https://www.mytwintiers.com/news-cat/us-politics/legal-expert-weighs-in-on-trump-campaign-lawsuit/
Williamsport, Pa. – The law firm, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, will no longer be representing the Trump Campaign on the federal lawsuit filed against the state of Pennsylvania challenging the results of the 2020 election.
The lawsuit, which alleges irregularities of the voting process and the creation of a “two-tiered” system between in-person and mail-in ballots, was just filed three days ago in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Williamsport Judge Matthew W. Brann, a Republican appointed by President Obama, is slated to rule on the case.
According to the memorandum filed with the firm’s motion to withdraw, Porter Wright and the Plaintiffs “have reached a mutual agreement that Plaintiffs will be best served if Porter Wright withdraws, and current co-counsel and such other counsel as Plaintiffs may choose to engage represent Plaintiffs in this case.”
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.”
Porter Wright is based in Columbus, Ohio, and has offices in multiple locations including Pennsylvania. Prior to its withdrawal from the case, it was one of the few major law firms representing the Trump Campaign in its challenges of the election.
Related Reading: Pa. GOP lawmakers to probe unverified fraud claims in election they largely won
The lawsuit, filed against Pennsylvania State Secretary Kathy C. Bookvar and multiple Pennsylvania counties, will now be represented by lawyer Linda Kerns. Kerns, a Philadelphia-based lawyer, has been an outspoken legal advocate for President Trump.
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.