And yet the firm is asking the judge to release them from representing Bannon on that very basis: unpaid bills. Which, in my experience of corporate law firms, is extreme enough to be The Worst Thing in the World.
I have the luxury of being able to fire a client who turns out to be a jerk without going through your profession’s very necessary rigamarole, but I do make sure that my clients can and will pay before I take them on. But then I run the kind of business where I do not talk about “letting the bills pile up” as if it’s no big deal (the lawyers I know definitely don’t do that either).
I’ve never once had to sue a client for unpaid bills in decades. I’ve never had an invoice age more than 60 days, and rarely more than 30. And you’re asking me to have sympathy for attorneys who didn’t vet a high-profile client like Bannon before taking his six-figure retainer (no doubt anticipating many more figures to come)?
Wait, I thought you represent the Constitution and not the client. Come on, counselor, a little consistency in your argument here…
Seriously, even we benighted non-lawyers already understand the point of your clumsy yet lofty statement: in representing a client, a attorney also represents the law of the land. However, as @KathyPartdeux noted, it’s the client and not the Constitution that’s expected to pay the bill. And this case is all about the money and how the firm screwed up dealing with it. You obviously have more sympathy for bunglers than the rest of us.
