Trump is going after Big Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to feel bad for big law.

Especially since BigLaw spent every minute of the Biden administration challenging every regulation and attacking the legitimacy of basically every independent agency.

Wtf?? I am at a fed regulator and I know this is normal - we issue rules and they get challenged, biglaw represents some of the industry litigants. That's the normal process of judicial review.

The government playing favorites and punishing private actors who have not done anything unlawful is unprecedented and scary.

The past four years were not normal. Everything got challenged, including the constitutionality of every agency and administrative process, and the lawsuits were particularly over-the-top in their vitriol. And the overwhelming majority were filed in one circuit. Nothing about that was normal. If you've been a fed regulator for more than four years, you should understand how atypical all of this was.

And don’t know. Lawfare has become the norm on both sides for a while now. We are certainly seeing a ton from Dem AGs now, just as we saw the opposite the last four years. And I don’t think any of these folks are going to file in the 5th, so let’s not pretend forum shopping isn’t equal opportunity.

There's no circuit remotely comparable to the 5th in terms of forum shopping for Dems.

The First Circuit is even more favorable to the Dems (all Dem appointees with one vacancy). They are already filing many of their cases in D.Mass. and other New England districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to feel bad for big law.

It’s not about feeling “bad” for big law. It’s the deterioration of our fundamental rules of law. If our president is going after law firms based on who they represent we are not far off from full dictatorship.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to feel bad for big law.

Especially since BigLaw spent every minute of the Biden administration challenging every regulation and attacking the legitimacy of basically every independent agency.

Wtf?? I am at a fed regulator and I know this is normal - we issue rules and they get challenged, biglaw represents some of the industry litigants. That's the normal process of judicial review.

The government playing favorites and punishing private actors who have not done anything unlawful is unprecedented and scary.

The past four years were not normal. Everything got challenged, including the constitutionality of every agency and administrative process, and the lawsuits were particularly over-the-top in their vitriol. And the overwhelming majority were filed in one circuit. Nothing about that was normal. If you've been a fed regulator for more than four years, you should understand how atypical all of this was.

And don’t know. Lawfare has become the norm on both sides for a while now. We are certainly seeing a ton from Dem AGs now, just as we saw the opposite the last four years. And I don’t think any of these folks are going to file in the 5th, so let’s not pretend forum shopping isn’t equal opportunity.

There's no circuit remotely comparable to the 5th in terms of forum shopping for Dems.

The First Circuit is even more favorable to the Dems (all Dem appointees with one vacancy). They are already filing many of their cases in D.Mass. and other New England districts.

NP. The First Circuit is not so wildly partisan that it regularly gets overturned for flat out refusal to follow law or precedent. SCOTUS smackdowns on the Fifth Circuit for refusing to apply the law are an embarrassment to jurisprudence. It is so bad that many companies are establishing ties in just one Fifth Circuit district so as to get one specific judge. It is the most extreme example of forum-shopping possible— all because the Fifth Circuit is so biased. So no, there is absolutely nothing else close to it in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm no expert, but, uh, free speech anyone?

That ended the moment Zionists decided you couldn't call out the slaughter of children under the guise of it being "religious persecution" if you do, so enjoy watching that slippery slope get even more slippery as one cheers on pp being disappeared for being normal human beings and the ignorance of Americans who think it's only "them thar fer-ner terrorists" who write op-eds, that will be affected.

First they came for...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to feel bad for big law.

Especially since BigLaw spent every minute of the Biden administration challenging every regulation and attacking the legitimacy of basically every independent agency.

Wtf?? I am at a fed regulator and I know this is normal - we issue rules and they get challenged, biglaw represents some of the industry litigants. That's the normal process of judicial review.

The government playing favorites and punishing private actors who have not done anything unlawful is unprecedented and scary.

The past four years were not normal. Everything got challenged, including the constitutionality of every agency and administrative process, and the lawsuits were particularly over-the-top in their vitriol. And the overwhelming majority were filed in one circuit. Nothing about that was normal. If you've been a fed regulator for more than four years, you should understand how atypical all of this was.

And don’t know. Lawfare has become the norm on both sides for a while now. We are certainly seeing a ton from Dem AGs now, just as we saw the opposite the last four years. And I don’t think any of these folks are going to file in the 5th, so let’s not pretend forum shopping isn’t equal opportunity.

There's no circuit remotely comparable to the 5th in terms of forum shopping for Dems.

The First Circuit is even more favorable to the Dems (all Dem appointees with one vacancy). They are already filing many of their cases in D.Mass. and other New England districts.

No, it’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm no expert, but, uh, free speech anyone?

I mean they can’t be officially successful at this kind of hiring practice but it will certainly have a chilling effect, to a degree. It will also embolden some. As I said in my other post, they are also threatening law schools and demanding they change their curriculums or they will ban any grad from that school. Not that many new grads think they’ll get hired by the govt anytime soon anyway but that’s a scary threat for a student or new lawyer.

Why would a law student want to work for this government right now.

Same as always

Because they cant cut it as a real lawyer.

Wrong. Some of the smartest lawyers- and people- I know went to work for the government. They could have gone to a top firm. They could have made much more money. But they chose to serve their country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to feel bad for big law.

Especially since BigLaw spent every minute of the Biden administration challenging every regulation and attacking the legitimacy of basically every independent agency.

Wtf?? I am at a fed regulator and I know this is normal - we issue rules and they get challenged, biglaw represents some of the industry litigants. That's the normal process of judicial review.

The government playing favorites and punishing private actors who have not done anything unlawful is unprecedented and scary.

The past four years were not normal. Everything got challenged, including the constitutionality of every agency and administrative process, and the lawsuits were particularly over-the-top in their vitriol. And the overwhelming majority were filed in one circuit. Nothing about that was normal. If you've been a fed regulator for more than four years, you should understand how atypical all of this was.

And don’t know. Lawfare has become the norm on both sides for a while now. We are certainly seeing a ton from Dem AGs now, just as we saw the opposite the last four years. And I don’t think any of these folks are going to file in the 5th, so let’s not pretend forum shopping isn’t equal opportunity.

There's no circuit remotely comparable to the 5th in terms of forum shopping for Dems.

The First Circuit is even more favorable to the Dems (all Dem appointees with one vacancy). They are already filing many of their cases in D.Mass. and other New England districts.

NP. The First Circuit is not so wildly partisan that it regularly gets overturned for flat out refusal to follow law or precedent. SCOTUS smackdowns on the Fifth Circuit for refusing to apply the law are an embarrassment to jurisprudence. It is so bad that many companies are establishing ties in just one Fifth Circuit district so as to get one specific judge. It is the most extreme example of forum-shopping possible— all because the Fifth Circuit is so biased. So no, there is absolutely nothing else close to it in this country.

Yes, the Fifth Circuit enjoined the student loan forgiveness case in milliseconds on extremely shaky standing. No bias or activism there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not like he doesn't have a basis for thinking the law firm was out to get him. It was the law firm that Hilary Clinton used to push the false Russian Dossier.

I agree they should have their security clearances pulled.

The firm represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential race, and it also contracted with the research firm that produced the now-discredited opposition dossier that alleged extensive contacts between Trump and Russia. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/03/06/trump-perkins-coie-hillary-clinton-steele-dossier/

True.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not like he doesn't have a basis for thinking the law firm was out to get him. It was the law firm that Hilary Clinton used to push the false Russian Dossier.

I agree they should have their security clearances pulled.

The firm represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential race, and it also contracted with the research firm that produced the now-discredited opposition dossier that alleged extensive contacts between Trump and Russia. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/03/06/trump-perkins-coie-hillary-clinton-steele-dossier/

True.

OK so leaving aside that those lawyers have all left the firm so you are punishing them for things they didn’t do

IT’S NOT OK FOR THE PRESIDENT TO USE THE GOVERNMENT TO PUNISH HIS PERCEIVED ENEMIES

That is fascism and also essentially what Watergate was about and it lead to the impeachment and resignation of Nixon