Christine Blasey Ford–Debra Katz attorney-client relationship

Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney-client relationship with Debra Katz formed at a moment when a private letter to Dianne Feinstein could become a public allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. Katz and her law partner Lisa Banks offered Ford legal counsel, practical preparation, and support as she weighed the personal and political consequences of coming forward. Their role was active but not simple: they believed her account deserved serious attention and worked to prepare for what might follow, while recognizing that the decision belonged to Ford.

Finding Counsel

After Dianne Feinstein assured Ford that she would keep the letter confidential, Ford began to understand its potential significance and decided she needed an attorney. Several Washington firms she contacted declined to take the case. Lawrence Robbins, an attorney with experience arguing before the Supreme Court, listened to her account and offered support behind the scenes; his partners feared that public representation could harm the firm’s appellate cases if it appeared to act against a Supreme Court justice.

On August 6, shortly after her grandmother’s death and just before she was due to leave the Washington area, Ford met Katz and Banks in person at a hotel near the Baltimore airport. Feinstein’s office had referred the partners, whose work included allegations of this kind. Ford had looked at their website and noticed their whistle-blower work; their immediate availability made the meeting possible. She was unsure what to make of the lawyers’ detailed questions about her account and background.

Katz brought a distinct legal and political perspective to the relationship. A prominent gender-discrimination lawyer, she understood law as a means of advancing civil rights. Earlier in her career, she had been part of the legal team strategizing over Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the first sexual-harassment case heard by the Supreme Court. Banks and Katz had also spent the months after the Weinstein reporting representing clients and advocating for legal changes. They saw Ford’s case against the backdrop of a newly opened, but vulnerable, opportunity for progress on harassment and abuse.

Assessment and Preparation

After spending several hours with Ford, Katz and Banks considered her credible and were moved by her sense of civic duty. They also thought she seemed naïve about how grave the consequences of the letter could become. They understood that if it leaked she would need protection, and that if it did not, she would need advice about whether and how to proceed. They decided they wanted to represent her pro bono.

The lawyers helped Ford prepare for scrutiny rather than treating her recollection as something to smooth over. She took a polygraph administered by a former FBI agent and called two former boyfriends to ask whether she had ever told them about being assaulted. Neither recalled such a disclosure. The calls reinforced the difficulty of establishing corroboration after so much time, while the lawyers’ assessment was that Ford had been clear about what she could remember and had provided forms of corroboration they considered worth taking seriously.

As Kavanaugh’s hearings approached, Katz kept Ford informed about the absence of other surfaced misconduct allegations and the possibility that she might be the only accuser. The lawyers also made clear that Ford could tell Feinstein not to share the letter with the rest of the committee, including its Republicans. The choice was not merely whether to make an allegation, but whether to expose her identity, seek a more protected route, or stop pursuing the matter.

Managing the Decision

Ford and her lawyers set a decision deadline ahead of the hearings. When Ford remained unable to decide, Katz and Banks drafted three possible letters to make the consequences of different paths concrete. One, addressed to Senators Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein, named Ford and requested a private meeting to report the allegation. Another made the same request under the name Dr. Jane Doe. A third, addressed only to Feinstein, said Ford would not pursue the matter because the personal and professional costs were too great.

The named letter seemed too risky to the group because Ford’s identity could quickly reach the White House. Ford appeared to lean toward the anonymous version, which might have allowed her to negotiate confidentiality, and the women revised its language without reaching full agreement. The alternatives made the stakes tangible, but they did not remove Ford’s uncertainty. On August 30, with the hearings due to begin the following Tuesday, Katz told her that the decision was hers. Ford still wanted more time to think, walk, and consult a friend.

Guidance as the Stakes Expand

As events moved toward public disclosure, the lawyers’ role became more hands-on. Ford had first tried to make a small, discreet intervention and had not fully taken in the possibility that her letter might leak. She later proceeded with a Washington Post story while persuading herself that the attention would pass within a week. Katz, Banks, and adviser Ricki Seidman tried to guide her through the growing process, telling her they would handle its practical demands. The account presents a real tension: they did not want to act against their client’s wishes, yet they were also taking the reins because they believed she needed help facing a decision with consequences beyond her own life.

Ford’s fear was not abstract. By the time she met another attorney advising her in San Francisco, her family had hired round-the-clock private security, and it was uncertain when they could safely return home. That disruption gives the attorney-client relationship its defining context: counsel meant preparing for exposure and its consequences, not simply deciding whether a legal claim could be made. Katz’s guidance helped Ford move through the available choices, but the relationship did not erase the costs or transfer the final choice from Ford to her lawyers.