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.
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?”
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.
“Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
“He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
“He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
“He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
“He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.
“He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
“He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
“He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
“For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
“For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
“For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
“For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
“For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
“For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
“He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging Waragainst us.
“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
“He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
“He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
My daughter Pollyanna called this morning to cheer me up. She made some good points. Here are five of them.
First, collective action by Paul Weiss and other large corporate law firms is not necessary to save the rule of law, nor is it sufficient to save the rule of law in the United States.
Nor is it sufficient. Survival of the rule of law requires, first of all, resolute action by the federal judiciary generally and by at least five Supreme Court justices in particular, and then, secondly, widespread support on the public’s part for resistance to tyranny. That alone will suffice.
Second, to the extent that specialized legal learning about the constitutional case law is needed to defend the rule of law, the big law firms largely do not have that expertise. They know a lot about securities law, environmental law, tax law, antitrust law, and intellectual property law.
Constitutional law, not so much.
Third, while it’s regrettable that Paul Weiss temporized, that’s not at all surprising. That’s what generally happens when someone is faced with a new and unexpected situation, with strong incentives pulling in wildly different directions.
But, fourth, the situation remains fluid.
Paul Weiss and its peers are in the business of hiring junior lawyers with sterling credentials—Harvard Law Review and the like—paying them very large salaries, and parceling out their time, hour by hour, at $1,000 or more, for services rendered to gigantic corporations.
Apparently, a good portion of corporate America is still sleep walking, looking to the Trump administration for those sweet, sweet tax cuts and deregulatory policies, and still imagining that his talk about tariffs and invading Canada, etc., is all bullshit.
Paul Weiss as we know it cannot exist without a lot of corporate clients paying it $2.6 billion a year.
On the other hand, Paul Weiss as we know it cannot exist without a continuing supply of very able young lawyers. A lot of them are very upset indeed. And, I would bet good money, a fair number of the partners are not happy, either.
Fifth and finally, if you look closely at what Paul Weiss actually “agreed” to do, it looks like Trump did not get very much apart from headlines along the lines of “Big Law Firm Capitulates.”
The firm “agreed” to supply $40 million in legal services—not money, but the “value” of the legal services—to pro bono clients as mutually agreed between Trump and the firm. $40 million is 1/65 of the firm’s annual earnings. And the firm is “paying,” not in cash, but in services.
Back of the envelope calculation: If the contributed pro bono services are “worth” on average, say, $1300 per hour, then the $40 million figure works out to 30,769 hours per year. If Paul Weiss’s 1200 lawyers bill on average 2,000 hours/year to their paying clients—and that may be low—then, collectively, they’re billing 2.4 million hours. The promised Trump pro bono 30,769 hours represent 1/78 of the estimated total current billable hours.
Chicken feed.
The firm also “agreed” not to turn away business based on the prospective client’s political affiliation. Fine. They probably shouldn’t do that anyway.
And the firm seems to have discussed with Trump having some sort of a look-see about its employment practices.
In short, the firm’s “obligations” seem trivial, ambiguous, and, to a significant degree, illusory. I’ll bet Mr. Karp of Paul Weiss walked out of his meeting last week with Trump thinking that he had just yanked the wool over Orange Mussolini’s eyes, good and proper.
This week, though, things probably look more complicated.
President Trump took a broad swing at the [legal] industry Friday night after three earlier orders punishing Paul Weiss and two other firms. In a presidential memorandum, he broadly accused law firms of abusing the legal system to challenge his policies, stymie immigration enforcement and pursue partisan causes. He instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek sanctions in court against lawyers and firms who engage in “frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation.”
Trump also directed Bondi to launch a broad review of conduct by lawyers in litigation against the government over the last eight years to determine whether additional firms should face the same type of punishments he has issued already, most notably the termination of government contracts held by firm clients.
Administration officials already have built a list of more than a dozen law firms they might target with executive orders, and Trump has expressed eagerness in signing more of them, according to people familiar with the planning.
Trump’s latest pronouncement landed particularly hard in an industry that was still processing Paul Weiss’s decision to cut a deal with the White House rather than challenge the administration in court. Trump on Thursday rescinded his order against the firm after it agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services to support the administration’s initiatives, such as assisting veterans and fighting antisemitism.
Several law-firm chairs and senior partners said they were working to calm clients and employees, with younger associates increasingly calling for lawyers to take a stand against Trump. Some firm leaders said their clients—and their fellow partners—were split on whether they would rather their firms take a deal if targeted or fight it out in court. A number of firms were trying to draw distinctions to clients between their work and the activities of the firms that Trump has punished already. Corporate lawyers with a connection to the Trump administration have been tapped to open communication lines with the White House, and several firms were seeking to engage lobbyists, people familiar with the discussions said.
Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp spoke with other firms’ leaders in recent days and told them he found the deal with the White House distasteful but said he had little choice but to take it, according to people familiar with those conversations.
“Clients had told us that they were not going to be able to stay with us, even though they wanted to,” Karp told firm lawyers and employees in an internal email Sunday viewed by the Journal. “It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration.”
One firm, Perkins Coie, which was hit with a Trump executive order on March 6, continued to lead the fight against the administration over the weekend.
“Now more than ever law firms and lawyers across the political spectrum have to stand up for our timeless values,” David Perez, a Perkins Coie partner said on LinkedIn. The Paul Weiss agreement, he said, emboldened Trump “to ratchet up his attack on one of the strongest checks on his power: lawyers and the rule of law.”
Perkins Coie sued the administration on March 11 and won a restraining order against the administration, with a judge saying the executive order was likely unconstitutional. But while the firm is winning in court, it is struggling to manage the fallout behind the scenes.
Perkins is losing clients who fear Trump’s wrath, and a number of top companies that work with the firm have called other firms about representation, people familiar with the matter said. One of the people said some competing lawyers have made sympathetic calls to Perkins to say they aren’t trying to steal the firm’s clients and would step aside if those clients wanted to return to Perkins after the situation calmed down.
An effort across a number of firms to file a court brief in support of Perkins continues to flounder because not enough firms are willing to sign it, for fear of antagonizing the administration, people familiar with those negotiations said.
San Francisco-based Keker, Van Nest & Peters urged law firm leaders “to resist the administration’s erosion of the rule of law.”
“Our liberties depend on lawyers’ willingness to represent unpopular people and causes, including in matters adverse to the federal government,” the firm said. “An attack on lawyers who perform this work is inexcusable and despicable.”
Trump’s campaign in part has been focused on paying back opponents. Perkins, for example, worked with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and an opposition-research firm that compiled a discredited dossier against Trump. Covington & Burling, another firm hit with an executive order, provided legal counsel to former special counsel Jack Smith. And Trump cited Paul Weiss’s previous ties to Mark Pomerantz, who also worked on the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into Trump and his business.
But the president’s Friday memorandum also signaled Trump’s broader frustrations with lawyers challenging his initiatives in court—and winning. His administration is currently locked in a showdown with a Washington federal judge over Trump’s invocation of wartime powers to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. A number of the president’s other initiatives have been put on hold by the courts, including the termination of thousands of government employees and limits on birthright citizenship and transgender rights.
Public-interest legal organizations and smaller firms have been leading many of those cases.
Sid Davidoff, a New York lawyer who was famously on President Richard Nixon’s “enemies list,” said industry leaders were caving to pressure.
“You have some top notch firms, significant legal minds, and they’re just being whipped,” Davidoff said. “I guess they are trying to protect their bottom line, but it’s really upsetting.”
Facing MAGA 