Donald Trump earned bipartisan criticism for a recent phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger during which he attempted to harangue the Republican official to “find” enough votes to overturn November’s presidential election.
One of the attorneys on that call, Cleta Mitchell, has since submitted her resignation to her employers at the Foley & Lardner law firm.
In a statement, a spokesperson for the firm confirmed that Mitchell “has informed firm management of her decision” to immediately resign.
“Ms. Mitchell concluded that her departure was in the firm’s best interests, as well as in her own personal best interests,” the statement concluded. “We thank her for her contributions to the firm and wish her well.”
In the wake of a Washington Post article bringing the Saturday phone call to light, she was identified as one of the pro-Trump lawyers involved in the controversial discussion with Raffensperger.
White House chief of staff Mark Meadows did not mention Mitchell by name, instead referring to her as “not the attorney of record but someone who has been involved” in the ongoing election-related challenges.
She could be heard at multiple points during the recorded call adding her thoughts in an apparent attempt to add credibility to Trump’s unsubstantiated allegations of widespread election fraud in Georgia.
Even before she announced her resignation, her then-employers took steps to disavow her extracurricular activitites as evidenced in the call.
“Foley & Lardner LLP is not representing any parties seeking to contest the results of the presidential election,” the firm said shortly after the Post article was published.
As that statement explained, the firm “made a policy decision not to take on any representation of any party in connection with matters related to the presidential election results.”
After noting that the firm’s “policy did allow our attorneys to participate in observing election recounts and similar actions on a voluntary basis in their individual capacity as private citizens so long as they did not act as legal advisers,” the statement concluded with a clear statement of disapproval for Mitchell’s behavior.
“We are aware of, and are concerned by, Ms. Mitchell’s participation in the January 2 conference call and are working to understand her involvement more thoroughly,” the firm stated on Monday.
As of the following day, neither Mitchell nor her previous employer had offered any specific reason for her abrupt departure.