A Letter from 876 Yale University Faculty: “We Stand Together at a Crossroads”
April 2025
Dear President McInnis, Provost Strobel, and Members of the Yale Board of Trustees:
We stand together at a crossroads. American universities are facing extraordinary attacks that threaten the bedrock principles of a democratic society, including rights of free expression, association, and academic freedom. We write as one faculty, to ask you to stand with us now.
We urge you to:
- Defend the values and ideals of higher education, and Yale’s specific mission of “improving the world through outstanding research and scholarship, education, preservation, and practice.”
- Resist and legally challenge any unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance.
- Commit that no department, program, or structure of shared governance will be reorganized or eliminated in response to political threats.
- Protect science and other research at Yale from funding cutoffs, by providing legal and financial support to affected scholars and research units, mobilizing extraordinary resources as necessary.
- Defend the rights to free speech on campus recognized in the Woodward Report, including by assisting community members at risk of government infringement on this right, whether through immigration action or other means.
- Work purposefully and proactively with other colleges and universities in collective defense.
We stand united, asking for your courageous leadership. We look forward to standing alongside you in this work.
Signed,
[Yale faculty of all ranks can sign this letter here.]
Columbia University Grows a Pair, Sort Of
Fear is Contagious, But So is Courage
An open letter from Claire Shipman, Acting President, Columbia University in the City of New York (emphasis added):
Dear Members of the Columbia Community:
Over the past few weeks, days, indeed over the past few hours, you have no doubt seen and heard much about Columbia and the future of higher education. This is an extraordinary and difficult time for our University. We face unprecedented pressures, with no easy answers and many uncertainties. That combination is creating significant anxiety for our community, and we must, as we navigate this moment, stay true to our core mission as an educational and research institution, and true to our community.
I’ve heard deep concern about when and whether we will get our research funding back, what form an agreement with the government would take, whether we would have to compromise our values to reach such an agreement, and what we’re doing to support our international students right now. Let me attempt to address each of these issues.
As we have shared before, the University has been engaged in what we continue to believe to be good faith discussions with the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism. We have sought to address allegations of antisemitism, harassment, and discrimination on our campuses, and provide a path to restoring a partnership with the federal government that supports our vital research mission, while also protecting the University’s academic and operational integrity and independence.
Those discussions have not concluded, and we have not reached any agreement with the government at this point. Some of the government’s requests have aligned with policies and practices that we believe are important to advancing our mission, particularly to provide a safe and inclusive campus community. I stand firmly behind the commitments we outlined on March 21, and all the work that has been done to date. Other ideas, including overly prescriptive requests about our governance, how we conduct our presidential search process, and how specifically to address viewpoint diversity issues are not subject to negotiation.
To be clear, our institution may decide at any point, on its own, to make difficult decisions that are in Columbia’s best interests. Any good institution must do that. Where the government – or any stakeholder – has legitimate interest in critical issues for our healthy functioning, we will listen and respond. But we would reject heavy-handed orchestration from the government that could potentially damage our institution and undermine useful reforms that serve the best interests of our students and community. We would reject any agreement in which the government dictates what we teach, research, or who we hire. And yes, to put minds at ease, though we seek to continue constructive dialogue with the government, we would reject any agreement that would require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution.
Like many of you, I read with great interest the message from Harvard refusing the federal government’s demands for changes to policies and practices that would strike at the very heart of that university’s venerable mission. In this moment, a continued public conversation about the value and principles of higher education is enormously useful. I am especially concerned that many Americans have lost faith and trust in higher education. We should continue the hard work of understanding why. At the same time, we must more clearly explain what we here, at Columbia, know instinctively about the vital contributions we make to the world.
I want to turn to our international students, who are essential to our unique and powerful ecosystem, and who are experiencing enormous distress. We have been following with great concern the various actions being taken by the federal government toward members of our community. We know this has provoked not only anxiety, but multiple new, day-to-day challenges for our international student community. For that reason, the University launched a new University fund, supported by my office, our Board of Trustees, and generous alumni, to assist students who need help managing unanticipated expenses and other challenges right now.
This comes alongside our recently announced commitment of additional resources to our International Students and Scholars Office (ISSO) to expand their ability to help our international students, through logistical, legal, and mental health support, including a significant expansion of hours and staff resources. I’m pleased to announce a new websitededicated to these efforts.
We are navigating a turbulent time for higher education. The challenges ahead of us are formidable. Knowing Columbia as I do, and as you do, I am confident that we will get through this to serve our students, faculty, staff, and society for centuries to come.
Sincerely,
Claire Shipman
Acting President, Columbia University in the City of New York
As Predictable as the Flowers That Bloom in the Spring, Tra La
Susman Godfrey Gets Its Temporary Restraining Order
Harvard’s President to Mango Mussolini: Fuck You Very Much
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,
For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities to help pay for work that, along with investments by the universities themselves, has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields. These innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer. Over the last several weeks, the federal government has threatened its partnerships with several universities, including Harvard, over accusations of antisemitism on our campuses. These partnerships are among the most productive and beneficial in American history. New frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances—from treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, to breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, quantum science and engineering, and numerous other areas of possibility. For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals, but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.
Late Friday night, the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to “maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government.” It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner. Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.
I encourage you to read the letter to gain a fuller understanding of the unprecedented demands being made by the federal government to control the Harvard community. They include requirements to “audit” the viewpoints of our student body, faculty, staff, and to “reduc[e] the power” of certain students, faculty, and administrators targeted because of their ideological views. We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not negotiate over its independence or its constitutional rights.
The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.
Our motto—Veritas, or truth—guides us as we navigate the challenging path ahead. Seeking truth is a journey without end. It requires us to be open to new information and different perspectives, to subject our beliefs to ongoing scrutiny, and to be ready to change our minds. It compels us to take up the difficult work of acknowledging our flaws so that we might realize the full promise of the University, especially when that promise is threatened.
We have made it abundantly clear that we do not take lightly our moral duty to fight antisemitism. Over the past fifteen months, we have taken many steps to address antisemitism on our campus. We plan to do much more. As we defend Harvard, we will continue to:
- nurture a thriving culture of open inquiry on our campus; develop the tools, skills, and practices needed to engage constructively with one another; and broaden the intellectual and viewpoint diversity within our community;
- affirm the rights and responsibilities we share; respect free speech and dissent while also ensuring that protest occurs in a time, place, and manner that does not interfere with teaching, learning, and research; and enhance the consistency and fairness of disciplinary processes; and
- work together to find ways, consistent with law, to foster and support a vibrant community that exemplifies, respects, and embraces difference. As we do, we will also continue to comply with Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ruled that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for universities to make decisions “on the basis of race.”
These ends will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate. The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community. Freedom of thought and inquiry, along with the government’s longstanding commitment to respect and protect it, has enabled universities to contribute in vital ways to a free society and to healthier, more prosperous lives for people everywhere. All of us share a stake in safeguarding that freedom. We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity—and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.
Sincerely,
Alan M. Garber
This Time, Trump REALLY Messed with the Wrong Bunch of Hombres
Susman Godfrey is possibly the best litigation law firm in the country. And they are being punished for successfully holding Fox News to account for its election lies.
If anybody can make Trump eat shit, these are the folks to do the job.
We shall see what we shall see. In the meantime, the firm had this to say:
In response to the executive order filed by the administration on April 9th, 2025, Susman Godfrey has issued the following statement:
“Anyone who knows Susman Godfrey knows we believe in the rule of law, and we take seriously our duty to uphold it. This principle guides us now. There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order.”
A point of personal privilege: I was among the late Steve Susman’s ten thousand closest friends. (Actually, it could have been more than ten thousand; I don’t rightly know.) And I am damn proud of it, too.
From wherever he is in the bardo, Steve is urging his living partners to hang in—and whispering litigation tricks into their shelflike ears.
The Tariff Lawsuit: Koch and Leo Versus Trump
Complaint in Simplified v. Trump et al. (filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida)
Forbes, Lawsuit Could End Trump Tariffs And Stock Market Rout
This follows up on my post yesterday. I have a few more points about this interesting development.
The Federalist Society Angle
Trump 1.0 saw the appointment of around 250 federal judges. Most were vetted and approved by the Federalist Society. One of the guiding lights of the Federalist Society was and is Leonard Leo, who is also one of the instigators of the litigation under discussion here—litigation premised on the claim that Trump acted lawlessly in imposing his Liberation Day tariffs, the centerpiece of his administration’s economic policy.
The Merits of the Case
Who’s right on the merits may bear some tangential relevance to who is likely actually to win the case.
The central issue is this: Trump relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in decreeing his Liberation Day tariffs. But that act don’t say nothing about no tariffs. Trump was obviously trying to do an end run around a number of other statutes and regulations that do address the imposition of tariffs. So, says the plaintiff, along with Messrs. Koch and Leo, Trump acted lawlessly–outside the scope of his lawful powers.
That central issue raises, in turn, a host of other legal issues, and I am not an expert on any of them. The Forbes article quotes some people who are actually qualified to speak, who say that the case appears to have merit. And that is my untutored view as well.
How Long Will It Take to Decide the Case?
Plaintiff has not as of yet, and may not, ask for either a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff and her counsel may well think that asking for this preliminary relief could slow things down.
Moreover, the case appears to be almost purely about issues of law, not fact; there would seem to be little need for witness depositions or document review. It could go quickly, if the district court judge and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals choose to move it along.
And why wouldn’t the lower courts move it along? Like everybody else, they’re watching as their stock market investments go glug, glug, glug, down the old shitter.
An “Exit Ramp” for Trump?
As the pressure on Trump grows, it’s possible—not likely, in my view, but remotely possible—that he might start looking for a way out of his decision to crash the world economic order. Should he want to take an exit ramp, a decision by the Supreme Court ordering him to drop his tariffs could do the trick.
The Incentive/Disincentive to “Onshore” Manufacturing
Finally, if there is any business, anywhere, that is seriously considering building manufacturing capacity in the United States, based on Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs, the pendency of this litigation gives them yet another reason to hesitate. As many have observed, you’re only going to spend the money to build a U.S. plant if you think the tariffs are going to last a long time. The lawsuit is yet one more reason, among many others, to question whether that’s a good bet.
Leonard Leo and Charles Koch Oppose Penguin Tariffs. They’re Unconstitutional!
You can read all about it at https://nclalegal.org. I looked for a Donations page. Didn’t find it. Guess you don’t need donations from peons when you’re financed by Koch and Leo.
Wonder what they’ll say when they win in the Supreme Court and the Very Stable Genius tells the Court and their organization to go screw themselves.
A Time for Choosing: Follow-up on the Financial Times’ Analysis of L’Affaire Paul Weiss
The Financial Times interviewed 35 people who actually know what the hell they’re talking about, and summarized their views. (Most of them spoke anonymously.) I quoted extensively from the FT’s reporting in the immediately preceding post. I would like to add a few points.
First, while it’s clearly correct to view Trump’s actions against the law firms as thuggish extortion, it is, nevertheless, an odd form of extortion.
It’s as if Joe Bonanno didn’t want money or anything of much economic value—he just wanted you to go out in public and kiss his ring, and then he would leave you alone.
Second, as long as some firms are resisting—and they are—and as long as the courts are standing firm, Trump’s extortion stands on legally shaky ground. That implies several things, including (i) if Trump’s demands become impossible to meet, Paul Weiss can always do a 180, and (ii) if and when it becomes too hot to be seen kissing Trump’s right, Paul Weiss can also do a 180. Not saying they will. Not saying when they will. I’m saying it’s a distinct possibility.
A propos the question of which side of history you want to choose: Trump and Musk humiliated themselves in the Wisconsin state Supreme Court election; Republican margins drastically diminished in two red districts in Florida; and Trump is about to cause a recession with his tariffs.
Third, for some people, the love of big money is akin to heroin addiction or gambling addiction. For those folks, if forced to choose between keeping their big money and acting dishonorably or giving up some of their money in order to do the right thing, it’s not really a choice.
For others—as the FT article makes clear—it’s now a choice between making a lot of money while choosing the wrong side of history, versus making somewhat less money but saving your soul.
Some people will actually want to save their souls. Others will choose the right side when it becomes highly unpopular to pick the wrong side. As is just about to happen.
“There’s Too Much Fucking Money”
The Financial Times spoke with a large number of knowledgeable folks, and has produced the most insightful reporting that I have seen on l’affaire Paul Weiss. The FT writes,
In the mid-1980s, Arthur Liman was almost certainly the most acclaimed corporate lawyer in America.
As a star dealmaker at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Liman negotiated on behalf of corporate raiders such as Ron Perelman and defended “junk bond king” Michael Milken in federal court.
But he also won a reputation as a dedicated part-time public servant. Liman led high-profile investigations into the Attica prison riot in the 1970s and of President Ronald Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s.
Rising through the ranks at that time was Brad Karp, a Harvard law graduate who joined Paul Weiss in 1985. A quarter-century later, Karp would take the helm of the firm, which has since grown to 1,200 lawyers strong. He explicitly moulded it in Liman’s image: a decisive presence across corporate law practices, with lawyers who carry an ethos of public service, seriousness and sobriety.
Yet within a few days last month, that carefully constructed edifice was challenged at its core.
President Donald Trump issued an executive order that in effect banned Paul Weiss from appearing in federal courts and cases over claims that its work on progressive causes undermined the judicial system and that its pro-diversity hiring policies were illegal. The edict threatened the survival of Paul Weiss, Karp claimed.
Paul Weiss is not the only firm to have been targeted by the Trump administration, and judges have since frozen critical parts of similar orders against Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Perkins Coie for being illegal.
But rather than litigate, Karp cut a deal with Trump that cancelled the executive order in exchange for concessions including $40mn worth of pro bono legal services on issues important to the president.
The deal Karp signed sent shockwaves through the American legal establishment because it highlights the growing identity crisis among many of the larger law firms — especially those with a strong connection to Wall Street.
The Financial Times spoke to 35 corporate lawyers and legal insiders for this story, although many requested anonymity due to concerns about retaliation from the president and his associates.
Within Paul Weiss, some lawyers in the litigation department — once its key strength — were disturbed to see a powerful institution swiftly cede the high ground, especially one that had the firepower within its own ranks to fight, say people with direct knowledge of the matter. But many of the lawyers in its ascendant mergers and acquisitions and private equity groups were relieved. Ultimately, there was unanimity among the senior management to settle.
Over the past two decades, dealmaking has become a much more important part of the business models of many of the larger firms, buoyed in part by the explosive growth of the private equity industry and hedge funds. This shift has brought with it a coterie of star lawyers and pay packages that mirror those of their Wall Street clients.
The threats from the Trump administration are playing into this culture clash between the litigation business — where some lawyers would take it as a point of pride to be seen standing up to the government — and the deals lawyers, who tend to be more focused on the short-term flow of transactions and whose incentives are to keep out of the government’s crosshairs.
The dilemma that Paul Weiss faced is now being felt in other parts of the industry as Trump broadens his assault on the sector. While some such as Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale have resisted, others have not; Skadden Arps, an arch-rival to Paul Weiss for many of its corporate clients, reached a deal with Trump to offer $100mn worth of pro bono services to avoid being hit by an executive order.
On Tuesday, Willkie Farr & Gallagher reached a similar agreement to the one Skadden struck, becoming the third major firm to forge a deal with the White House.
The industry is divided over how to respond. While a large number of small and medium-sized firms are willing to support Perkins Coie in its legal effort to fight sanctions imposed by the Trump administration, the Financial Times revealed at the weekend that not one of the 20 top law firms in the US — most of which have large dealmaking businesses — has so far given their “unconditional support” to the effort.
Although Paul Weiss was the first elite law firm to buckle to Trump’s demands, several leaders from rival firms told the Financial Times privately that they would cut similar deals if targeted with an executive order.
Karp told his colleagues that there was “no right answer” to the administration’s threats. “It is very easy for commentators to judge our actions from the sidelines,” he wrote in an email. “But no one in the wider world can appreciate how stressful it is to confront an executive order like this until one is directed at you.” …
For Karp, who has chaired Paul Weiss since 2008, the attack has represented a brutal personal reversal. An outspoken Wall Street supporter of the Democratic party, he had helped raise millions of dollars for Kamala Harris. Had she won, Karp was in the running to be US attorney-general, the highest ranking lawyer in America, according to multiple Democratic party operatives and donors.
His decision to cut a deal with the man he had worked tirelessly to keep out of office does not represent an ideological shift, according to people briefed on the matter. In Karp’s mind, the livelihoods of his thousands of employees were at stake.
One person close to Karp says the decision was excruciatingly painful for the 65-year-old: “He wasn’t just thinking about his own interests, he did it for the thousands of people who work there: the secretaries, the associates, the young partners who would have their financial lives adversely affected if the deal did not go through.”
Shortly after Trump targeted Perkins Coie and Covington, Karp contacted the heads of several law firms to try to organise support for them. The response was almost non-existent, and also failed to materialise when the White House issued an executive order against Paul Weiss.
“Disappointingly, far from support, we learned that certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys,” he wrote in the email to employees of the firm after he reached a deal with Trump.
Once Karp realised there was no united front to fight the executive order, the pressure grew to find an alternative solution. Some clients warned the firm’s partners that unless the matter was resolved swiftly, they would move their business elsewhere. Rumours swirled that competitors were circling Paul Weiss’s top talent, ready to pounce whenever the opportunity arose.
Under mounting pressure, Karp travelled to Washington in mid-March to meet Trump to plead for clemency. During the meeting at the Oval Office, in a move that was not expected by Karp, the president patched in on speaker Robert Giuffra, the co-chair of rival firm Sullivan & Cromwell and a Trump donor, to help hammer out a truce.
Karp swallowed his pride and agreed to the terms imposed by Trump. People close to Karp said that Paul Weiss did not actually make any big concession but agreed that the symbolism of what went down at the White House, while demeaning, was ultimately pragmatic.
“We’ve used Paul Weiss forever and . . . we would have had to seek new counsel if they didn’t settle,” says a person working at a company that regularly hires Paul Weiss and has ties with the federal government. “Brad did the right thing, although we realise it must have been humiliating for him and the legal industry . . . the problem isn’t Brad but it’s Trump.”
Yet Paul Weiss’s need to strike a deal with the administration in the first place is in part a symptom of how the law firm has morphed in recent decades into a mainstay of Wall Street, with salaries and culture to match.
Paul Weiss is one of a handful of firms that has created a thriving free-agent market for lawyers. Partners a decade ago would make perhaps $3mn or $4mn a year and would enjoy lifetime employment and generous pensions.
With the growth of private equity firms, hard-knuckled hedge funds and a regular churn of multibillion-dollar corporate acquisitions, a small set of lawyers now command eight-figure pay packages and have no reluctance about jumping firms for the highest bidder. Karp played the poaching game as aggressively as anyone.
Since Karp took over, Paul Weiss has evolved into a transactional powerhouse attracting top-tier corporate lawyers from rivals, such as the star dealmaker Scott Barshay, who joined from Cravath, Swaine & Moore to propel Paul Weiss’s M&A business.
But today’s lavishly paid top talent are less likely to display allegiance. “Karp saw a clear and present [danger] that star partners there would defect to other peer firms and take very lucrative business with them,” says John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School. “M&A stars are unique and carry the keys to Fort Knox with them.” People close to Barshay say he had no intention to leave regardless of the decision.
One lawyer who has gone up against Paul Weiss put it more bluntly: “There’s too much fucking money. When a Big Law partnership is $2mn a year, people can have some principles because the fall isn’t so bad.” The calculation changes entirely, the person says, “when they are making $20mn a year”. …
Under Karp’s leadership, the firm has often been a ruthless advocate for the powerful. Its biggest clients include Apollo Global Management and Goldman Sachs, while it has also represented members of the Sackler family, who founded Purdue Pharma, the pharmaceutical behemoth that has been accused by prosecutors of stoking the US opioid crisis.
Indeed, one of the considerations for the firm was its stable of private equity clients, many of whom are Republicans. As one partner puts it, if the firm only acted for clients whose ethics they agreed with then they would have no clients.
Some in the industry see Paul Weiss’s concession to Trump as a compromise of its values.
The firm’s history is steeped in contributions to dismantling segregation, defending reproductive and LGBT+ rights, and challenging the death penalty, and it maintains an image of strong social consciousness.
Given all that, many of the lawyers and people working in adjacent industries who spoke to the FT say it would have been the best-placed firm to set an example by taking the fight to Trump.
“As lawyers, we need to be really stepping up and doing just the opposite of what the administration wants,” says Jessie Weber, managing partner at Brown Goldstein & Levy, a mid-sized firm with a big civil rights practice. “But certainly, it will take the whole legal community stepping into that role, and that’s what I hope to see.”
During Trump’s first term, leaders at Paul Weiss stood up to the administration. Karp himself co-wrote an op-ed in 2018 accusing the government of violating the law.
Around that time, a team of Paul Weiss lawyers volunteered to provide counsel travellers from countries affected by the administration’s Muslim ban, says Erin Elmouji, a partner at Mancuso Brightman who previously worked at Paul Weiss.
“Standing up for the underprivileged and the voiceless is something Paul Weiss has committed to over and over again over the years,” she says. Reaching a deal with the White House “has made it a lot harder for other firms and organisations to stand up and fight [governmental over-reach], which is essential to preserve the independence of the legal system”.
Some critics of Karp’s deal say that in the long term, the cost of settling will outweigh the short-term benefits.
Reaching an agreement with Trump raises the question of whether Paul Weiss can independently advocate for the positions of its clients, Elmouji says, and ultimately makes the law firm vulnerable to further demands from the administration.
“Would you really hire Paul Weiss to go to war against the government?” says one lawyer at a rival firm. “Would you hire Karp to go up against the DoJ [Department of Justice] right now, when he just folded when his own interests were at stake?”
A litigator who has close ties with many colleagues at Paul Weiss rejects this as half of the firm’s business involves interacting regularly with federal and state regulatory agencies. “Under the Trump administration, when he says you’re an enemy, he’s going to make sure that everyone is retributive and vengeful towards you, and anything Paul Weiss wanted by way of relief from these regulators they would not get. It would have destroyed them even if they were purely a litigation firm.” …
There is little sign of pressure letting up. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sent letters to 20 large law firms, most of which were large corporate firms similar to Paul Weiss, asking them to describe their diversity, equity and inclusion policies.
Lawyers at many of those firms say they are sympathetic to Karp’s decision and admit their firms could soon similarly bow to Trump in an effort to preserve their businesses.
“Most firm leaders would do exactly what Brad did,” says a chair from one of the country’s top law firms. “We — and I talk to everyone — are all incredibly grateful because it allows the industry, it gives us a blueprint, to resolve things in a constructive way.”
“No one is willing to go on the record because everyone’s concerned. I don’t want to pop my head up because you don’t know how it’s going to get smacked. But that’s very different from saying we don’t support what was done.”
Another corporate adviser is more blunt: “It was a mafia-like shakedown . . . There was no choice. Do you have a choice whether to pay the mob?”
Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block will test whether signing a deal with Trump is the right thing to do.
The temporary victory in court of the three firms “may give Paul Weiss a reason to reconsider its approach”, says Ryan Goodman, professor at the New York University School of Law. “That will be even more likely if their reputation emerges stronger for having put up this fight.”
As for Paul Weiss, even if its business model remains intact, there is still the risk it has irreparably sacrificed its singular moral authority among elite law firms. …
Facing MAGA 