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

[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.

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

No. The women who care about choice are reliably democrats.

[Anonymous]

I found this so shocking

What a bunch of weenies - they deserve to lose all their business. A******* and cowards

[Anonymous]

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.

Thank you. Glad to see that at least some of you “get it” but this thread is a disappointment and does not bode well for unity.

Agreed. NP.

[Anonymous]

What is the way out of all of this??? Even if Dems manage somehow to unseat this guy and all of his ilk, they’ll never use the powers they have to pull off this kind of shit. It’s assymetric warfare on the rule of law. How do we defend it???

[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:

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.

Exactly. If they can’t advocate for themselves on a case they’d win, they certainly aren’t selling themselves as advocates. I’d be afraid they’d sell off my trade secrets and investor information. They’re now compromised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the way out of all of this??? Even if Dems manage somehow to unseat this guy and all of his ilk, they’ll never use the powers they have to pull off this kind of shit. It’s assymetric warfare on the rule of law. How do we defend it???

The way out of this? Paul Weiss may be gone in the near future. Perkins Coie, despite their flaws, looks great right now.

Our country stands for the rule of law. Trump may want to change that but he is only one man. He cannot. (Democrats don't need to fix this. They can carry on. That is the right thing to do, not somehow unlawfully enact their own retribution.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the way out of all of this??? Even if Dems manage somehow to unseat this guy and all of his ilk, they’ll never use the powers they have to pull off this kind of shit. It’s assymetric warfare on the rule of law. How do we defend it???

The way out of this? Paul Weiss may be gone in the near future. Perkins Coie, despite their flaws, looks great right now.

Our country stands for the rule of law. Trump may want to change that but he is only one man. He cannot. (Democrats don't need to fix this. They can carry on. That is the right thing to do, not somehow unlawfully enact their own retribution.)

The damage can’t be undone if there is a party that IS willing to destroy the rule of law, and there are no guardrails left by the next election.

[Anonymous]

#UnitedWeFight !

[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.

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 agree with that.

[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.

+1

Moreover, I’m struggling to understand what “Trump issues” would even qualify for pro bono.

Big Law typically steps up to file pro bono lawsuits against the government.

Exactly. For example, many large firms are involved in a non profit that helps Veterans get their deserved benefits. I assume PW is one of them and accounts for a large amount of their pro bono work for "veterans." So Trump will be ok with PW suing the government on the Veterans behalf? Will Trump be ok with PW going after white supremacist groups for terrorizing jews?

I am truly curious what kind of pro bono we are talking about. And more importantly, how can Karp agree while he was in Oval Office apologizing for all his personal efforts to make sure Trump didnt win, to this without this clarity and f*@# the rest of his firm with this in the process?

[Anonymous]

Unbelievable

[Anonymous]

How many BigLaw firms have capitulated so far? Do they think they will be able to function when Rule of Law is eliminated under Trump? It's deteriorating day by day. What kind of "pro bono" work are these firms going to do? Are they going to prosecute immigrants? Will they sue journalists and put them in jail? Shut down universities? Prosecute people who attack Tesla dealerships? Sue anyone who sues the Trump regime over all their illegal actions? Are they going to consult with Mr. Putin to ask what kind of legal work he'd like them to do? Pray, tell, BigLaw weenies!

[Anonymous]

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmdcovngwg2f

Trump: "Have you noticed that lots of law firms have been signing up with Trump? $100 million. Another $100 million for -- ah -- damages that they've done ... they give me a lot of money considering they've done nothing wrong."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the way out of all of this??? Even if Dems manage somehow to unseat this guy and all of his ilk, they’ll never use the powers they have to pull off this kind of shit. It’s assymetric warfare on the rule of law. How do we defend it???

The way out of this? Paul Weiss may be gone in the near future. Perkins Coie, despite their flaws, looks great right now.

Our country stands for the rule of law. Trump may want to change that but he is only one man. He cannot. (Democrats don't need to fix this. They can carry on. That is the right thing to do, not somehow unlawfully enact their own retribution.)

The damage can’t be undone if there is a party that IS willing to destroy the rule of law, and there are no guardrails left by the next election.

All the more reason for law firms to find their spine. There are some principles that should be worth more than the almighty dollar.

[Anonymous]

I suspect all the top 20 firms that did not sign an amicus brief will strike deals.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/law-firms-latham-watkins-simpson-235348317.html