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.

Women have no power to stand up.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Re #2 - WSJ writing that he’s not aware of policies being recommended, insinuating he’s not the real president

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.

Wow, so lawyers just bend at the knee now?!

At least my DH had the decency to come home yesterday in a state wondering what he’d do if that was his firm because a lot of respectable lawyers are troubled by this.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Honestly the EO upped PC’s reputation.

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.

It’s clear you know nothing about the business of big general practice law firms.

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.

Do you think Mark Pomerantz was wrong? That alone is caving.

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.

Np. That’s just not at all accurate

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.

It is not the case that PW needs attorneys with security clearances to survive. Not many matters require it (I personally have experience). It is barring them from federal courts that probably motivated them. So obviously illegal it is laughable.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Right. It is called an injunction. That is what they got pending the completion of the case. Why PW didn’t choose this is beyond me.

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.

Yup, over and over again it's the women.

+1

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.

Thas great news