After the account of the whistle-blower, an unidentified C.I.A. analyst, came into public view, Mr. Trump repeatedly lashed out, at one point at an official gathering alluding to punishment for “spies” and implying it should apply to the whistle-blower.
Mr. Zaid first applied for the policy in October 2019, just as the whistle-blower complaint was gaining widespread attention and Democrats were moving ahead with an impeachment inquiry over Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. The whistle-blower conveyed his concerns to the inspector general for the intelligence community, who shared them with Congress, touching off a fight between the White House and the House Intelligence Committee.
The impeachment inquiry centered on a phone call in July 2019 when Mr. Trump asked President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to announce investigations that could have benefited Mr. Trump politically. Mr. Trump, who was withholding congressionally approved military assistance earmarked for Ukraine, pressed Mr. Zelensky for an investigation into Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden.
The House approved two articles of impeachment. But only one Republican, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, joined Democrats in voting to convict Mr. Trump during the Senate trial. Mr. Trump has since insisted he was exonerated, and has lashed out at people who backed impeachment.
Mr. Zaid said Hanover’s lack of “appetite” for such coverage served the aims of people who wished to silence whistle-blowers.
“By taking this decision, Hanover is sending a horrible message that is being echoed by the Trump administration, that whistle-blowers are not legitimate and do not deserve protection,” Mr. Zaid said. “One must question why this decision occurred now, in the wake of my representing a whistle-blower whose allegations not only proved to be true, but led to the impeachment of the president of the United States.”
Mr. Zaid said he had never had a client file a claim against him.
Hanover’s decision may be related to Mr. Trump’s use of the court system to try to silence journalists and critics, delay investigations into his administration or his personal finances and to fight attempts at transparency, said Joshua Geltzer, a visiting professor of law at Georgetown and the executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.