Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republican voters want Trump in charge. The next President will be another populist Republican. That’s why Paul Weiss isn’t fighting Trump. Bezos, Zuckerberg, every Fortune 500 CEO canceling DEI programs with relief… what do they all know that we don’t know?

They’re in it for the tax cuts. And the lack of environmental or consumer or labor regulations. All the reasons the average American voter should be 100% against it.

Better hope Paul Weiss can make their payroll off Trump, because they are about to get dumped from every other matter.

Eliminating consumer and environmental protections will ultimately backfire since corporations will inevitably scam people. The tax cuts are another matter. People seem to fall for getting crumbs so billionaires and wealthy corps get out of paying their fair share.

Anonymous wrote:In no surprise at all, now Trump is moving the goalposts. Now he wants these firms to work for him for free.

When will people learn that Trump is not to be trusted?

^^
NYT:
But now that nine firms have agreed to deals and committed to nearly $1 billion worth of pro bono legal work, some Trump advisers have started having discussions about a range of options for what the firms’ lawyers can be deployed to work on, according to two people briefed on the matter. That work could include sending the lawyers to help Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency or deploying them to aid the Justice Department, they said.

White House officials believe that some of the pro bono legal work could even be used toward representing Mr. Trump or his allies if they became ensnared in investigations, according to the two people.

In no surprise at all, now Trump is moving the goalposts. Now he wants these firms to work for him for free.

When will people learn that Trump is not to be trusted?

Omg, this is some Russia or Chinese crap. This is what the CCP does:

Four of the firms — Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, A&O Shearman and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett — each agreed to provide $125 million in pro bono or free legal work, according to Mr. Trump. A fifth firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, agreed to provide at least $100 million in pro bono work.

With the latest round of deals, some of the biggest firms in the legal profession have agreed over the past month to provide a combined total of $940 million in free legal services to causes favored by the Trump administration, including ones with “conservative ideals.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/11/business/trump-law-firms-kirkland-ellis-latham-watkins.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

How can you credibly represent your clients to the federal government when you’re in cahoots with the same government? Huge conflict of interest.

Make it make sense. If Trump’s federal government leans on the law firm, they will be incentivized to tank their own client’s case.

Make it make sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The firms that need regulators to not block deals are striking deals. Firms that litigate do not rely as heavily on agency relationships and they are tending to litigate. Not rocket science, business. Clients want lower risk for their deals.

This is wrong. Many of the firms standing up also have complex, government-facing practices. The difference is they have a spine too.

+1. Perkins Coie must live at the FAA.

Anonymous wrote:The firms that need regulators to not block deals are striking deals. Firms that litigate do not rely as heavily on agency relationships and they are tending to litigate. Not rocket science, business. Clients want lower risk for their deals.

The firms are selling out their clients. Clients should want lawyers willing to stand up for them (including challenging when the government tries to fire their choice of lawyer) not lawyers that value their relationship with a verifiably insane president over their duty to their clients.

FWIW, I work in an agency in a function that is very, very relationship based and talk to big law and/or their clients every day. It's not the agency and definitely not me that that views the relationship at risk. This is all coming from an insane, fascist, out of control president.

Anonymous wrote:The firms that need regulators to not block deals are striking deals. Firms that litigate do not rely as heavily on agency relationships and they are tending to litigate. Not rocket science, business. Clients want lower risk for their deals.

This is wrong. Many of the firms standing up also have complex, government-facing practices. The difference is they have a spine too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The firms that need regulators to not block deals are striking deals. Firms that litigate do not rely as heavily on agency relationships and they are tending to litigate. Not rocket science, business. Clients want lower risk for their deals.

Are you seriously justifying this as you type it? So again, big business wins on the backs of everyday Americans? Are you going to say he’s finally draining the swamp too.

If a firm has mostly corporate work and relies on practice before agencies and they are suddenly not allowed to do that, their clients will leave immediately and the firm is done. The litigation heavy shops can afford to fight because their revenue stream isn’t dependent on practice before govt agencies. My guess is that if this issue isn’t resolved quickly, corporate groups from the firms that are fighting will look to jump to other firms not subject to the orders because though their firm can afford to fight, those attorneys won’t be bringing in any income themselves.

If the Dems get back in power all these law firm and every lawyer who worked at these firms need to be banned from any work involving the federal government.

What they did was pay a bribe.

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe those firms. Why are so many white men giving away their rights and power to a felon with dementia across the board? So creepy and emasculating.

They're a bunch of greedy lawyers. Lawyer jokes are a thing for a reason. What else did anyone expect? Will you be disappointed when used car salesmen refuse to take a valiant stand next?

I am so so so so disgusted with all these firms. They are selling all of us out and taking democracy down with them. I hope when we are past this awful era; everyone with an ounce of moral fortitude boycotts them and their business tanks anyway

Anonymous wrote:The firms that need regulators to not block deals are striking deals. Firms that litigate do not rely as heavily on agency relationships and they are tending to litigate. Not rocket science, business. Clients want lower risk for their deals.

Are you seriously justifying this as you type it? So again, big business wins on the backs of everyday Americans? Are you going to say he’s finally draining the swamp too.

The firms that need regulators to not block deals are striking deals. Firms that litigate do not rely as heavily on agency relationships and they are tending to litigate. Not rocket science, business. Clients want lower risk for their deals.

I can’t believe those firms. Why are so many white men giving away their rights and power to a felon with dementia across the board? So creepy and emasculating.