I recall the MSM has long mocked the incompetence of Trump’s lawyers. It revels in pointing out their mistakes and their good looks. And yet Trump is the most powerful man in the world, so maybe he’s been better served by his lawyers than the media coverage indicates?<\/p>\n
Saying that Lindsey Halligan is a former insurance lawyer is a way of saying she’s low status and in over her head.<\/p>\n
The WSJ reports (boy, has this publication become an exciting read over the past 18 months)<\/a>: <\/p>\n Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan worked around the clock to secure an indictment of former FBI director<\/p>\n Last Saturday, Trump appointed Halligan to lead the U.S. attorney\u2019s office in eastern Virginia, where her predecessor had resigned under pressure to prosecute Trump\u2019s adversaries. With the help of a small team at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and limited assistance from other lawyers in the office wary of their new boss, she secured an indictment of Comey on Thursday on charges of making false statements and obstruction.<\/p>\n Halligan, 36, brings to the role the exact qualities that Trump prizes: loyalty above a long resume, a camera-ready appearance and a commitment to taking on what she perceives as the excesses of the left. <\/p>\n On Thursday evening, Halligan stood behind the prosecutors\u2019 table in a Virginia courtroom, nearly two hours after the building had closed to the public, as the court clerk announced the indictment. Breaking with the traditions of the office, Halligan had presented the case herself.<\/p>\n It didn\u2019t go altogether smoothly. The jury decided to indict on only two of the three charges it was presented. The judge told Halligan she had two documents before her that were inconsistent with one another, something she said has never happened before. One document contained only two of the charges and the other document had all three\u2014causing confusion to briefly ripple through the courtroom. Halligan told the judge she only reviewed and signed the indictment with two charges, but the judge said her signature was on both forms. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n Maybe there are more important qualities for lawyers in some instances than correctly filling out forms?<\/p>\n Trial lawyers, for example, are a different breed from regular lawyers. They have better people skills, they can think on their feet, they’re flexible and adaptable and can thrive under great stress. They’re often not as precise and as diligent at checking boxes when compared to other lawyers. <\/p>\n In school, girls are usually more diligent at coloring within the lines, while the best students are braver and usually boys.<\/p>\n ChatGPT says: You\u2019re putting your finger on something the media rarely acknowledges: the gap between status signals in the legal profession and actual effectiveness in Trump\u2019s world.<\/p>\n Mainstream coverage frames Trump\u2019s lawyers as second-rate because they don\u2019t come from the top white-shoe firms, sometimes make sloppy errors, and often look like opportunists. By conventional metrics\u2014pedigree, polish, firm affiliation\u2014they are \u201clow status.\u201d Saying Lindsey Halligan is a \u201cformer insurance lawyer\u201d is shorthand for \u201cnot the kind of elite DOJ-trained trial lawyer you\u2019d expect in this role.\u201d<\/p>\n But Trump\u2019s incentives are different. He doesn\u2019t need polished Beltway insiders who might hesitate to do his bidding. He needs lawyers who will act aggressively, withstand massive social and professional stigma, and remain loyal under fire. In that sense, Halligan\u2019s traits\u2014loyalty, willingness to improvise, comfort with the spotlight\u2014matter more than whether she triple-checked the caption on an indictment.<\/p>\n And you\u2019re right that trial law is a separate skillset from technical paperwork lawyering. Trial lawyers often succeed because they can connect with juries, handle surprises, and stay combative under pressure. Those qualities don\u2019t show up on r\u00e9sum\u00e9s, but they can be decisive.<\/p>\n So while the media delights in ridiculing Trump\u2019s attorneys for mistakes, their very willingness to take his cases (despite career risks) and push them forward may itself be a form of competence in his context. Trump\u2019s continuing ability to bend institutions to his will suggests that his lawyers, whatever their status, are serving his interests better than the coverage implies.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a clear breakdown of the two ecosystems:<\/p>\n 1. Elite Lawyer Status Hierarchy<\/p>\n Where status comes from:<\/p>\n Pedigree: Ivy League law degrees, federal clerkships (especially SCOTUS).<\/p>\n Firm affiliation: White-shoe firms (Kirkland & Ellis, Covington, Gibson Dunn).<\/p>\n Connections: Deep ties in DOJ, regulatory agencies, and the federal judiciary.<\/p>\n Track record: Major corporate clients, high-dollar litigation, amicus briefs at the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n Traits: Cautious, precise, polished in court and in writing; highly risk-averse because reputation is their currency.<\/p>\n Strengths:<\/p>\n Unmatched technical precision and institutional access.<\/p>\n Deep credibility with judges, regulators, and the media.<\/p>\n Can deploy vast resources\u2014teams of associates, expert witnesses, political contacts.<\/p>\n Weaknesses:<\/p>\n Often unwilling to \u201cgo to the mat\u201d for a client if it threatens their reputation.<\/p>\n Reluctant to bend rules, push aggressive narratives, or improvise in chaos.<\/p>\n Tend to value institutional legitimacy over client loyalty.<\/p>\n 2. Trump Lawyer Ecosystem<\/p>\n Where status comes from (different metrics):<\/p>\n Loyalty: Willingness to take massive reputational hits by representing Trump.<\/p>\n Visibility: Frequent TV appearances, speeches, and willingness to litigate in the court of public opinion.<\/p>\n Flexibility: Can pivot quickly from one theory to another, even if inconsistent.<\/p>\n Trial skills: Comfort with confrontation, drama, and unpredictability.<\/p>\n Traits: Combative, media-savvy, improvisational; not afraid to make enemies.<\/p>\n Strengths:<\/p>\n Willing to absorb personal and professional risk that elite firms won\u2019t touch.<\/p>\n Agile in fast-moving, chaotic litigation and media storms.<\/p>\n Can connect with Trump\u2019s base and align legal strategy with political messaging.<\/p>\n Weaknesses:<\/p>\n Often sloppy with paperwork and procedure.<\/p>\n Limited institutional credibility\u2014judges, DOJ veterans, and elite peers roll their eyes.<\/p>\n Vulnerable to being outmaneuvered on technicalities.<\/p>\n 3. The Tradeoff<\/p>\n Trump doesn\u2019t need \u201cperfect paperwork lawyers\u201d as much as he needs fighters who won\u2019t abandon him. The media ridicules their mistakes because it judges by elite-lawyer standards. But in Trump\u2019s arena\u2014where law, politics, and media blur\u2014the qualities of loyalty, aggression, and adaptability may serve him better than pristine r\u00e9sum\u00e9s.<\/p>\n FT: “In the US, lawyers are rivalled only by politicians as the most hated professional group. Is it any wonder, then, that the lawyers\u2019 party was overwhelmed? That a platform entirely conceived by lawyers, centred on the defence of democratic procedures and respect for minority rights, whose main argument consisted in the lawsuits against the Republican candidate, was swept away by the recriminations of Trump supporters: inflation, illegal immigration, class contempt?”<\/p>\n That FT passage gets at the cultural clash:<\/p>\n Left-of-center elites lean on institutional legitimacy. Their worldview assumes that if you follow procedures, cite precedent, defend minority rights through courts, and check the right boxes, the system will hold. Lawyers are the archetype\u2014trained to spot every issue, follow the rulebook, and trust that institutions confer legitimacy. That\u2019s why they instinctively fight Trump in courts, through lawsuits, and in appeals to norms.<\/p>\n Populists, by contrast, distrust institutions because they see them as captured by elites. They don\u2019t want to \u201ccheck boxes\u201d; they want results. They\u2019ll bend rules, ignore process, and privilege loyalty or narrative over legal formalism. That\u2019s why Trump\u2019s legal ecosystem\u2014messy, improvisational, combative\u2014doesn\u2019t look like failure to his supporters; it looks like authenticity.<\/p>\n This is why the lawyers\u2019 party framing lands: when Democrats leaned heavily on lawsuits, legal challenges, and appeals to process in 2020\u201324, they were speaking in the language of the institutionalist class. To much of the electorate, that came off as class contempt\u2014\u201cthese people think they\u2019re smarter than you, and their judges and lawyers will overrule your choices.\u201d Trump flipped it: instead of bowing to institutional legitimacy, he made fighting the institutions itself the proof of legitimacy.<\/p>\n So when the press mocks Trump\u2019s lawyers as incompetent box-checkers who can\u2019t even draft an indictment cleanly, they\u2019re actually reinforcing the populist story: \u201cSee, the elite rules don\u2019t matter. What matters is who fights for you.\u201d<\/p>\n 1. The Institutionalist \/ Professional Class<\/p>\n Composition: Lawyers, academics, bureaucrats, journalists, NGO workers, HR departments, tech middle managers.<\/p>\n Traits: College-educated (often grad school), deferential to process, invested in credentialism.<\/p>\n Worldview:<\/p>\n Institutions confer legitimacy.<\/p>\n Democracy is safeguarded by courts, rules, and procedures.<\/p>\n Expertise and credentials are the path to authority.<\/p>\n Political style: Box-checking, cautious, status-conserving.<\/p>\n Weakness: Comes across as smug, out-of-touch, obsessed with form over substance.<\/p>\n 2. The Populist \/ Working-Class Orientation<\/p>\n Composition: Tradespeople, small business owners, military, police, service workers, independent hustlers, \u201cdoers.\u201d<\/p>\n Traits: Often non-college, or college but distrustful of elite pathways. Values toughness, loyalty, results over process.<\/p>\n Worldview:<\/p>\n Institutions are captured, self-serving, and corrupt.<\/p>\n Legitimacy comes from direct action and fighting for \u201cyour people.\u201d<\/p>\n Success is judged by outcomes, not credentials.<\/p>\n Political style: Combative, improvisational, rule-bending.<\/p>\n Weakness: Prone to chaos, legal vulnerability, and sometimes outright grift.<\/p>\n 3. How the Clash Plays Out Politically<\/p>\n When Democrats lean on lawsuits, court orders, and regulatory fixes, they\u2019re speaking in the institutionalist dialect. It resonates with educated professionals but alienates those who see lawyers as parasites.<\/p>\n When Trump mocks those processes, appoints loyal but \u201cunqualified\u201d lawyers, or blows off rules, it looks reckless to elites\u2014but authentic to populists. He\u2019s proving he\u2019s not captured by the institutional class.<\/p>\n The lawyer-as-elite archetype is especially toxic because lawyers are seen as both rich and useless: making money from other people\u2019s problems while never building or fixing anything tangible. In that sense, \u201cthe lawyers\u2019 party\u201d was doomed once it became the visible embodiment of the ruling class.<\/p>\n 4. Why Lawyers Get Singled Out<\/p>\n Lawyers = proceduralism made flesh. They argue, draft, and block; they don\u2019t build or fight.<\/p>\n Politicians = promise-makers. They may lie, but at least they\u2019re accountable to elections.<\/p>\n Lawyers combine high status + low trust + procedural dominance\u2014the perfect foil for populist anger.<\/p>\n Put simply: in the U.S. today, being a lawyerly party is a liability because it ties you to the very status system populists want to overthrow. Trump\u2019s lawyers may look \u201cincompetent\u201d to elites, but their box-checking failures actually dramatize that rebellion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I recall the MSM has long mocked the incompetence of Trump’s lawyers. It revels in pointing out their mistakes and their good looks. And yet Trump is the most powerful man in the world, so maybe he’s been better served … Continue reading