Judge Allows Those Suing Fake Electors To Remain On Case

Attorney Jim Troupis presenting the recount petition to Meagan Wolfe. Photo from the WEC.

A Dane County judge ruled that attorneys representing the people suing Wisconsin’s 10 fake electors, who cast false Electoral College votes for former President Donald Trump in 2020, don’t have a conflict of interest and can remain on the case.

James Troupis, the attorney who represented the Trump campaign in its effort to get the election results overturned by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and a defendant in the false elector lawsuit because he was involved in the planning of the scheme, had filed a motion alleging that attorneys for Madison-based law firms Stafford Rosenbaum and Law Forward could not work on the case because of a conflict.

Troupis had previously been represented by a Stafford Rosenbaum attorney for estate planning and argued that because of this the Stafford attorneys should be disqualified and the Law Forward attorneys should also be kicked off the case because the nonprofit election law outfit frequently acts as co-counsel with Stafford.

Troupis’ attorney, Matthew Fernholz, argued that Stafford Rosenbaum’s attorney-client relationship with Troupis had never officially ended, making him still a current client and therefore unable to be sued by the firm. Fernholz also argued that because Stafford and Law Forward frequently work together — and Stafford’s attorney in the case, Jeff Mandell, is on Law Forward’s board of directors — the conflict of interest extends to both organizations.

“Mr. Troupis is a current client of Stafford and thus the firm must be disqualified,” he argued. “The conflicts can be imputed, carried from the part time lawyer from one law firm to another. So the implication here is that an attorney carries his conflicts of interest with him. And if you think of it like a virus spreading at a family gathering, if attorney Alex gives the virus to everyone at Stafford, attorney Mandel then carries it with him to Law Forward and takes the conflict of interest with him to that firm.”

Stacie Rosenzweig, an attorney for Stafford, argued that Troupis had fully paid for the work done by the firm and that he had never responded to its last attempts to reach him in the spring of 2020. Additionally, she said that the Stafford attorneys working on the false electors case weren’t involved in the estate planning and the lawyer who worked on the estate planning isn’t on the false electors case.

“We’re dealing with a former client relationship on a matter that has absolutely nothing to do with why we are here in this courtroom on this matter,” she said.

Dane County Judge Frank Remington agreed with Stafford and Law Forward, deciding that both can continue to represent the plaintiffs in the case.

“Stafford did not have a conflict of interest. And there is no evidence that they have violated [state court rules],” Remington said. “Because Stafford has no conflict of interest, this court need not reach the issues relating to the imputation of a conflict for co-counsel Law Forward.”

Dane Co. judge rules lawyers suing false electors can remain on case was originally published by the Wisconsin Examiner.