Skip to Navigation
Skip to Main Content
Skip to Related Content
Lawyer for Biden accuser Tara Reade drops her as a client
May 22, 2020
Read full article
Sign in to post a message.
Attorney Douglas Wigdor told The Associated Press he was not currently being paid for his work with Reade. His firm also denied there was a political motivation for his decision to represent Reade in her accusations against Trump’s presumptive Democratic opponent in the November election.
“We have decided to take this matter on because every survivor has the right to competent counsel,” the firm said in a statement.
So what changed then?????
While every "victim" deserves to have their claims heard (In spite of my personal belief that waiting 20 or 30 years to make such claim automatically makes your claim suspicious, unless you've been held captive that whole time), a history like this woman has tends to create credibility problems. Combine that with the ever changing facts over the years and the amount of time that has passed, particularly with the amount of vetting the accused has faced over the years, and it makes for a very unlikely chance that she's telling the truth and her lawyers are right to dump her. But hey, that's my opinion.
"Wigdor fielded numerous media questions in recent weeks surrounding inconsistencies in Reade’s biography and the legal challenges she’s faced. This week, The Associated Press and other media outlets published extensive biographies of Reade, revealing she appears to have exaggerated her educational achievements, was mired in endless financial difficulties and faced frequent lawsuits with individuals who said she defrauded them or failed to pay bills."
"Defense lawyers in Monterey County this week began investigating whether Reade committed perjury when she testified under oath that she had a college degree from Antioch, as first reported Friday by The New York Times. Antioch University told the AP that Reade never obtained a diploma from the school, and Reade herself could not produce evidence of the degree she claims to have earned there." OK, so she is known to have lied on her resume. We are supposed to believe that her Biden story is true?
The main reasons lawyers fire clients are: nonpayment of agreed hourly fees and costs; dim prospects of recovery on a contingent fee case; the client has lied to the lawyer; and/or the client refuses to follow the lawyer's advice. Since this matter did not involve a claim for recovery, there was almost certainly no contingent fee agreement. So, draw your own conclusions as to which other reason/s may apply here.
I work with low income people who sometimes need legal referrals. What I tell them when it comes to things like disability claims is that if a lawyer thinks you will win he will take your case. If a lawyer won't take you on as a client - give it up.
Wigdor didn't drop her, the money to pay his firm ran out and I'm guessing it ran out because the recent flood of negative stories about Reade have made her a liability. I'm also guessing that after doing more background work, they discovered more negative info was on the way (note today's story about Reade lying about her academic qualifications).
If the lawyer thought her story was true, they would drag this out as long as they could, because of what it would do for their career. If they thought there was any chance for a settlement or winning at trial, they would continue to be their lawyer as long as it took, because of what it would do for their career.
Not saying the reason to drop a client, especially one of this potential magnitude, says a lot more than nothing.
Like Gloria Allred or Michael Avanetti, these types of lawyers will take any class they think there is even a slim chance at a settlement.
I've worked for attorneys for over 30 years and I can tell you there are only two basic reasons to drop a client. You either (a) learn their claims are false or overinflated in nature, or (b) the client is asking too much out of you, which I call the, "Ow, I stubbed my toe, I want a million dollars in pain and suffering." So the attorney either got evidence Reade was in fact lying (or has lied enough in the past to be impeachable on the stand) or she is wanting more than the case is worth in damages.
It didn't have anything to do with the veracity of her claims which means it had everything to do with the veracity of her claims.
Even if they dropped her because they thought she was lying they could not come out and say so due to attorney client privilege.
What to Read Next
Coronavirus world round-up: Australia to slow return of its citizens from abroad amid fresh lockdown
Robert Redford Backs Joe Biden For President, Says Four More Years Of Donald Trump “Would Accelerate Our Slide Toward Autocracy”
Trump administration to formally withdraw US from WHO as it surpasses 130,000 coronavirus deaths
Atlanta mayor shows no symptoms but tests positive for Covid-19
Revealed: Republicans and DC veterans fear Donald Trump won't accept election defeat
Dutch police discover criminal gang's 'torture chamber' during drugs raid
Nicky Morgan says 'no foundation' to free NHS hospital parking scrap despite Government confirming reports
Chrissie Hynde criticises Met Police after 'aggressive' stop and search of black athletes
‘We’re not the victim in all this’: Kasabian condemn domestic violence after Tom Meighan assault charge
Politics latest news: Politics latest news: Boris Johnson hosts PMQs ahead of Rishi Sunak's mini-budget
Victims of burglaries, assaults and thefts 'get limited service from police, if any'
French women protest against appointment of interior minister under investigation for alleged rape
More than 3,700 'high risk' offenders were homeless after being freed from jail despite serious re-offending risk, probation watchdog reveals
Prince Andrew agonising over whether to condemn Ghislaine Maxwell, says source
'Perfect storm' of coronavirus, race protests and police reform sees gun violence explode in US