Debra Katz's Legal Counsel to Christine Blasey Ford on Disclosure and the Hearing

Debra Katz's Legal Counsel to Christine Blasey Ford on Disclosure and the Hearing was a lawyer-client relationship formed as Christine Blasey Ford moved from privately holding an allegation against Brett Kavanaugh to considering its public consequences. Katz, working with fellow attorney Lisa Banks, offered Ford an immediate opportunity to discuss her account and became part of the legal support surrounding her disclosure and the Senate proceedings.

Ford’s Search for Counsel

After speaking by telephone with Senator Dianne Feinstein, who promised to keep Ford’s letter confidential, Ford began to grasp the potential power of what she had sent. People close to her had urged her to obtain a lawyer so she could protect and retain control of her story. She had hesitated in part because she and her husband were saving for a home in Hawaii and did not want to spend those funds; the call with Feinstein changed her assessment of the need for legal help.

Ford’s first approaches to Washington firms did not produce public representation. Lawrence Robbins, an attorney with experience arguing before the Supreme Court, listened to her and considered her account credible enough to merit support. He could not represent her publicly, however: his partners feared that appearing to act against a Supreme Court nominee might harm the firm’s appellate cases, so any assistance he offered had to remain behind the scenes. That constraint left Ford needing counsel able to engage more openly.

The Meeting with Katz and Banks

On August 6, shortly after Ford’s grandmother died and just before Ford was due to leave the Washington area, she met Katz and Banks in person. Feinstein’s office had directed Ford toward the two law partners as attorneys who worked with allegations of this kind. Ford had also noticed their whistle-blower work while reviewing their website. Their immediate availability mattered: Ford arranged a brief meeting at a hotel near the Baltimore airport.

The referral had begun indirectly. Feinstein’s office had first asked Katz and Banks general questions about what could be done with a very old sexual-assault allegation and then provided the broad outlines of Ford’s account without identifying her. The lawyers therefore came to the meeting with some context, while Ford was still unsure what to make of them and of their detailed questions about her story and background. Their meeting marked the shift from Ford’s unsuccessful search for public representation to direct consultation with lawyers prepared to hear the particulars.

Counsel Amid Legal and Institutional Constraints

The contrast with Robbins’s position shows one of the pressures surrounding Ford’s search: legal support could be limited not only by the age and complexity of an allegation, but also by a law firm’s concern about the institutional consequences of appearing to oppose a Supreme Court justice. Katz and Banks, by contrast, were available to meet and had relevant experience. The evidence places Katz within a sustained attorney-client relationship with Ford across the disclosure and hearing period, while identifying Banks as her partner in the initial consultation.

That relationship took shape against a broader legal landscape in which people making harassment claims often faced short filing deadlines, limited remedies, and incentives to accept confidential settlements. Those conditions could make obtaining advice consequential, but the documented account of Ford’s first meeting does not attribute a particular legal strategy or decision to Katz. What it does establish is the practical importance of access: after Ford’s confidential letter had brought the matter to Feinstein’s attention, Katz and Banks were available to meet her in person before she left the area.

Scope and Significance

Katz’s role is associated with Ford’s choices about disclosure and with the later Senate proceedings. The record’s recurring references to Ford and Katz across the relevant chapters indicate that their professional relationship extended well beyond the introductory meeting. The initial encounter, however, is especially revealing in its circumstances: Ford was seeking help at a moment when the story could move from private correspondence into public scrutiny, and the first lawyers able to meet her were two partners recommended through Feinstein’s office.

The relationship’s significance lies in that transition from an allegation held privately to one being handled with legal support. Ford had resisted hiring counsel while weighing personal costs and control over her story; after the call with Feinstein, she sought a lawyer, encountered firms unwilling to represent her publicly, and then met Katz and Banks. The available account establishes the beginning and broad scope of Katz’s counsel without specifying every piece of advice she gave or assigning her sole responsibility for decisions made during the hearing process.