A new article out in Politico explores the disastrous decision of Squire Patton Boggs to bring in Michael Cohen in a blatant scheme to sell access to the President. Edward Newberry, one of the top lobbyists for Squire Patton Boggs, is described as one of the critical players in taking on a lawyer who was already viewed as one of the sleaziest and unethical lawyers in the country. Indeed, the article describes how some members of the struggling firm noted that he could well end up as the next Jack Abramoff, who went to jail for a long pattern of grotesque corruption. What was most interesting however about Theordoric Meyer’s piece however was the defense by the firm spokesperson, Angelo Kakolyris, in the article on the five clients that Cohen brought the firm under his bloated deal: “they are almost all legal clients.” “Almost all”? In reality, Kakolyris was making a finer point, I assume, that the small number of clients were legal not lobbying matters. However, it is an unfortunate choice of words for dealings with a man who seems to be spinning off criminal allegations the way hurricanes spin off tornados.
Emmet Flood
There is an old joke among criminal defense attorneys that “justice delayed is justice,” a twist of the old adage that “justice delayed is justice denied.” The joke reflects that fact that the defense almost always benefits from the passage of time and it is the prosecution that often pushes for earlier trial debates to deny the defense enough time to absorb and address evidence. That is not the case with Special Counsel Robert Mueller who has asked federal Judge Dabney L. Friedrich to deny a speedy trial motion and delay any trial of 13 Russians and three Russian companies for efforts to influence the 2016 election. The effort reflects problems in Mueller’s matinee case, including 
New York lawyer (and GW Law graduate) Aaron Schlossberg who 
Below is my column in USA Today on recent disclosure of Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, received hundreds of thousands of dollars from companies like AT&T seeking access to Trump. Accounts indicate that Cohen actively sold himself as a conduit to Trump to companies seeking influence. Cohen is only the latest in a long line of sleaze winding its way through Washington.
We have 
With his former personal attorney Michael Cohen spinning off ethical violations like some hurricanes spin off tornados, Rudolph W. Giuliani was meant to bring back some relief from the worsening scandal over Stormy Daniels. Instead, Giuliani gave a rambling, conflicted account that the President had to refute the next morning. The worse rebuke however came yesterday when Giuliani’s firm Greenberg Traurig severed ties with Giuliani and specifically refuted his claims that all lawyers regularly do what Cohen did. Many of us at the time noted that lawyers do not take these actions and pay hush money from retainer funds. The firm not only wanted to establish that it did not do such unethical things but that it was no longer going to be associated with Rudy Giuliani.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the controversial comments of Judge T.S. Ellis III. While I viewed that insinuations about Mueller’s motivations to be inappropriate, there is a real question concerning the different and still fully explained difference in treatment of the Manafort and Cohen cases.
President Nixon’s White House counsel John Dean claimed that if the Trump administration leaked questions from special counsel 
President Donald Trump lashed out at the leaking of the questions that Special Counsel Robert Mueller wants to ask him in an interview as “so disgraceful.” In the meantime, various news organizations (including Fox News) pointed fingers at former counsel John Dowd. Since the New York Times said that the leak did not come from “current counsel,” Dowd instantly became the leading suspect. Dowd however has denied the allegations and maintained
I (and many others) have cautioned the President for over a year that his tweets and public comments are underlying his case (and litigation like the immigration challenges) in federal court. Now the