Category: Rule of Law

Posted on

Memorandum for the Management Committee, Dewey Cheatem & Howe LLP

HIGHLY SENSITIVE AND CONFIDENTIAL

EYES ONLY

DESTROY AFTER READING

To:       Management Committee, Dewey Cheatem & Howe LLP

From:  Alphonse Thaddeus Vanderbilt-Morgan, Chair, Corporate Department

            John Maximus Rambo, Chair, Litigation Department

re:        possible participation by Dewey Cheatem as amicus in the Perkins Coie case

Question Presented

The Management Committee has asked for our joint advice on the question whether our firm should join with others as an amicus curiae in support of plaintiff in Perkins Coie v. United States Department of Justice.

Answer to Question Presented

After consulting with our colleagues and with each other, we concur in advising the Management Committee that the firm should not, at the moment, join in the amicus curiae brief.

We see the current situation as evolving rapidly. Our firm should establish a task force to monitor the situation, carefully assess alternatives, and be prepared to move when the time comes.

Analysis

In formulating our response to the Management Committee’s inquiry, we have placed most emphasis on the following eight factors (which we have not tried to rank order in importance. 

1. Inevitable Litigation Victories by Perkins Coie (#66), Jenner & Block (#51), and WilmerHale (#31). (Throughout this memo, numbers in parentheses are a firm’s rank order in profits per partner.)

Constitutional case law establishes beyond peradventure of doubt that the government may not deprive a person or organization of a benefit in retaliation for that person or organization’s exercise of its constitutional rights. Moreover, the legal filings by the three law firm plaintiffs demonstrate clearly that they, and potentially their clients and other affiliates, were denied due process of law by President Trump’s unilateral and unsupported decision that they were guilty of some fault.

 Each of the three firms has, with lightning speed, asked for and received a temporary restraining order. There is absolutely no reason to expect a more favorable outcome for the Administration as the cases move through the courts. 

In our judgment, the case for the Trump Administration is indefensible—so bad, in fact, that do not know what Justice Department attorneys may argue on behalf of the Administration without jeopardizing their own standing at the bar. 

Of particular note, people or agencies charged with unconstitutional retaliation generally try to confuse the issue by offering some pretext for their behavior. Here, however, whoever was preparing documentation in support of the Administrations executive orders against the three firms seems to have gone out of their way to create a written record that conclusively demonstrates the unconstitutionality of the orders.

2. Futility of an Amicus Brief by Other Firms. The three plaintiff law firms are very well represented: Perkins by Williams & Connolly (#89), Jenner by Cooley LLP (#23), and WilmerHale by the prestigious conservative boutique firm Clement & Murphy. Peer firms like ours have no additional legal insight to bring to bear on the situation, nor would a firm such as ours have some useful insight into the facts that might help a court to decide any of these three cases.

Our best judgment is that possible amicus briefs by other law firms, not presently involved in the lawsuits, would have zero likelihood of influencing the ultimate outcome of any of the cases. 

3. Symbolic Support for the Plaintiff Law Firms and for the Rule of Law. We agree with those who have emphasized the need for joint action to support the rule of law. But we believe this is best done by the legal profession collectively, acting through the American Bar Association and other bar groups such as the New York City Bar Association. The ABA, the NYCBA, and many others have forcefully condemned the Administration’s challenges to the rule of law. 

Our able young partner Mahmoud Sadiq serves on the NYCBA’s Board of Directors, and our senior partner Ophelia Orotund sits in the ABA House of Delegates. Both have supported resolutions condemning threats to the rule of law. We encourage them to continue along that path.

In short, our firm’s public position on the rule of law should already be clear to all concerned.

4. Potential Downsides of Going Out of Our Way to “Poke” President Trump. A small number of our clients, including two large and important clients, have been in touch with members of the firm to express concern if we “stick our heads up.” 

Within the partnership, two senior deal makers, Ainsley Smart and Alexander Hurlbutt, have expressed particular concern. Our sense is that Ms. Smart and Mr. Hurlbutt would be reluctant to move elsewhere, but you never can tell for sure. Among our partners, the strongest opponent of anti-Trump action is the head of our Washington Office, Jayson Opponlander, who hopes to steal business from WilmerHale and from Covington & Burling, which Trump has targeted and which may be in negotiation with him. 

By contrast with our Corporate Department, the instinct of many of our litigation partners is to stand up for the rule of law.

Finally, those involved in recruiting and retaining our associate work force advise that just standing pat probably will not affect us much, one way or another, in the current situation. But that could change as events evolve. 

5. Piggybacking Off of Current Litigation by Perkins etc. Unless we join as an amicus againstPresident Trump, we do not see any big risk that our firm might become a target of his ire. But if that should happen, the relevant case law on which we will rely in defense us is already being created in the three pending cases. 

6. Planning for a Hypothetical Trump Executive Order Against Dewey Cheatum. In our judgment, points one through five suffice to support our conclusion that the firm should not join an amicus brief at this time. That said, in our judgment, it is vital for the firm to begin to plan what do in the event of possible executive order against us. We believe a task force should be formed to, among other things,

  • monitor developments in the three firms’ lawsuits versus the Administration,
  • monitor client reactions to the split among the major law firms, and
  • closely watch the effect on associate recruitment—will Scadden (#12) and Paul Weiss (#21) keep on getting the pick of the litter? Or will their brands suffer from a reputation for cowardice and weakness, leading to difficulty in recruiting associates? 

Pending the monitoring of future developments, we have no definitive recommendation at the moment as to how the firm should respond to a hypothetical executive order against us. 

7. Special Attention for DEI. We have a strong DEI program. Its purpose—and, we believe, its effect—is not to discriminate against anyone, including heterosexual white males. Its purpose is to make sure that the best and the brightest feel comfortable at our firm, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, religion, or ethnicity. We want the best people we can get, and we want their best efforts.

If necessary, we can and will defend the legality of our program in court. 

While we do not recommend modifying our DEI program at this time, we nevertheless think the proposed new task force should take soundings to determine whether any of our partners, associates, or other employees feels like a victim of discrimination. If so, the firm should look into the matter and determine whether any action is required. 

8. The View from 30,000 Feet. Finally, our proposed task force should monitor not only developments like associate recruitment and client sentiment but also the big picture. 

From where we sit today, it looks as if President Trump and his advisers have initiated an aggressive authoritarian project. That project’s goals and techniques appear similar to Victor Orbán’s—except that President Trump seems to be trying to accomplish in ten weeks what Orbán did in ten years. Moreover, Orbán took care to promote the economic interests of his supporters while Trump seems to want to harm everyone.

In short, on the available evidence, President Trump literally does not know what he is doing. 

Implication: over the long run, firms that appear supportive of President Trump, or that appear subservient to him, are likely to suffer a significant reputational loss, and conversely. 

Accordingly, our firm must be ready to take appropriate action at the appropriate time. 

Posted on

The Big Law Split

Financial Times, To US law firms balk at backing Perkins’ challenge to Trump sanctions: Legal industry split over whether to join amicus brief against president’s order for fear of retaliation

The FT writes, 

None of the top 20 law firms in the US have so far offered their “unconditional support” to an effort by Perkins Coie to fight sanctions imposed by the Trump administration. 

Organisers of an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie’s lawsuit are struggling to convince America’s most powerful law firms to sign up amid concerns they will face retaliation by the Trump administration, according to emails seen by the Financial Times. 

Eric Green, a well-known mediator, has been circulating a draft of the brief and tallying daily numbers of those law firms willing to add their names to the document. The brief is being prepared by the Los Angeles firm Munger, Tolles & Olson.  

According to an email sent on Saturday afternoon by Green’s firm, Resolutions LLC, which was seen by the FT, 173 of 248 law firms that have responded to the survey are offering “unconditional support”.  

However, among the top 100 law firms by revenue, as ranked by The American Lawyer magazine, only three have offered “unconditional support” with none coming from the top 20. 

The brief is supposed to be submitted to the court in the next few days in conjunction with the formal court papers Perkins Coie files to challenge the executive order against the firm, with Munger, Tolles & Olson trying to rally law firms behind the effort before that deadline. 

Eight firms in the top 100 have offered their support with conditions, including that their closest peers also sign the brief, according to one person involved in the process. As such, nearly all of the full-throated support so far for the amicus brief originates from small and medium-sized firms. 

“So the numbers are great, but not from the largest firms,” wrote Green in the email, which said the responses of law firms would remain anonymous in the current feedback phase. 

According to Trump’s executive order, Perkins Coie would be banned from federal government work and have any security clearances revoked. A federal judge in Washington has issued a temporary injunction to halt the implementation of the order while Perkins Coie pursues its appeal in court.  

Since the Perkins Coie order, the Trump administration has imposed sanctions on several top law firms tied to the Democratic party or who have hired investigators who previously targeted President Donald Trump. 

Law firms have been struggling with the question of whether to publicly confront Trump’s campaign against the legal community or seek a détente in order to avoid the business disruptions that the executive orders could bring. 

After facing a similar executive order, Paul, Weiss cut a deal with Trump to cancel the sanctions in exchange for $40mn of pro bono legal services dedicated in part to causes Trump supports. Another large firm, Skadden, said it would offer $100mn to support similar legal services to avoid facing its own order. 

Two other firms, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, have vowed court fights to contest their sanctions and had their own orders temporarily blocked in federal court on Friday. 

Perkins Coie and Eric Green, the mediator, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

The three-page draft brief seen by the FT sets out legal arguments that challenge the constitutionality of the executive orders. 

It concludes: “Like every lawyer, the members of the amicus law firms have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution . . . that oath obligates all of us, no matter our political views, to be faithful custodians of our Nation’s commitment to the rule of law . . . we therefore feel a special responsibility to stand up now to the unprecedented threat posed by the Executive Order.”

Posted on

It’s Saturday. How Stands the Rule of Law?

N.Y. Times, Trump’s Not-So-Subtle Purpose in Fighting Big Law Firms: The president has attacked law firms for “frivolous” litigation. But his actions could undermine the basic right of Americans to sue their government.

Comment: You don’t say!

N.Y. Times, Trump Suffers Day of Losses in His Retribution Campaign Against Law Firms

Comment: Just cry me a river.

Politico, If Trump Defies the Courts, It Will Backfire Badly

Comments: Despite the headline, the article mostly addresses this question: “Does the Trump administration plan to ignore or defy future court orders that it disagrees with—perhaps even an order from the Supreme Court?”

The author marshals arguments for the view that, at the end of the day, Trump will obey the courts, because he will understand and abide by his own self-interest.

The author might be right. I strongly suggest you read the piece. 

I agree that, if Trump tells the Supreme Court just to pound sand, that will end the decades-long project to remake the courts into a powerful force for economic and social conservatism, all in the name of “federalism,” the Constitution, “originalism,” and “textualism.”

All hail James Madison!

But what the author does not say is that ending that decades-long Federalist Society project makes no nevermind if you plan a permanent rightwing dictatorship based on the exercise of ruthless force. 

If you see our future as continuing a contest between two parties, then the Federalist Society project is important. If you see our future as fascist dictatorship, then the Federalist Society project is worth no more than a bucket of warm spit. 

And let me add this: Trump is a doofus, and he has willfully surrounded himself with a coterie of doofi.

To me, the evidence strongly indicates that some of the doofuses are trying maneuver Orange Mussolini into a position where he will think he has not choice but to defy the Supreme Court. 

Posted on

Bad Bad Donald Trump, Baddest Man in the Whole Damn Dump

Wednesday

“They’re all bending and saying, ‘Sir, thank you very much,’” Mr. Trump said, adding that they were asking, “‘Where do I sign? Where do I sign?’”

Friday (Today)

Jenner & Block, WilmerHale both file complaints, and both are granted temporary restraining orders by the close of business the same day. 

Posted on

Jenner & Block and WilmerHale to Orange Mussolini: Fuck You Very Much

The Sheep are Separating from the Goats

There are reports that Skadden Arps is about to do a deal with Trump along the lines of the Paul Weiss capitulation. I am feeling nauseous. But all is far from lost. 

Jenner & Block is a large, Chicago-based firm with a number of offices. It is among the top 100 American firms in profit per partner. It heavily emphasizes litigation, including a serious amount of pro bono work—much of it for organizations Trump does not like. 

When the firm got in Trump’s cross hairs, it responded, in words or substance, “Fuck You Very Much.”

The firm’s statement of today reads,

Today, Jenner & Block filed a lawsuit to stop an unconstitutional executive order that has already been declared unlawful by a federal court. We expect to prevail quickly.For more than 100 years, Jenner has stood firm and tirelessly advocated for our clients against all adversaries, including against unlawful government action. We once again go to court to do just that. To do otherwise would mean compromising our ability to zealously advocate for all of our clients and capitulating to unconstitutional government coercion, which is simply not in our DNA. 

Jenner & Block’s complaint, filed on its behalf by Cooley LLP, is 64 pages long and alleges 13 constitutional violations.

WilmerHale is the union of the old DC-based Wilmer Cutler & Pickering and the old Boston-based Hale and Dorr. It has 1000+ lawyers, and is particularly prominent in litigation. It was recently ranked as number 31 among American law firms. 

To represent the firm, WilmerHale retained renowed conservative attorney Paul Clement, of whom Wikipedia notes,

During his career, Clement has argued cases on behalf of many conservative causes, such as opposing gun control;[4][5] defending a ban on federal recognition of same-sex marriage;[6][7]advocating to enjoin the Affordable Care Act;[8][9] defending Republican gerrymandering in North Carolina;[10] and, as Acting Solicitor General, defending the Controlled Substances Act under the Commerce Clause,[11] as well as the Bush administration’s treatment of terrorism suspects.

Mr. Clement’s complaint on behalf of WilmerHale runs to 57 pages, describes in great detail the eleven constitutional violations of his client’s rights, and is a masterpiece. 

Also worthy of praise is the brief in support of a temporary restraining order by Williams and Connolly, on behalf of Perkins Coie. Follow the links and read ‘em both. 

Posted on

The American Bar Association: Against Intimidation, For the Rule of Law

Bar organizations’ statement in support of the rule of law

CHICAGO, March 26, 2025 — We the undersigned bar organizations stand together with and in support of the American Bar Association to defend the rule of law and reject efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession.

In particular, as outlined by the ABA:

We endorse the sentiments expressed by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in his 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, “[w]ithin the past year we have also seen the need for state and federal bar associations to come to the defense of a federal district judge whose decisions in a high-profile case prompted an elected official to call for her impeachment. Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.”

We support the right of people to advance their interests in courts of law when they have been wronged. We reject the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients or punish judges who rule certain ways. We cannot accept government actions that seek to twist the scales of justice in this manner.

We reject efforts to undermine the courts and the profession. We will not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not. Words and actions matter. And the intimidating words and actions we have heard and seen must end. They are designed to cow our country’s judges, our country’s courts and our legal profession.

There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession, including lawyers in private practice from Main Street to Wall Street, as well as those in corporations and who serve in elected positions, to speak out against intimidation.

If lawyers do not speak, who will speak for our judges? Who will protect our bedrock of justice? If we do not speak now, when will we speak? Now is the time. That is why we stand together with the ABA in support of the rule of law.

American Bar Association
Alameda County (California) Bar Association
Alexandria (Virginia) Bar Association
Allegheny County Bar Association (Pennsylvania)
American Immigration Lawyers Association
Appellate Lawyers Association
Arab American Bar Association of Illinois
Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers
Bar Association of Erie County (New York)
Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis
Bar Association of San Francisco
Berks County (Pennsylvania) Bar Association
Boston Bar Association
Boulder County (Colorado) Bar Association
Chicago Bar Association
Chicago Council of Lawyers
Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association
Columbus (Ohio) Bar Association
Connecticut Bar Association
Contra Costa (California) County Bar Association
Detroit Bar Association and Foundation
Erie County (Pennsylvania) Bar Association
First Judicial District Bar Association (Colorado)
Hawaii Women Lawyers
Hennepin County (Minnesota) Bar Association
Hispanic National Bar Association
Hudson County (New Jersey) Bar Association
Illinois State Bar Association
International Society of Barristers
Kansas Bar Association
Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association
Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Foundation
Lawyers Club of San Diego
Long Beach (California) Bar Association
Los Angeles County Bar Association
Louisville Bar Association
Maine State Bar Association
Maricopa County Bar Association
Massachusetts Bar Association
Massachusetts LGBTQ Bar Association
Middlesex County (New Jersey) Bar Association
Milwaukee Bar Association
Minnesota State Bar Association
Monroe County (New York) Bar Association
Muslim Bar Association of Chicago
Nassau County (New York) Bar Association
National Arab American Bar Association
National Arab American Bar Association – Michigan Chapter
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association
National Association of Women Lawyers
National Conference of Bar Presidents
National Filipino American Lawyers Association
National LGBTQ+ Bar Association
National Native American Bar Association
New Jersey Women Lawyers Association
New Mexico Black Lawyers Association
New York City Bar Association
New York County Lawyers Association
North County (California) Bar Association
Board of Governors of the Oregon State Bar
Palestinian American Bar Association
Passaic County (New Jersey) Bar Association
Philadelphia Bar Association
Queens County (New York) Bar Association
Ramsey County (Minnesota) Bar Association
San Diego County Bar Association
San Fernando Valley (California) Bar Association
Santa Clara County Bar Association (California)
South Asian Bar Association of North America
State Bar of New Mexico
Virgin Islands Bar Association
Board of Governors of the Washington State Bar Association
Women’s Bar Association of the State of New York
Worcester County (Massachusetts) Bar Association

Posted on

Trump Versus Big Law: Which Side are You on, Boys, Which Side are You On?

N.Y. Times, Rivals Pounce on Paul Weiss, a Top Law Firm, After Trump’s Order: Fears that competitors could take its top rainmaking talent added to the law firm’s worries about a Trump executive order that targeted it

The Guardian, ‘A capitalistic cowardice’: big law firms being threatened by Trump face pressure to speak out

Letter to Paul Weiss from 140 Alumni

Politico, This Law Firm Stood Up to Government Intimidation—and Came Out on Top: A scrappy law firm decided to represent federal workers accused of disloyalty and survived to become a legal behemoth

Financial Times, Donald Trump widens war on legal industry with order targeting Jenner & Block

Yahoo News, Jenner & Block signals it will stand its ground after being targeted in Trump’s war on Big Law

Comments

Jenner & Block

It’s early days yet, but initial indications are that Jenner & Block is telling Mango Mussolini, “Go pound sand. See you in court.”

That’s consistent with my intuition—for what it may be worth—that in going after Jenner & Block, Trump has picked the wrong bunch of hombres to mess around with. 

Paul Weiss

The New York Times piece is, as the saying goes, deeply reported. In other words, as I would have expected, Paul Weiss is leaking like a sieve. 

I don’t want to be a Monday morning quarterback. I don’t want to make this situation into a medieval morality play. I don’t want to make the Paul Weiss imbroglio a simple story about courage versus cowardice. That said, several points occur.

One, despite all the leaking and all the reporting, I doubt that we’ll ever know, I doubt that the Paul Weiss partnership at large will ever know, what all the key players—the firm’s biggest clients and its biggest movers and shakers—said to one another, to bring about Mr. Karp’s surrender. 

Two, I think the Paul Weiss brand will never be the same. I think that nobody is going to put Humpty Dumpty together again.

Three, I think the situation with the firm is very fluid. A giant law firm looks solid and powerful and invincible from the outside. Until, one day, maybe it isn’t.

A law firm’s assets consist of people. People have legs. They can walk out the door. When enough of them walk out the door, no more law firm. Ask Dewey & LeBoeuf. Ask Howrey LLP. Ask Thacher Proffitt & Wood. And many others.

Third, and closely related: the associates as well as the partners of Paul Weiss are highly skilled and highly employable. Every mother’s daughter and son of them could get an excellent job somewhere else. Tomorrow. They could be sitting at their new desks this coming Monday. 

Fourth, while I’m not predicting the firm’s demise, I do think it will quickly become apparent that the firm has badly blotted its copybook and that its brand will never be the same. 

Who wants to join a law firm that has the reputation for being a bunch of wimps?

If you have major legal exposure and need to hire someone to represent you, who wants to hire a law firm perceived to consist of a bunch of doormats?

Increasingly, it looks like Trump versus everyone else. It looks like Trump stands for kakistrocracy, corruption, and chaos. 

It looks like a time for the legal community to ask, “Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?”

Posted on

Big Law: It’s Tuesday Afternoon, and the News is not Good

Washington Post, Law firms refuse to represent Trump opponents in the wake of his attacks: The result is an extraordinary threat to constitutional rights of due process and legal representation and a far weaker effort to challenge Trump’s actions in court than during his

Financial Times, Elite US law firms brace for more retaliation from Donald Trump: Capitulation of Paul Weiss strikes fear in American legal boardrooms

Donate to the ACLU

Posted on

Further to L’Affaire Paul Weiss: Hang Together or Hang Separately

Deborah Perlstein (N.Y. Times), They Are America’s Most Powerful Law Firms. Their Silence Is Deafening.

Professor Perlstein is a distinguished constitutional scholar and a professor at Princeton. Her analysis parallels mine in important respects. 

I commend her full article to your attention; I won’t attempt to quote or paraphrase all of it. I also strongly commend to your attention Paul Weiss’s side of the story.

The Need for Collective Action

Prof. Perlstein writes,

[W]here many ordinary judges, law school deans and public interest attorneys of both political parties have found the courage to push back against Mr. Trump’s anti-constitutional histrionics, Big Law has largely stayed silent or worse.

These firms face a classic problem of collective action: Every individual firm has an incentive to keep quiet, but if everyone stays silent, all will lose. The problem is understandable. It is also solvable. It requires firms to find the courage to act together.

A Joint Amicus Brief Supporting Perkins Coie as a Means of Collective Action?

The idea has been much mooted, and a draft joint amicus brief has reportedly been prepared. But, on reflection, I’m strongly inclined to think that

  • Perkins Coie’s legal case is rock solid, and the other big law firms could tell the courts nothing—nothing—that the courts don’t already know, and that
  • a joint amicus brief would do nothing to change the odds of Perkins Coie wins or loses in the courts.

The latter question will come down to whether a majority of the Supreme Court choose to follow the law, or whether they choose to join the Trump ass kissers. 

Professor Perlstein evidently agrees that the reasons for collective action are largely symbolic. She says, 

[An] excuse circulating among Big Law lawyers is that speaking out won’t make a difference either way. Perkins Coie, after all, won its case without the broad support of its peer institutions.

That argument misses the point. Coming to Perkins Coie’s defense isn’t a decision about litigation strategy. It is about standing up to the administration’s intimidation. Signing on to joint briefs is not the only way to do that. Fellow firms and their clients could contribute to a joint defense fund, to help defray the costs of litigation and lost business for those on the receiving end of Mr. Trump’s score-settling wrath.

The point is for Big Law to do something — anything — as a group to demonstrate that they will continue to place their obligations to their clients and to the law above their fear of the bully. Solidarity can prove that point. And it can shore up the hope we all retain that the world’s strongest economy and oldest democracy will not both, simultaneously, fall.

The excuses made for Big Law’s silence are of course not limited to Big Law. The same collective action problem no doubt informs the discussions taking place inside the corner offices of the firms’ corporate clients, in the boardrooms of major media enterprises, at the gatherings of university trustees. The solutions to such problems are limited. But one tried and true approach remains clear: joining forces to fight back.

A Side Note on Law Firm Collective Action: The Bar Associations’ Statement

A joint statement by the New York City Bar Association and many other bar associations calls for rejecting “any efforts to use the tremendous power of the government against members of the legal profession for performing their duties.”

Note that the leadership of the New York City Bar Association includes many lawyers with leading law firms.

Collective Action? Yes, But Bring in the Business Roundtable and the United States Chamber of Commerce Along with the Top 200 Law Firms

Like many ideas, collective action is a wonderful idea, provided it works. I don’t think it will work unless and until the American business elite comes to its senses and realizes that Trump is, in truth, a tyrannical madman. You are not going to jollify him. You are not going to mollify him with minor bribes, like paying a few million dollars in bogus “settlements” of bogus lawsuits he has brought. He is, instead, a mortal danger to your businesses. And he is a mortal danger to you. Yes, you can bribe him on Monday. But he won’t stay bought. On Wednesday, you’ll have to do it all over again. 

You have got to reach the point where you wake up and smell the coffee. Let the DOGE cuts wreak havoc on Trump voters. Let the tariffs wreak havoc on the economy. And then take collective action. 

Posted on

Paul Weiss’s Side: Let’s Review the Bidding

Now that we have read Paul Weiss’s account of l’affaire Paul Weiss, let us step back and take stock. 

So, we’ve got a law firm with 200 partners, 1,000 associates, and annual revenue of $2.6 billion. We’ve got a president eager to violate every law on the books, to extort the law firm without mercy, and to bend it to his will. (Why? You may well ask. The answer is because the president is scared shitless that the courts are going to try to resist his tyrannical impulses—and he’s trying to frighten all the lawyers because he’s not sure he’ll succeed in frightening all the judges.)

You’ve got a law firm facing an existential threat to its existence. You’ve got a firm that tries to organize collective action to defend itself, but without success. You’ve got a firm that considers injunctive relief in the courts, thinks it could get that injunctive relief, but also thinks it would go belly up anyway.

In these circumstances, the head of the firm goes to meet Mango Mussolini, they talk for three hours or so, and they reach a deal. 

And what, pray tell, were the terms of that deal? Well, on one side, President Mussolini abandoned his threat to squash Paul Weiss like a bug. 

And what did Paul Weiss do in return? Find a slightly indirect way to share, maybe half a billion dollars with Orange Jesus? 

No, as its consideration, Paul Weiss gave bupkis.

In the chairman’s telling, 

First, we reiterated our commitment to viewpoint diversity, including in recruiting and in the intake of new matters. Second, while retaining our longstanding commitment to diversity in all of its forms, we agreed that we would follow the law with respect to our employment practices. And third, we agreed to commit $10 million per year over the next four years in pro bono time in three areas in which we are already doing significant work: assisting our Nation’s veterans, countering anti-Semitism, and promoting the fairness of the justice system.

Such a deal.

Such a deal. 

What is Wrong with this Picture?

From one perspective, Paul Weiss made out like bandits. But what’s the problem? What is wrong this this picture?

I assume that what Trump really wanted—and what he certainly got—were a lot of headlines along the lines of “Great Big Bad Law Firm Bends Knee to Trump and Kisses His Fat Ass.”

And certainly, for a long, long time to come, Paul Weiss will be known as the first big law firm to knuckle under. 

Remember that a key aspect of competition for a firm like Paul Weiss is competition to recruit able you associates—so that you can sell their time at retail for $1,000 or more per hour.

If there are any brilliant law grads yearning for careers as Trump’s towel boys, I am sure they will relish the golden opportunity to come work for Paul Weiss.

As to the brilliant law grads who still have some self-respect, not so much, or so I would think.