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.”
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.
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,
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.
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
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?”
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.
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.
From:Karp, Brad S Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2025 2:51 PM To: GRP-ALL-WW Subject: Statement to the PW Community
Dear Members of the Paul, Weiss Community,
I wanted to take this opportunity to speak with all of you more fully about the events of recent days. I know that this has been a profoundly unsettling time for all of you. Information gaps have been filled with speculation, concern, and misinformation, and I wanted to take this opportunity to address your concerns directly. Thank you for taking the time to listen.
Late in the evening of Friday, March 14, the President issued an executive order targeting our firm. Since then, we have been facing an unprecedented threat to our firm unlike anything since Samuel Weiss first hung out a shingle in downtown Manhattan on April 1, 1875—almost exactly 150 years ago.
Only several days ago, our firm faced an existential crisis. The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm. It brought the full weight of the government down on our firm, our people, and our clients. In particular, it threatened our clients with the loss of their government contracts, and the loss of access to the government, if they continued to use the firm as their lawyers. And in an obvious effort to target all of you as well as the firm, it raised the specter that the government would not hire our employees.
We were hopeful that the legal industry would rally to our side, even though it had not done so in response to executive orders targeting other firms. We had tried to persuade other firms to come out in public support of Covington and Perkins Coie. And we waited for firms to support us in the wake of the President’s executive order targeting 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.
We initially prepared to challenge the executive order in court, and a team of Paul, Weiss attorneys prepared a lawsuit in the finest traditions of the firm. But it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration. We could prevent the executive order from taking effect, but we couldn’t erase it. Clients had told us that they were not going to be able to stay with us, even though they wanted to. It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration.
At the same time, we learned that the Administration might be willing to reach a resolution with us. So, working with our outside counsel, we did exactly what we advise our clients to do in “bet the company” litigation every day: we talked with the Administration to see if we could achieve a lasting settlement that would not require us to compromise our core values and fundamental principles.
In a matter of days, we were able to negotiate such a resolution. That resolution, the terms of which I shared with all of you on Thursday evening, had three primary components. 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.
To be clear, and to clarify misinformation perpetuated from various media sources, the Administration is not dictating what matters we take on, approving our matters, or anything like that. We obviously would not, and could not ethically, have agreed to that. Instead, we have agreed to commit substantial pro bono resources, in addition to the $130+ million we already commit annually, in areas of shared interest. We will continue all of the existing pro bono work we already do and will continue in our longstanding role as a leader of the private bar in the pro bono and public interest sphere.
This existential crisis required the leadership of our law firm to make incredibly difficult decisions under extraordinary time pressure. In making those decisions, we were guided by two fundamental principles. First and foremost, we were guided by our obligation to protect our clients’ interests. As I mentioned earlier, we concluded that even a victory in litigation would not be sufficient to do so, because our firm would still be perceived as persona non grata with the Administration. We simply could not practice law in the Paul, Weiss way if we were still subject to the executive order. This resolution was unambiguously in our clients’ best interests.
Equally important, we were guided by our fiduciary duty to all of you—by our obligation, as stewards of the firm, to protect the livelihoods of the 2,500 lawyers and non-legal professionals who work at Paul, Weiss. That consideration—the need to ensure, above all, that our firm would survive—weighed extremely heavily on all of us, and especially on me, as the leader of the firm.
In today’s political environment, it is unsurprising that the announcement that we have negotiated a resolution with the Administration, rather than fighting it in court, has generated intense feelings across the firm and indeed across the entire legal and broader community. As is often the case in situations like this, the extensive media coverage and social media commentary surrounding recent events has taken on a life of its own, with its own factual narrative and its own momentum. The coverage has been decidedly unhelpful, piecemeal, and incorrect in many fundamental respects. But it is not particularly constructive for any of us involved to debate factual discrepancies. Instead, what is most important is to look to the future. In this regard, I want to provide some clarity and perspective as we move forward.
First, and most important, we have quickly solved a seemingly intractable problem and removed a cloud of uncertainty that was hanging over our law firm. Our clients have been overwhelmingly supportive, expressing relief at the resolution of this situation and the fact that, as the President publicly has acknowledged, our firm now has an engaged and constructive relationship with this Administration. Thousands of clients have reached out directly to express their continued confidence in Paul, Weiss and their appreciation for our unwavering dedication to their matters throughout this period and our ability to quickly secure a resolution that will redound to their benefit. Even those who have expressed personal disappointment that we didn’t fight the Administration have said they fully appreciate what was at stake for our law firm and respect our decision.
Second, the resolution we reached with the Administration will have no effect on our work and our shared culture and values. The core of who we are and what we stand for is and will remain unchanged. To that end, we will continue our proud, century-long legacy of courageously standing up for fundamental rights and liberties, for fairness in the justice system, and for our society’s most vulnerable individuals. That commitment is woven into our DNA; it was and will never be subject to negotiation or compromise.
Third, we will continue to support each of you in your career journey, providing you with the world’s best training and opportunities to advance and thrive in your field. Above all, we will continue to be a place where we enjoy working together; where we respect each other; where we can practice law at the highest levels of excellence.
I know many of you are uncomfortable that we entered into any sort of resolution at all. That is completely understandable. There was no right answer to the predicament in which we found ourselves. All of us have opinions about what is going on right now in America. This is an incredibly consequential moment for our country. It is very easy for commentators to judge our actions from the sidelines. 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.
I want to close by expressing my profound gratitude to each of you. Since March 14, we have seen Paul, Weiss at its very best, supporting each other in the face of an unprecedented threat. You have demonstrated, once again, the extraordinary caliber of our Paul, Weiss community. Your professionalism, your dedication to our clients, your support for one another, and your commitment to our firm have been nothing short of remarkable under these impossibly challenging circumstances. I am confident that, just as we have in past crises, we will get through this together and become even stronger and more resilient as a community.
To that end, my door is open to you as we navigate next steps, as are the doors of firm leadership. This has been a deeply painful experience for me and for the other leaders of the firm. I know it has been a profoundly difficult period for many of you. Since March 14, we have been weathering a terrible storm. But I know that we will get through this storm, and that we will continue to uphold the proud traditions that have defined Paul, Weiss for the last 150 years. I am so thankful for each and every one of you, and for all that you do every day for this very special place and for our broader communities.
Facing MAGA 