Two former federal prosecutors who were removed from special counsel Jack Smith’s team after President Donald Trump took office have opened a boutique law firm in Washington that says it will keep fighting public corruption and civil rights cases outside the government. Their new firm promises many of the same services they provided in the Department of Justice, and their announcement brings the drama of those Capitol investigations back into the private sector. The move raises questions about how former government lawyers transition into private practice after politically charged work on high-profile probes.
The attorneys, Molly Gaston and J.P. Cooney, left public service and launched a small practice in Washington, D.C., positioning themselves to advise state and local officials and to represent clients facing congressional and criminal investigations. They present their work as a continuation of public integrity efforts that, they argue, the federal government is now doing less of. From a Republican point of view, it’s reasonable to question whether the new firm will be a neutral defender of law or a vehicle for pursuit of politically sensitive cases.
Cooney described the new venture in a public post: “We will offer a unique combination of services, including public integrity counseling to state and local governments, strategic representation at every stage of congressional and criminal investigations, and trial-ready representation in criminal and civil cases.” That exact language frames the firm as both advisory and litigious, signaling readiness to take disputes that might once have stayed inside the Justice Department into courtrooms across the country. Their pitch suggests a market opening for private lawyers who can handle the political heat that comes with high-stakes investigations.
They also wrote, “We are thrilled to join the emerging market of boutique firms offering independent representation and zealous advocacy,” and that enthusiasm makes clear they see demand for services tailored to politically charged matters. Critics on the right will note the firms were part of an effort that targeted the previous president, and that their public identities are now tied to those prosecutions. Voters who want even-handed enforcement should expect transparency about how former prosecutors pick clients and cases once they’re off the government payroll.
The pair worked on Jack Smith’s team investigating allegations of election interference and classified documents allegedly moved to Mar-a-Lago, and those matters were dropped when Trump became president in January. The termination notices the attorneys received stated they couldn’t be trusted to “faithfully implement” the president’s agenda. That quoted phrase has been widely cited by conservatives as proof the firings were politically motivated, and it will be central to how the new firm is perceived by partisan audiences.
Cooney defended the work they did before leaving government, saying, “We conducted a thorough and efficient investigation under very difficult circumstances. The simple fact is that we ran out of time,” and adding, “That is unfortunate because it would have been good for the country to resolve these cases in court.” Those exact sentences underline the view from the former prosecutors that their efforts were substantive but incomplete, a claim that will be tested if their firm brings similar matters into state courts or civil litigation.
The new practice says it will target corruption and civil rights cases, telling potential clients, “In the wake of the federal government’s decision to greatly reduce its enforcement of public corruption and civil rights laws, we help state and local governments fill the void.” That quoted line positions the firm as a substitute for reduced federal enforcement, but it also signals a strategic focus: where political appetite for prosecution wanes at the federal level, private lawyers can step in. From a conservative perspective, that raises concerns about consistency and who gets to set enforcement priorities.
Smith has publicly defended his prior investigative tactics, calling the subpoena of lawmakers’ phone records “entirely proper” and his lawyers detailed the scope of the collection in correspondence to Senate leadership. In that communication they stated, “As described by various Senators, the toll data collection was narrowly tailored and limited to the four days from January 4, 2021 to January 7, 2021, with a focus on telephonic activity during the period immediately surrounding the January 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol.” Those exact words are significant because they attempt to draw a tight line around investigative reach, something Republicans have long demanded.
The move from public prosecutor to private advocate is common, but when it follows work on cases involving a former president it always draws partisan fire. This new firm’s stated mission and the exact language they chose in public statements will shape how judges, lawmakers, and voters view their efforts going forward. For conservative readers, the firm’s origins and the administration’s rationale for the firings will remain central to any debate about fairness and the proper boundary between politics and law enforcement.
