Foley & Lardner said Monday that lawyers there were surprised by Mitchell’s involvement in the Trump appeal after the firm had decided not to represent candidates in a post-election lawsuit.
“Our policy has made it possible for our lawyers to voluntarily take part in election observations and similar measures in their individual capacity as private persons, as long as they were not acting as legal advisors,” the firm said in a statement. “We are aware of Ms. Mitchell’s participation in the January 2nd conference call and we are concerned about it. We are working to better understand her participation.”
Mitchell did not reply to messages seeking comment.
For the past several years, Mitchell has maintained a practice of advocating candidates and campaigning within the conservative and populist wings of the Republican Party, including figures such as former Minnesota MP Michele Bachmann and Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell.
Mitchell served as a Democrat at Oklahoma House in the 1970s and 1980s before relinquishing her Democratic party membership and eventually enrolling as a Republican.
Meanwhile, a federal judge on Tuesday ruled against a lawsuit filed by Trump that Trump officials said had triggered the call on Saturday that Mitchell was present for involving officials from Trump and Georgia.
After a 90-minute hearing in Atlanta Tuesday morning, U.S. District Court judge Mark Cohen rejected Trump’s offer to decertify Georgia’s election results. In a written order issued a few hours later, Cohen said the case, filed on New Year’s Eve, was late. The judge, a judge appointed by President Barack Obama, also criticized Trump for trying to derail a challenge he is already pursuing in a state court.
“The plaintiff provides no power to assist a federal court which, under any circumstances, kidnaps a pending state election campaign case, and certainly not if the failure to accelerate was the result of the plaintiff’s own actions,” Cohen wrote.
“Disrupting the outcome of an election that has already been finalized, tested and certified multiple times would be unprecedented and would harm the public in countless ways,” added the judge in his 28-page ruling. “Granting injunctive relief here would create confusion, undermine public confidence in the election, and potentially remove the voting rights for millions of Georgia voters.”