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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

Yikes. All of that would just make a reasonable client question the competence of the firm. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics