The witness, whose identity McKenna says she confirmed but called "Walt" to avoid doxing, said Rittenhouse was with his brother that night who "was his guardian at the time which made it legal for him to possess a firearm."

If the claim of lawfulness relies on this, Rittenhouse has a real problem. It is not clear if the claim is that Rittenhouse was with the brother of the witness or his own brother, but it is clear in the video that he was not with any guardian at that time. Being in the same city is not the relevant form of togetherness. Going hunting under the supervision of an adult would do.

What happened seems apparent. Terrorist felons hunted Kyle Rittenhouse on the streets of Kenosha, tracked him down, and multiple members of the pack subjected him to an attack in the mistaken belief he would never fire his weapon. The one who got shot in the arm was a felon with a gun unlawfully in his possession. After he was shot, the gun remained dangling from his hand. No charges have been brought against this attacker. This should be kept in mind when considering how the prosecutors are proceeding.

An instructive case from Indiana was decided in June 2020. A general rule, and held in Indiana, is that a plea of self-defense is barred when the claimant committed a criminal act with an immediate causal connection between the crime and the confrontation. Wisconsin will consider any criminal act they can allege which fits their need. Rittenhouse reported has five lawyers working his case for a good reason. John Pierce is the lead defense counsel.

How strong a case is for self-defense is immaterial if he can't get that plea before a jury. Any criminal act with an immediate causal connection to the confrontation may void the claim.

Also relevant will be whether the confrontation with the second and third victims is considered a continuation of the confrontation with the head shot victim, or if it is treated as a second confrontation. If considered seperately, reckless endangerment incident to the first confrontation might void self-defense for the second confrontation.

https://www.scribd.com/document/474499962/Gammons-v-Indiana-Ind-S-Ct-26-Jun-2020-Self-Defense-While-Committing-Crime

After he was shot, the gun remained dangling from his hand. No charges have been brought against this attacker. This should be kept in mind when considering how the prosecutors are proceeding.

Man Shot in the Arm by Kyle Rittenhouse Says His Only Regret Was “Not Killing the Kid”

Gaige Grosskreutz, who was caught on camera pointing a gun at Rittenhouse before the teenager show him in the arm, made the comments after doctors were able to save the limb from being amputated.

According to his friend Jacob Marshall, who is pictured with Grosskreutz, the BLM supporter’s “only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him.”

In the Facebook post, Marshall also admits that Grosskreutz “drew his weapon” before he was shot by Rittenhouse.

“Well this literally shows INTENT TO KILL, so Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense lawyer just got an early Christmas present,” tweeted Mike Cernovich.

WHY does Rittenhouse need FIVE lawyers and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars for his legal defense? To play videos?

WHY is Rittenhouse in custody?

WHY is Grosskreutz NOT charged, and NOT in custody?

“Wisconsin is an open carry state,” replied Pierce. “You’ve seen the video of what was going on in that city. It was a war zone, and Kyle had every right — just as much a right — to be there as the people that were trying to burn down that city, and he was attempting to protect property and attempting to be there to provide medical aid.”

That is legal bullshit to fool people with weak minds, but is not a legal argument. It is a defense counsel doing his job. My client is innocent because other people were guilty too! That only works in the court of public opinion.

Pierce added, “Every person that has any sense at all is going to take a weapon to that location. It was a legal weapon. I can’t comment right now further on the specifics of where the weapon was obtained. It was obtained as a legal weapon. It did not cross state lines. That charge is incorrect as a matter of law in Wisconsin. Actually, that weapon can be possessed by anyone 16 years or older.”

Here we have a factually correct statement that does not say what it appears to say. It is meant to lead the weak minded to reach a wrong conclusion. Again, it is a defense counsel doing his job of swaying public opinion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/was-kyle-rittenhouse-s-possession-gun-protected-second-amendment-n1238918

Rittenhouse’s attorney, John Pierce of Pierce Bainbridge, plans to fight the underage weapons possession charge, arguing that at 17, his client could be part of the “well regulated Militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Put another way, Pierce will likely argue that Wisconsin’s ban on firearms possession by 17-year-olds is unconstitutional because a 17-year-old minor is on the same Second Amendment footing as an adult.

Therefore, the argument goes, the Wisconsin law unconstitutionally restricts Second Amendment-protected firearms possession. Pierce will likely add that the American colonies expected, and sometimes required, citizens under 18 to have and bear arms.

That will be a reach, for several reasons. In the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia expressly stated that "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Up through the 19th century, “commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," he added.

Scalia's opinion listed examples of valid, “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Underage possession of firearms was not specifically mentioned on that list, but the court added that this “list does not purport to be exhaustive."

In other cases on gun rights since the Supreme Court ruled on Heller, federal courts have held that modern “under 21” restrictions on handgun purchases are “firmly historically rooted” and that the "right to keep arms in the founding period did not extend to juveniles."

There happens to be a law which states, "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." Of course, there is a section which provides, "(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult." Was Rittenhouse using his weapon for target practice under the supervision of an adult? Was he engaged in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult? While is is literally correct to state "that weapon can be possessed by anyone 16 years or older,” that omits the circumstances upon which it can be so possessed.

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2018/title-10/subtitle-a/part-i/chapter-12/sec-246/

10 U.S.C. § 246 (2018)

§246. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Obviously, this law does not entitle a 17-year old to carry a weapon around New York City. So, how does it entitle Rittenhouse to carry a weapon around Kenosha, Wisconsin?

Rittenhouse is in custody, having been charged with violating Wisconsin law. The bullshit you cited does not show that his lawyers argument, that everyone over the age of 16 could legally possess a dangerous weapon, depends on the success of an unlikely argument that the Wisconsin law is unconstitutional.

As for the bias of the Wisconsin authorities, Grosskreutz has NOT been charged, and is NOT in custody. If Rittenhouse cannot get a plea of self-defense before a jury, he can wipe is ass with the alleged Christmas present. He must win the argument on having a viable self-defense plea before any of that becomes relevant.

You seem to think he has five lawyers to play the video.

He needs five lawyers and a ton of money to defend against a biased prosecution team on a mission to convict him. There is a highly technical argument about whether Rittenhouse can claim self-defense.

As was shown in Gamons v. Indiana, there is a general rule that a plea of self-defense is barred when the claimant committed a criminal act with an immediate causal connection between the crime and the confrontation. The prosecution is almost certain to visit that issue.

The legal war will not be fought over what happened on the video. The war will be fought over whether Rittenhouse can be barred from raising a claim to self-defense.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/attorneys-pounce-on-kyle-rittenhouses-reported-well-regulated-militia-legal-defense/

Attorneys Pounce on Kyle Rittenhouse’s Reported ‘Well Regulated Militia’ Legal Defense

Jerry Lambe
Sep 1st, 2020, 12:36 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old supporter of President Donald Trump and police who is accused of fatally shooting two men in Wisconsin last week, is expected to unveil a rather extraordinary legal argument as part of his defense.

Rittenhouse is being charged as an adult with six criminal counts: first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety, attempted first-degree intentional homicide, and possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under the age of 18. The first five are felonies; the weapon possession charge is a misdemeanor. While Rittenhouse’s attorneys will likely combat the various homicide charges by claiming self-defense, NBC News reported on Monday that Rittenhouse’s attorneys are planning to fight the possession charge by arguing that Rittenhouse was acting as part of a “well-regulated militia” under the Second Amendment.

According to the report, Rittenhouse’s attorney John Pierce–who previously represented President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page–is likely to argue that Wisconsin’s ban on firearms possession by persons under 18 violates the U.S. Constitution because a 17-year-old minor has the same Second Amendment rights as an adult.

“Therefore, the argument goes, the Wisconsin law unconstitutionally restricts Second Amendment-protected firearms possession,” wrote attorney and NBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos. “Pierce will likely add that the American colonies expected, and sometimes required, citizens under 18 to have and bear arms.”

Cevallos noted that late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia expressly stated in 2008 that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms was “not unlimited.” That was in the U.S. Supreme Court’s seminal gun rights case District of Columbia v. Heller. Scalia also noted the constitutionality of “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Cevallos, a criminal defense lawyer, called the defense “a reach” that is “not likely to succeed,” a sentiment that was widely shared but more scathingly expressed by other attorneys.

Washington D.C.-based national defense attorney Mark Zaid, who previously represented the Ukraine whistleblower, called the argument embarrassing.

“Personally, I’d be embarrassed to make this legal argument,” he tweeted. “But seeing the other cases this attorney has handled, makes sense.”

“This is actually a really good argument if you’re trying to get convicted,” quipped Nashville-based litigator Daniel Horowitz.

Andrew Fleischman, an Atlanta-based trial attorney, had a similarly caustic take on the proposed defense.

“Seems lazy to claim the client is a militia when you could really go for it and say he’s a federal bank in Maryland or that charging him with murder violates the Dormant Commerce Clause,” he remarked.

Criminal defense attorney Janet Johnson agued that, under the circumstances, such a defense “is not available” to Rittenhouse.

“To start with, he illegally possessed the gun and traveled to Wisconsin with it. This defense is not available to him. Period,” she wrote.

Former DOJ civil rights attorney Sasha Samberg-Champion:

"This is not a winning argument unless words have no meaning anymore."

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.

"Good luck with that."

Wow...it's like you are rooting for Rittenhouse to fry just to prove yourself right by posting opinions of some hack, likely leftist, no-name shysters who know nothing about guns or gun laws.

“To start with, he illegally possessed the gun and traveled to Wisconsin with it. This defense is not available to him. Period,” she wrote.

How many times are you going to repeat this blatant lie?

“Wisconsin is an open carry state,” replied Pierce. “You’ve seen the video of what was going on in that city. It was a war zone, and Kyle had every right — just as much a right — to be there as the people that were trying to burn down that city, and he was attempting to protect property and attempting to be there to provide medical aid.”

Pierce added, “Every person that has any sense at all is going to take a weapon to that location. It was a legal weapon. I can’t comment right now further on the specifics of where the weapon was obtained. It was obtained as a legal weapon. It did not cross state lines. That charge is incorrect as a matter of law in Wisconsin. Actually, that weapon can be possessed by anyone 16 years or older.”

Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin

Pierce addressed a possible plea deal: “We’re going to trial we’re going to win this case. If I’m the prosecutor, I drop these charges immediately. I think that this is a rush of judgment, and if I was the prosecutor, I would be terrified to take this case to trial. I do not believe that there’s a jury in this country that’s going to look at these facts and is going to find him guilty for murder.”

“It’s absolute 100 percent self-defense, and we’re going to prove it if we have to,” concluded Pierce. “It was legal for him to possess that weapon in Wisconsin.”

Wow...it's like you are rooting for Rittenhouse to fry just to prove yourself right by posting opinions of some hack, likely leftist, no-name shysters who know nothing about guns or gun laws.

No, you legal illiterate jackass. Read what I wrote at my #1:

What happened seems apparent. Terrorist felons hunted Kyle Rittenhouse on the streets of Kenosha, tracked him down, and multiple members of the pack subjected him to an attack in the mistaken belief he would never fire his weapon. The one who got shot in the arm was a felon with a gun unlawfully in his possession. After he was shot, the gun remained dangling from his hand. No charges have been brought against this attacker. This should be kept in mind when considering how the prosecutors are proceeding.

Rittenhouse was hunted in the street by fucksticks like you. Now he is being hunted by prosecutors who have not charged the hunter felon who had a gun in his hand.

Wisconsin law states, "There happens to be a law which states, "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." Which part of that do you not understand?

Where is Rittenhouse? He is locked up. He faces real legal jeopardy. Your mindless stream of bullshit is not able to help. You have to understand what the fight is before you can fight it, much less win it. The fight for Rittenhouse is to get a self-defense plea before a jury. He is in legal jeopardy of not being able to do that.

“Wisconsin is an open carry state,” replied Pierce. “You’ve seen the video of what was going on in that city. It was a war zone, and Kyle had every right — just as much a right — to be there as the people that were trying to burn down that city, and he was attempting to protect property and attempting to be there to provide medical aid.”

Wisconsin is an open carry state for people who can legally carry a firearm. It would be interesting to see a courtroom legal argument that a gun-toting medic was part of a well-regulated militia.

Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin

Every defense lawyer in creation: My client is innocent!

I hope Rittenhouse beats the rap, but he is in serious legal jeopardy. You incessant reliance on legal bullshit from legally incompetent assholes from non-legal sources deserves a response.

As shown in Indiana v. Gammons, a general rule is that a plea of self-defense is barred when the claimant committed a criminal act with an immediate causal connection between the crime and the confrontation. Wisconsin will consider any criminal act they can allege which fits their need. The prosecutors are not looking to play fair or they would have charged Grosskreutz for his blatantly obvious crime.

Rittenhouse reported has five lawyers working his case for a good reason. John Pierce is the lead defense counsel.

How strong a case is for self-defense is immaterial if he can't get that plea before a jury. Any criminal act with an immediate causal connection to the confrontation may void the claim.

Also relevant will be whether the confrontation with the second and third victims is considered a continuation of the confrontation with the head shot victim, or if it is treated as a second confrontation. If considered seperately, reckless endangerment incident to the first confrontation might void self-defense for the second confrontation.

You can't address these matters so you try to bloviate your way through.

Unlike your wackadoodle understanding of the 2nd Amendment, where people have a right to possess atom bombs, or to possess weapons the law forbids. Federal law forbids any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver any firearm or ammunition to anyone knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age.

Age restrictions are lawful and do not violate the 2nd Amendment, the bullshit of you and your insane posse notwithstanding.

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2018/title-18/part-i/chapter-44/sec-922/

18 U.S.C. § 922 (2018)

§922. Unlawful acts

(a) It shall be unlawful—

[...]

(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—

(1) any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age;

(2) any firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession by such person of such firearm would be in violation of any State law or any published ordinance applicable at the place of sale, delivery or other disposition, unless the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the purchase or possession would not be in violation of such State law or such published ordinance;

(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee's place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee's place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

(4) to any person any destructive device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity; and

(5) any firearm or armor-piercing ammunition to any person unless the licensee notes in his records, required to be kept pursuant to section 923 of this chapter, the name, age, and place of residence of such person if the person is an individual, or the identity and principal and local places of business of such person if the person is a corporation or other business entity.

Multiple states impose a minimum age of 21 to possess a firearm.

You attempt to obfuscate that Pierce's argument is that he can use the 2nd Amendment to strike down the Wisconsin age limit because Rittenhouse could be part of a well-regulated militia. That argument is just horseshit for morons like you.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/was-kyle-rittenhouse-s-possession-gun-protected-second-amendment-n1238918

Rittenhouse’s attorney, John Pierce of Pierce Bainbridge, plans to fight the underage weapons possession charge, arguing that at 17, his client could be part of the “well regulated Militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Put another way, Pierce will likely argue that Wisconsin’s ban on firearms possession by 17-year-olds is unconstitutional because a 17-year-old minor is on the same Second Amendment footing as an adult.

Therefore, the argument goes, the Wisconsin law unconstitutionally restricts Second Amendment-protected firearms possession. Pierce will likely add that the American colonies expected, and sometimes required, citizens under 18 to have and bear arms.

That will be a reach, for several reasons. In the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia expressly stated that "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Up through the 19th century, “commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," he added.

Scalia's opinion listed examples of valid, “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Underage possession of firearms was not specifically mentioned on that list, but the court added that this “list does not purport to be exhaustive."

In other cases on gun rights since the Supreme Court ruled on Heller, federal courts have held that modern “under 21” restrictions on handgun purchases are “firmly historically rooted” and that the "right to keep arms in the founding period did not extend to juveniles."

As a stream of lawyers state, the Pierce argument is embarrassing. Wisconsin can lawfully regulate the age at which one may possess a firearm.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/attorneys-pounce-on-kyle-rittenhouses-reported-well-regulated-militia-legal-defense/

Attorneys Pounce on Kyle Rittenhouse’s Reported ‘Well Regulated Militia’ Legal Defense

Jerry Lambe
Sep 1st, 2020, 12:36 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old supporter of President Donald Trump and police who is accused of fatally shooting two men in Wisconsin last week, is expected to unveil a rather extraordinary legal argument as part of his defense.

Rittenhouse is being charged as an adult with six criminal counts: first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety, attempted first-degree intentional homicide, and possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under the age of 18. The first five are felonies; the weapon possession charge is a misdemeanor. While Rittenhouse’s attorneys will likely combat the various homicide charges by claiming self-defense, NBC News reported on Monday that Rittenhouse’s attorneys are planning to fight the possession charge by arguing that Rittenhouse was acting as part of a “well-regulated militia” under the Second Amendment.

According to the report, Rittenhouse’s attorney John Pierce–who previously represented President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page–is likely to argue that Wisconsin’s ban on firearms possession by persons under 18 violates the U.S. Constitution because a 17-year-old minor has the same Second Amendment rights as an adult.

“Therefore, the argument goes, the Wisconsin law unconstitutionally restricts Second Amendment-protected firearms possession,” wrote attorney and NBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos. “Pierce will likely add that the American colonies expected, and sometimes required, citizens under 18 to have and bear arms.”

Cevallos noted that late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia expressly stated in 2008 that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms was “not unlimited.” That was in the U.S. Supreme Court’s seminal gun rights case District of Columbia v. Heller. Scalia also noted the constitutionality of “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Cevallos, a criminal defense lawyer, called the defense “a reach” that is “not likely to succeed,” a sentiment that was widely shared but more scathingly expressed by other attorneys.

Washington D.C.-based national defense attorney Mark Zaid, who previously represented the Ukraine whistleblower, called the argument embarrassing.

“Personally, I’d be embarrassed to make this legal argument,” he tweeted. “But seeing the other cases this attorney has handled, makes sense.”

“This is actually a really good argument if you’re trying to get convicted,” quipped Nashville-based litigator Daniel Horowitz.

Andrew Fleischman, an Atlanta-based trial attorney, had a similarly caustic take on the proposed defense.

“Seems lazy to claim the client is a militia when you could really go for it and say he’s a federal bank in Maryland or that charging him with murder violates the Dormant Commerce Clause,” he remarked.

Criminal defense attorney Janet Johnson agued that, under the circumstances, such a defense “is not available” to Rittenhouse.

“To start with, he illegally possessed the gun and traveled to Wisconsin with it. This defense is not available to him. Period,” she wrote.

Former DOJ civil rights attorney Sasha Samberg-Champion:

"This is not a winning argument unless words have no meaning anymore."

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.

"Good luck with that."

And I am citing shyster lawyers, ALL of them. Let's take a look at your hero.

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2020/04/16/john-pierce-denies-reports-of-firms-closure-says-firm-laid-off-some-associates/?slreturn=20200802202710

John Pierce Denies Reports of Firm's Closure, Says Firm Laid Off Some Associates

"Total fake news," says Pierce Bainbridge's founder about reports of the firm closing its doors.

By Jack Newsham | April 16, 2020 at 08:17 PM

After a raft of partner exits at Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht, managing partner John Pierce is denying reports of his firm’s demise, saying on Thursday that the firm continues to litigate but has had to lay off associates and staff.

Pierce’s comments came a day after Law360 reported that Pierce Bainbridge was winding down. The firm’s chief financial officer and chief operating officer told attorneys on a call earlier this week that the firm would be closing its doors this month, according to the Law360 report, which cited two unnamed sources.

But Pierce, in statements Wednesday and Thursday, remained defiant, calling reports of the firm’s dissolution “total fake news.”

“The firm is not dissolving. Period. That is something I would be aware of,” Pierce said in a text message to Law.com. When asked if the firm is ceasing operations, he added, “Nope.”

In a statement to reporters on Thursday, Pierce said reports of the firm’s closure were inaccurate. “The firm continues to litigate and each day generates more high-profile, high-value litigation opportunities,” Pierce wrote.

“Unfortunately, it is true that the firm has had to make some very difficult decisions over recent weeks in order to cut costs in the current global economic environment, including laying off some of its exceptionally talented and dedicated associates and staff in order to reorient itself towards the future,” he wrote.

He added that his firm “continues to maintain close relationships with its departed partners and is committed to working with all of its former lawyers” to help provide legal representation to clients at their new firms.

Reports of the firm closing its doors, and the uncertainty it generated over the future of the firm, came barely a week after Law.com and other publications reported that Carolynn Beck, Maxim Price and David Hecht—three former name partners of the firm—had resigned.

Last month, Law.com reported that Pierce was on leave from the firm and Thomas Warren was its acting managing partner. The firm said through a spokeswoman on March 9 that Pierce had borrowed funds from a lender called Karish Kapital, which filed a lien against the law firm, for his own personal use. Pierce denied that.

Warren didn’t respond to a request for comment on Thursday. Camille Varlack, the firm’s COO, and Kevin Cash, its CFO, also didn’t respond to comment requests.

According to a Law360 report, Warren has since resigned from the firm. Meanwhile, Amman Khan, a partner in Los Angeles, appears to have recently started his own firm. He couldn’t be reached for comment.

Departures from Pierce Bainbridge mounted in late 2019, with six partners leaving around the fall, and continued into 2020, with some attorneys starting their own shops, others joining established firms, and some apparently still considering their options.

The partner exits followed months of bruising litigation between the firm, its partners and its former partner, Donald Lewis. Lewis has said the firm concocted a sexual assault allegation against him after he blew the whistle on financial misconduct by Pierce, and said the recent departures have vindicated him.

“I said over a year ago that Pierce Bainbridge was a ‘smoke and mirrors’ production and a ‘financial house of cards’ that would collapse,” he wrote in an email to a reporter.