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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny, Karp's NYT statement/interviews says nothing about the other "mean" big law firms trying to steal clients and attorneys.

Also, the notion that "thousands" of clients expressed support for a settlement agreement reached just a couple days ago does not ring true at all. And which of those clients are the ones they currently care about and bring in money. I bet most just stayed silent. Or maybe they said "Karp, you brought this on you moron."

Yeah, I’m betting most clients got called this weekend by the partner they are closed with and the client said they understood- as in I understand why you did what you did. That’s different than agreeing with it or giving the next case/deal to someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny, Karp's NYT statement/interviews says nothing about the other "mean" big law firms trying to steal clients and attorneys.

Also, the notion that "thousands" of clients expressed support for a settlement agreement reached just a couple days ago does not ring true at all. And which of those clients are the ones they currently care about and bring in money. I bet most just stayed silent. Or maybe they said "Karp, you brought this on you moron."

the “deal” Karp got was catastrophically bad - clients should fire the firm for that reason alone. Agreeing to comply with the law on hiring and to fund some pro bono - fine. But if Karp really did what Trump claimed (agree to something as vague as “not using DEI policies, agree to specific types of pro bono, to put restraints on the type of case they will agree to take, and especially that Karp “acknowledged the wrongdoing” of the NY Trump prosecution) that is way way out of bounds.

[Anonymous]

Trump is disciplining these law firms so they know going forward that their participation in Democratic Party lawfare against Republicans will not be cost-free

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump is disciplining these law firms so they know going forward that their participation in Democratic Party lawfare against Republicans will not be cost-free

Oh please. He's just petty, small-minded, and vindictive. He also is not forward-looking. He doesn't know how to think about the future, he never has and at this point, there's no point in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump is disciplining these law firms so they know going forward that their participation in Democratic Party lawfare against Republicans will not be cost-free

Do you think that’s acceptable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP: The EO was unlawful. But if they do hit a bump in the road about this agreement, an agreement extorted by illegal means is not enforceable anyway. In any case, it does not appear that they gave anything in the agreement they weren't essentially already doing. Inexpensive, smart move perhaps, which ultimately only highlights that the Emperor had no clothes.

Maybe you have inside info on what PW is already doing, but it remains to be seen what pro bono work and visibility in objectionable Trump causes this is going to cause and whether it further destroys PW’s rep. It is in Trump’s hands now on how much he wants to keep them around.

I cant imagine the turmoil at PW right now. Who is going to do all this work?

It is also ironic that the settlement is supposed to be based on the principle that law firms should pick sides but yet the essence of the settlement is that they will do just that.

It is good news if Trump goes after more firms because they will band together to fight. No concern that one will be left hanging and clients will go to other firms if they are all in it.

Which is why PW is really screwed. They hopefully will be the lone sellout/spineless coward. They will stand out and in house counsel are taking notice.

I am usually not so political but the fact here that these orders are so clearly illegal that even a conservative judge wouldn’t uphold is what gets me. Being unwilling to even do some basic fighting for the good of the constitution and country.

I’m sorry, but this reads like some fantasy. The law firms aren’t going to fight back just like the universities did not fight back. Like the universities, the law firms are over levered and over extended. Trump cut off funding and the universities went into panic mode laying off people and caved to Trump.

Law firms are not in a position of strength. They are all over levered and over extended. They cannot afford a fight so they won’t fight. They have buffer problems to worry about.

What the heck are you talking about. All they need is go to court. A couple of pleadings and the whole EO falls apart. The Universities are in a different position because they get hundreds of millions in some cases from the US Government. Law firms do not. They get money from clients, and most in house counsel are moderate to left. Note I said most, not all.

This is not to say clients want their firms to be visibly in Trump's face, but I am sure that most clients would want law firms to fight the notion that Trump can issue this type of EO that punishes firms for speaking out or filing cases in court to challenge Trump's actions (whether they win or not). It is not hyperbole to say this is a constitutional issue.

And the basis for the law firm EO is different than for Universities.

Most rainmakers, at least in my experience, are apolitical and prefer their firms to remain so. Those are the only people they matter at law firms. Everyone else is replaceable. The political ones don’t tend to have big books because the rainmakers don’t have time for that or much interest in it.

In house counsel does not always pick outside counsel, and in my experience, where I work, in house counsel directs less than 10% of the legal spend. The vast majority of legal money is directed by the business people who are mostly right of center and/or apolitical. We just ask in house counsel to take care of the engagement letters. I’m sure in other areas it is probably more balanced, but in house counsel directs very little decision making in areas like investment banking and PE. The big ticket work that firms are chasing.

Nobody has a right to a security clearance, which is the leverage point Trump used. That specifically is not a constitutional issue.

The clearance is just one issue and is specific to a person. You can’t take action against a whole firm because of one person’s clearance. You also can’t take actions that have nothing to do with a clearance. PW would have won an injunction, just like Perkins. They didn’t even try and what’s worse they tried to negotiate and now are beholden. They let themselves be blackmailed. It’s unbelievable.

Why they didn’t go the Perkins route, I have no idea. Perkins got a TRO within days, now has one of the most bulldog firms representing them, and also got an outpouring of support. In contrast, this whole thing is so embarrassing for Paul Weiss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is disciplining these law firms so they know going forward that their participation in Democratic Party lawfare against Republicans will not be cost-free

Do you think that’s acceptable?

Yes. Only Trump is allowed to file dozens of frivolous fraudulent perjurous cases over a span of 4 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Poster is correct that the news has it wrong that PW paid Trump $40m. But that is a lot of pro bono work. More importantly, it entangles PW with the Trump causes for years. Trump has a say apparently in what causes. We know he will continue to jerk PW around.

Another example of bad negotiating. Any real attorney will tell you that entangling yourself with your opponent as part of a settlement is stupid and will lead to more disputes. Stay tuned.

Having spent many many years at another biglaw firm and having done lots of pro bono matters while there, I can tell you that this motion “$40 million of pro bono is nothing” is flat wrong. Trump gets to pick the cases, apparently, and practicing law is still practicing law. It is hard work. Work that will overwhelmingly fall to already overworked associates who are very upset by this deal. This is terrible for many reasons, but don’t forget how this will kill their recruiting and retention.

Exactly. For what purpose? they would have won hands down. And it is not like they are now a R firm and will be hired on that basis. And I don't think filing suit to protect the constitutional from an illegal (and laughable) EO would have harmed them in any way. I am work in house and do hire counsel, and these actions really make me think about their competence, or a least the competence of the management committee. There are a lot of good firms I can hire instead.

I don't know. We can look to the previous example of Musk's Tesla/SpaceX/Twitter and how they swiveled their corporate political convictions to follow the switch in power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP: The EO was unlawful. But if they do hit a bump in the road about this agreement, an agreement extorted by illegal means is not enforceable anyway. In any case, it does not appear that they gave anything in the agreement they weren't essentially already doing. Inexpensive, smart move perhaps, which ultimately only highlights that the Emperor had no clothes.

Maybe you have inside info on what PW is already doing, but it remains to be seen what pro bono work and visibility in objectionable Trump causes this is going to cause and whether it further destroys PW’s rep. It is in Trump’s hands now on how much he wants to keep them around.

I cant imagine the turmoil at PW right now. Who is going to do all this work?

It is also ironic that the settlement is supposed to be based on the principle that law firms should pick sides but yet the essence of the settlement is that they will do just that.

It is good news if Trump goes after more firms because they will band together to fight. No concern that one will be left hanging and clients will go to other firms if they are all in it.

Which is why PW is really screwed. They hopefully will be the lone sellout/spineless coward. They will stand out and in house counsel are taking notice.

I am usually not so political but the fact here that these orders are so clearly illegal that even a conservative judge wouldn’t uphold is what gets me. Being unwilling to even do some basic fighting for the good of the constitution and country.

I’m sorry, but this reads like some fantasy. The law firms aren’t going to fight back just like the universities did not fight back. Like the universities, the law firms are over levered and over extended. Trump cut off funding and the universities went into panic mode laying off people and caved to Trump.

Law firms are not in a position of strength. They are all over levered and over extended. They cannot afford a fight so they won’t fight. They have buffer problems to worry about.

What the heck are you talking about. All they need is go to court. A couple of pleadings and the whole EO falls apart. The Universities are in a different position because they get hundreds of millions in some cases from the US Government. Law firms do not. They get money from clients, and most in house counsel are moderate to left. Note I said most, not all.

This is not to say clients want their firms to be visibly in Trump's face, but I am sure that most clients would want law firms to fight the notion that Trump can issue this type of EO that punishes firms for speaking out or filing cases in court to challenge Trump's actions (whether they win or not). It is not hyperbole to say this is a constitutional issue.

And the basis for the law firm EO is different than for Universities.

Most rainmakers, at least in my experience, are apolitical and prefer their firms to remain so. Those are the only people they matter at law firms. Everyone else is replaceable. The political ones don’t tend to have big books because the rainmakers don’t have time for that or much interest in it.

In house counsel does not always pick outside counsel, and in my experience, where I work, in house counsel directs less than 10% of the legal spend. The vast majority of legal money is directed by the business people who are mostly right of center and/or apolitical. We just ask in house counsel to take care of the engagement letters. I’m sure in other areas it is probably more balanced, but in house counsel directs very little decision making in areas like investment banking and PE. The big ticket work that firms are chasing.

Nobody has a right to a security clearance, which is the leverage point Trump used. That specifically is not a constitutional issue.

The clearance is just one issue and is specific to a person. You can’t take action against a whole firm because of one person’s clearance. You also can’t take actions that have nothing to do with a clearance. PW would have won an injunction, just like Perkins. They didn’t even try and what’s worse they tried to negotiate and now are beholden. They let themselves be blackmailed. It’s unbelievable.

Why they didn’t go the Perkins route, I have no idea. Perkins got a TRO within days, now has one of the most bulldog firms representing them, and also got an outpouring of support. In contrast, this whole thing is so embarrassing for Paul Weiss.

Karp explained it in the NYT piece. Read it. He said his litigators had prepared an amazing suit and they would win. But it would make Trump mad. I am not exaggerating.

And he is trying to thread the needle here. Imagine if you were a fancy PW litigator and the message being sent was you were worried about litigating a clearly illegal order. So he couldn’t say the usual things clients say. There is always a risk of litigation so we settled .. blah blah blah.


Instead he says we would have one. But we sold out instead.

He should have STFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP: The EO was unlawful. But if they do hit a bump in the road about this agreement, an agreement extorted by illegal means is not enforceable anyway. In any case, it does not appear that they gave anything in the agreement they weren't essentially already doing. Inexpensive, smart move perhaps, which ultimately only highlights that the Emperor had no clothes.

Maybe you have inside info on what PW is already doing, but it remains to be seen what pro bono work and visibility in objectionable Trump causes this is going to cause and whether it further destroys PW’s rep. It is in Trump’s hands now on how much he wants to keep them around.

I cant imagine the turmoil at PW right now. Who is going to do all this work?

It is also ironic that the settlement is supposed to be based on the principle that law firms should pick sides but yet the essence of the settlement is that they will do just that.

It is good news if Trump goes after more firms because they will band together to fight. No concern that one will be left hanging and clients will go to other firms if they are all in it.

Which is why PW is really screwed. They hopefully will be the lone sellout/spineless coward. They will stand out and in house counsel are taking notice.

I am usually not so political but the fact here that these orders are so clearly illegal that even a conservative judge wouldn’t uphold is what gets me. Being unwilling to even do some basic fighting for the good of the constitution and country.

I’m sorry, but this reads like some fantasy. The law firms aren’t going to fight back just like the universities did not fight back. Like the universities, the law firms are over levered and over extended. Trump cut off funding and the universities went into panic mode laying off people and caved to Trump.

Law firms are not in a position of strength. They are all over levered and over extended. They cannot afford a fight so they won’t fight. They have buffer problems to worry about.

What the heck are you talking about. All they need is go to court. A couple of pleadings and the whole EO falls apart. The Universities are in a different position because they get hundreds of millions in some cases from the US Government. Law firms do not. They get money from clients, and most in house counsel are moderate to left. Note I said most, not all.

This is not to say clients want their firms to be visibly in Trump's face, but I am sure that most clients would want law firms to fight the notion that Trump can issue this type of EO that punishes firms for speaking out or filing cases in court to challenge Trump's actions (whether they win or not). It is not hyperbole to say this is a constitutional issue.

And the basis for the law firm EO is different than for Universities.

Most rainmakers, at least in my experience, are apolitical and prefer their firms to remain so. Those are the only people they matter at law firms. Everyone else is replaceable. The political ones don’t tend to have big books because the rainmakers don’t have time for that or much interest in it.

In house counsel does not always pick outside counsel, and in my experience, where I work, in house counsel directs less than 10% of the legal spend. The vast majority of legal money is directed by the business people who are mostly right of center and/or apolitical. We just ask in house counsel to take care of the engagement letters. I’m sure in other areas it is probably more balanced, but in house counsel directs very little decision making in areas like investment banking and PE. The big ticket work that firms are chasing.

Nobody has a right to a security clearance, which is the leverage point Trump used. That specifically is not a constitutional issue.

The clearance is just one issue and is specific to a person. You can’t take action against a whole firm because of one person’s clearance. You also can’t take actions that have nothing to do with a clearance. PW would have won an injunction, just like Perkins. They didn’t even try and what’s worse they tried to negotiate and now are beholden. They let themselves be blackmailed. It’s unbelievable.

Why they didn’t go the Perkins route, I have no idea. Perkins got a TRO within days, now has one of the most bulldog firms representing them, and also got an outpouring of support. In contrast, this whole thing is so embarrassing for Paul Weiss.

Karp explained it in the NYT piece. Read it. He said his litigators had prepared an amazing suit and they would win. But it would make Trump mad. I am not exaggerating.

And he is trying to thread the needle here. Imagine if you were a fancy PW litigator and the message being sent was you were worried about litigating a clearly illegal order. So he couldn’t say the usual things clients say. There is always a risk of litigation so we settled .. blah blah blah.


Instead he says we would have one. But we sold out instead.

He should have STFU.

Yikes. All of that would just make a reasonable client question the competence of the firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump is disciplining these law firms so they know going forward that their participation in Democratic Party lawfare against Republicans will not be cost-free

Exactly. He wants to chill future challenges to his illegal EOs. Frightening.

[Anonymous]

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.

No they won't. Once abortion is gone and pregnancies are registered, they will toe the line.

[Anonymous]

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.

Oh, please. White women -per usual- destroy this country by thinking THEY will never be affected by conservative policies. They're perfectly fine watching other groups go through hell and thinking they will never catch shrapnel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This to me was absolutely shocking. Who is going to stand up to them now? There was no one better equipped for this fight.

The problem with Paul Weiss was that they were all in with Kamala; they did a lot of fundraising and "other" things for Kamala.

'Massive Outpouring of Support' From Big Law Expected For Kamala Harris

Paul Weiss chair Brad Karp said he's "working with many business leaders to raise money for the Harris campaign to enable her to fund what will inevitably be the most expensive election battle ever."

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2024/07/23/lawyers-in-big-law-kick-off-fundraising-and-organizing-for-kamala-harris-405-145684/?slreturn=20250322154709

This is the same Brad Karp who went to the White House to kiss the ring.

So what if they were all in with Kamala? It's now illegal to support Democrats? You will be attacked and forced to swear allegiance to Trump if you do?

Do people not see how deranged this whole thing is?

You are right; it is not illegal to support a candidate, and Trump is wrong to retaliate against Paul Weiss. However, from a political point of view, Paul Weiss's move was very risky and UNNECESARY. Brad's public statements and some of Paul Weiss' partners' actions implied that not only Karp but also Paul Weiss, as a law firm, were all in with Kamala. Brad Karp and those partners knew they were playing with fire, which would have harmful consequences if they were wrong. They placed a bet and went all in, expecting the prize would be the White House's ultimate insider law firm. They lost big.

— Brad Karp, chair of Paul Weiss, in comments given to Law.com on his efforts to fundraise and build support for Vice President Kamala Harris in her campaign for the presidency. “Each of us needs to do what we believe is right, whatever the consequences. That has always been my mantra in leading Paul Weiss,” Karp said of any concerns of potential political backlash for supporting Harris as the likely Democratic nominee. “I would hope that engaging in policy debates, even spirited debates, on existentially important issues should still be a cherished part of our communal discourse and there ought not be punitive consequences for respectfully expressing one’s point of view.” Karen Dunn, who serves as co-chair of the Paul Weiss litigation department, will prepare Harris for her upcoming debate against former president Donald Trump.

https://abovethelaw.com/2024/07/leader-of-elite-top-50-biglaw-firm-is-backing-kamala-harris-in-a-major-way/

Have you heard of freedom of speech? They could be all in for Satan and trumpet it from the rooftops and that is their right. People can choose not to hire them or work for them, but the government cannot punish them for their speech.

It seems Paul Weiss didn't choose to fight for its freedom of speech. Similarly, the government is free to choose to work with the law firm they want.

[Anonymous]

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.

Oh, please. White women -per usual- destroy this country by thinking THEY will never be affected by conservative policies. They're perfectly fine watching other groups go through hell and thinking they will never catch shrapnel.

Half of them. The other half are democrats.