The memorandum does not provide the reason for the firm’s decision. Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that there were internal tensions among employees at the law firm who felt the case would “undermine the electoral process.”
Perhaps when this law firm took the case originally, they thought it would be a fruitless search for election problems. Is it possible that when they saw how much fraud was available to be proven that they saw their future moneymaking future in jeopardy?
I am surprised that a law firm does not have to give a reason when they withdraw from representing a client in the middle of the case.
I read somewhere that they didn’t like Rudy talking so much about the investigation.