If Paul Weiss won’t stand up, who will?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be women. It usually is. Men fall for this tough guy routine but women are repulsed by it. We see through it. We also have more at stake.

I think you mean Black women, because white women continue to back the white patriarchy whenever it really counts. And honestly, as one of those Black women, I am sick and tired of trying to save y'all from yourselves. At this point, bring on the segregation, because I do not trust white people. You all voted for this because you couldn't swallow righting the wrongs of the past and not being given the advantages you've become to believe you're entitled to. 400 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow, and maybe 20 years of affirmative action y'all want to chuck the constitution.

You’re talking to me, a 54 year old suburban white woman who has never voted for a republican. I marched Selma, Alabama for one of the Bloody Sunday anniversaries. I support SPLC. .None of my white female friends are republicans either. We voted for Kamala. We’re all boycotting companies that dumped DEI, and we’re calling our representatives. Your stereotypes and anger toward us as a group is unreasonable and not helpful.

You sound like people who say #notallmen

If she’s not talking about you because you’re not like the people she’s talking about, she’s not talking about you.

— White woman

No. She was quote replying to me and lumping me in with “y’all”. I don’t judge her by the color of her skin and I am asking just the same of her. And, oh, I don’t dare wear a pin or a bracelet to let her know I hate Trump and the GOP, or else I’d be mocked for that too. But she’ll assume the worst of me until she “gets to know me.” Imagine a white woman saying that about a black woman. It’s appalling.

It's appalling that she uses statistical logic? Over half of white women voted for Trump. So much fragility on your part. Do you know how many assumptions people make about black women every day?

90 million people didn’t vote at all. You can’t even assume someone voted.

Well isn't that a betrayal too? With the stakes this high, not voting shows you don't care about the marginalized.

You’re straying from the point. She proudly makes assumptions. Her assumptions were 100% wrong about the person she directly responded to. The point is, you can’t make assumptions about people. It’s not accurate, helpful, or morally excusable. Is it human nature? Unfortunately. Is it exacerbated by bad experiences and parental values? Yes. Can we control ourselves and make ourselves do better? Absolutely.

We’re off topic now and trolls love this subject. Let’s get back on topic and figure out how to rid ourselves of this authoritarian kleptocractic mafia state. And pp was right, it requires unity.

[Anonymous]

It's getting worse. Memo from late last night to Noem and Bondi - all litigation against the federal government over the last 8 years will be under review, and be subject to punishment by the White House

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25600216-032125-trumpmemo-lawyers/

I further direct the Attorney General, in consultation with any relevant senior executive official, to review conduct by attorneys or their law firms in litigation against the Federal Government over the last 8 years. If the Attorney General identifies misconduct that may warrant additional action, such as filing frivolous litigation or engaging in fraudulent practices, the Attorney General is directed to recommend to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, additional steps that may be taken, including reassessment of security clearances held by the attorney, termination of any contract for which the relevant attorney or law firm has been hired to perform services, or any other appropriate actions.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/22/trump-ramps-ups-retribution-campaign-against-legal-community

[Anonymous]

PW is to blame for this. This was a predictable consequence. These orders have to be challenged in Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's getting worse. Memo from late last night to Noem and Bondi - all litigation against the federal government over the last 8 years will be under review, and be subject to punishment by the White House

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25600216-032125-trumpmemo-lawyers/

I further direct the Attorney General, in consultation with any relevant senior executive official, to review conduct by attorneys or their law firms in litigation against the Federal Government over the last 8 years. If the Attorney General identifies misconduct that may warrant additional action, such as filing frivolous litigation or engaging in fraudulent practices, the Attorney General is directed to recommend to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, additional steps that may be taken, including reassessment of security clearances held by the attorney, termination of any contract for which the relevant attorney or law firm has been hired to perform services, or any other appropriate actions.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/22/trump-ramps-ups-retribution-campaign-against-legal-community

1 - that will be a huge undertaking, will there be a task force to review all of this? DOJ is already swamped right now and short staffed.

2 - does Trump remember signing this? Did he have anything to do with this memo at all? Or memory of it?

[Anonymous]

Based on the election results, placing blame on the 90 million who didnt vote isnt justified. If they had voted, Trumps mandate would be even bigger

[Anonymous]

Do you think lawyers at PW could be sanctioned for signing this deal? It’s a bribe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republican voters want Trump in charge. The next President will be another populist Republican. That’s why Paul Weiss isn’t fighting Trump. Bezos, Zuckerberg, every Fortune 500 CEO canceling DEI programs with relief… what do they all know that we don’t know?

They’re in it for the tax cuts. And the lack of environmental or consumer or labor regulations. All the reasons the average American voter should be 100% against it.

Better hope Paul Weiss can make their payroll off Trump, because they are about to get dumped from every other matter.

+1. The mega millionaire CEO of my DH's corporation said that he voted for a "favorable regulatory environment." They are so rich that they don't care about the everyday people who get hurt by lax regulations.

Let's give them an unfavorable business environment.

Stop buying crap

Yes . Please . Vote with your wallets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think lawyers at PW could be sanctioned for signing this deal? It’s a bribe.

Oh they would fight that! Anything to keep the money flowing.

[Anonymous]

Would be great if the Dems did the same thing if they took the White House!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. Meant to mention that I am also a former Big Law partner (at another firm that has been targeted). I am baffled by how this passed the full partnership. As someone said up thread, this negotiating was crap. Gave away way more than needed. I would not want this firm handling a major matter for me.


I can only assume the rest of the partnership had no idea.

Do we think this managing partner, who
Bundles money for DS, panicked and thoughjr this was the only way to save his job?

Another partner here. Why would it need to pass the full partnership? I would be surprised if PW’s agreements required a full vote of the partnership to
handle. Sure, you try to build support, but these are the types of decisions handled by a management committee.

[Anonymous]

In house here. I’m new to this chain but this seems so short sighted of PW. Lawyers trend liberal and we’ll pick another firm for our next big deal/litigation/project etc. Have been using PC on some things and honestly had a few bumps but now look at them with new respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was unbelievable and Paul Weiss had a good case to litigate this. But they folded rather than take a stand and are paying out $40 mn in cowardice.

I am still deciding whether Paul Weiss folded here or not, and this is a major reason why: they didn't agree to pay $40m. They agreed to do $40m in pro bono work for people and groups "across the political spectrum."

First, is there a timeline on this? A firm could easily do $40m in pro bono work over the course of a few years. They set the value of their own work! Throw a few high billing partners on some pro bono matters over a few years and you're good.

Second, they can still choose which cases they choose. In order to cover the "right" side of the spectrum, they don't have to do work for Trump toadies. They can choose cases and clients who they feel comfortable with.

I thin it's possible Trump got nothing here. Though they also agreed to some stuff regarding DEI, I haven't looked at the details. But there are 20 firms facing the EEOC investigations and they are all going to have to figure out how to handle.

Anyway, I am not sure this is the capitulation you all think it is.

Nobody's going to respond to this poster? I know nothing about this field, and would have liked some discussion as to what exactly PW agreed to, and what, exactly they can wiggle out of.

[Anonymous]

They had their security clearances revoked. They would be out of business before they went to trial.

Not many options if they wanted to stay in business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was unbelievable and Paul Weiss had a good case to litigate this. But they folded rather than take a stand and are paying out $40 mn in cowardice.

I am still deciding whether Paul Weiss folded here or not, and this is a major reason why: they didn't agree to pay $40m. They agreed to do $40m in pro bono work for people and groups "across the political spectrum."

First, is there a timeline on this? A firm could easily do $40m in pro bono work over the course of a few years. They set the value of their own work! Throw a few high billing partners on some pro bono matters over a few years and you're good.

Second, they can still choose which cases they choose. In order to cover the "right" side of the spectrum, they don't have to do work for Trump toadies. They can choose cases and clients who they feel comfortable with.

I thin it's possible Trump got nothing here. Though they also agreed to some stuff regarding DEI, I haven't looked at the details. But there are 20 firms facing the EEOC investigations and they are all going to have to figure out how to handle.

Anyway, I am not sure this is the capitulation you all think it is.

Nobody's going to respond to this poster? I know nothing about this field, and would have liked some discussion as to what exactly PW agreed to, and what, exactly they can wiggle out of.

I think they may be correct and that may be why PW chose to do what they did. But there's what they think they did and what everyone else thinks they did.

It looks bad. And that's important. This will hurt them. How much? I don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They had their security clearances revoked. They would be out of business before they went to trial.

Not many options if they wanted to stay in business.

And yet Perkins Coie chose a different path