Justices of the Supreme Court have expressed support for the Pennsylvania GOP’s position that the state’s decision to count ballots received after Election Day is unconstitutional.
Indeed, the firm’s defenders may cite the legal weight given to the case (which is still being decided) by a faction of the Supreme Court, along with the core principle that litigants have the right to a lawyer, in arguing that Jones Day is behaving in a perfectly professional and ethical fashion. But not everyone is buying it.
Randall Eliason, a law professor at George Washington University who specializes in white-collar criminal law, says the constitutional principle of everyone having a right to a lawyer isn’t at play in this case.
“The distinction here is this is not a criminal defendant who is being prosecuted by the government,” he said. “[The Trump campaign] is playing offense by affirmatively bringing these cases, and the firm is not obligated to represent them.” Eliason added that Jones Day is not a small civil rights firm but a corporate behemoth that should not expect to be exempt from public criticism over the clients it represents.
Other lawyers share this view. A New York City attorney, who has spent more than 15 years at two white-shoe firms, acknowledged the Pennsylvania case involved a genuine legal dispute but questioned why Jones Day had chosen to press the claims.
“No self-respecting, dignified lawyers should be representing them,” said the lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared antagonizing Jones Day. He then suggested that it would be more appropriate for a prominent personal injury law firm: “Let Jacoby & Meyers do it,” he said.
There appears to be little urgency for Jones Day’s client to pursue the Pennsylvania case given that the number of ballots subject to the deadline dispute—about 10,000—would not affect the election outcome. President-elect Biden’s margin of victory in the state currently stands at over 50,000 votes. Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) made this point on Twitter on Wednesday, noting other law firms have walked away from apparently fruitless legal challenges.
Pleased some lawyers for @realDonaldTrump are dropping him.
When is @JonesDay going to stop their frivolous lawsuit? It affects a small fraction of PA ballots & has zero effect on the outcome. What’s galling is their obnoxious statement trying to defend the frivolous filing. https://t.co/UUcegvEyPs
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) November 12, 2020
The futility of the legal challenges has also become more apparent as the week has gone on, with GOP party heavyweight Karl Rove stating plainly in a Wall Street Journal editorial that the election results will stand.
Meanwhile, the anti-Trump group The Lincoln Project has pledged to spend $500,000 in an effort to shame the law firm and pressure its corporate clients like Walmart and Amazon to cut their ties.
The Lincoln Project has also encouraged people to write to their Jones Day contacts on LinkedIn and share their missives on social media, which some people have done.
The controversy over Jones Day and a second big law firm, Porter Wright, helping Trump challenge the election results has also produced a flurry of coverage in the legal press, with one veteran reporter saying he has never seen a firm receive this level of scrutiny in the past.
Nonetheless, it’s unclear if the flap over the firms’ role in undercutting faith in the electoral process will produce lasting reputational harm—or if, like so many contretemps on social media, it will quickly be forgotten.
According to the veteran New York City lawyer, it’s unlikely Jones Day lawyers will quit over the controversy—especially as it would mean giving up a big salary in a shaky economy—but that working at the firm might lead to them being shunned in Manhattan’s clubby and overwhelmingly Democratic legal community. He added that Jones Day’s actions may hurt the firm’s ability to hire prominent attorneys and top law students.
Eliason, the law professor, also predicted that some students from elite law schools might refuse offers from the firm, recalling how students in the past balked at working for firms that represented Big Tobacco.
A spokesperson for Jones Day declined to comment on whether the controversy would impair the firm’s ability to recruit. Porter Wright provided the following statement:
“Porter Wright is bound by our legal ethical obligations to keep relationships and work with both current and former clients confidential. Porter Wright has a long history of election law work during which we have represented Democratic, Republican, and independent campaigns and issues. At times, this calls for us to take on controversial cases. We expect criticism in such instances, and we affirm the right of all individuals to express concern and disagreement.”
