[The Pack Knight]

I'm certainly not unsympathetic. I can't imagine what it was like for them. I just don't think it's a strong argument for a government official to change his or her vote after the fact. On a related note, I AM unsympathetic to Ronald Hicks and Porter Wright, the Trump campaign's lawyers who bailed on him in the Pennsylvania litigation. It sucks that they were harassed, but Hicks is an election lawyer and had to know going in what might happen if he represented Donald Trump in post-election litigation in a battleground state. The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct enumerate the reasons a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client, and exposure to public harassment and ridicule is not one of them.

Unless there's some other reason for the withdrawal that we don't know about, those lawyers violated their professional obligations. Sometimes the client wants to do something that the lawyer doesn't think he can do, but that's clearly not what happened here: The campaign actually dropped their more controversial claims after Porter Wright withdrew. The only innocent explanation I can think of is that the campaign no longer wanted to pay Porter Wright's fees--they have certainly gone with what appear to be less expensive lawyers since then.

I know this is not specifically what we were talking about, but as a lawyer I feel the need to rant about it.

[familyop]

Thank you for bringing that up. Is there something in law to enforce against harassment or threatening behavior in those situations? Judges are bound in rules and procedures of at least some states against opinions based on fear (to put it loosely), but there are strong legal remedies against trying to scare judges. Do such remedies exist for attorneys and election board members?

I’m not a lawyer but have volunteered for a narrow interest activity in the past (family rights). Disclaimer: There’s *no* legal advice from anyone in this discussion. It’s only an informal discussion concerning policies.