Anonymous wrote:Also using DEI to investigate firms is atrocious. And obviously DEI at law firms didn’t work - pretty sure 95% of partners are old white men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to feel bad for big law.

It’s not about feeling “bad” for big law. It’s the deterioration of our fundamental rules of law. If our president is going after law firms based on who they represent we are not far off from full dictatorship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not like he doesn't have a basis for thinking the law firm was out to get him. It was the law firm that Hilary Clinton used to push the false Russian Dossier.

I agree they should have their security clearances pulled.

The firm represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential race, and it also contracted with the research firm that produced the now-discredited opposition dossier that alleged extensive contacts between Trump and Russia. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/03/06/trump-perkins-coie-hillary-clinton-steele-dossier/

You think it's acceptable to go after a firm's security clearances because they represented his opponent in an election? Good lord.

I think it should follow the specific attorneys who were involved with the false reports/narrative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not like he doesn't have a basis for thinking the law firm was out to get him. It was the law firm that Hilary Clinton used to push the false Russian Dossier.

I agree they should have their security clearances pulled.

The firm represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential race, and it also contracted with the research firm that produced the now-discredited opposition dossier that alleged extensive contacts between Trump and Russia. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/03/06/trump-perkins-coie-hillary-clinton-steele-dossier/

You think it's acceptable to go after a firm's security clearances because they represented his opponent in an election? Good lord.

Anonymous wrote:It's not like he doesn't have a basis for thinking the law firm was out to get him. It was the law firm that Hilary Clinton used to push the false Russian Dossier.

I agree they should have their security clearances pulled.

The firm represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential race, and it also contracted with the research firm that produced the now-discredited opposition dossier that alleged extensive contacts between Trump and Russia. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/03/06/trump-perkins-coie-hillary-clinton-steele-dossier/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW everyone, if you haven't seen yet, you need to vote/pay attention to this year's DC Bar elections. Several huge Trump supporters are running in hopes of taking over the DC Bar.

I've been a member of the DC Bar for mumble-20-years-mumble but never voted. This year I will.

Here is the full slate: https://www.dcbar.org/news-events/news/nominations-committee-announces-2025-candidates-fo

D.C. Bar Nominations Committee evaluates nominations for Board vacancies to build a slate of candidates for the annual elections. The NomCom is appointed by the President of the Bar, so that's a lot of power in hands of anyone with ill intent.

Running for President this year: Pam Bondi's brother.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-allies-bradley-bondi-control-dc-bar-association-rcna195253

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW everyone, if you haven't seen yet, you need to vote/pay attention to this year's DC Bar elections. Several huge Trump supporters are running in hopes of taking over the DC Bar.

I've been a member of the DC Bar for mumble-20-years-mumble but never voted. This year I will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which side of the line is Williams and Connelly on here? I’m considering a position there.

Somehow I doubt that because you can’t even spell the name correctly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The First Thing we Do, Let’s Kill All the Lawyers

If one is plotting to take over government, yes.

JACK CADE. Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven half-penny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hoop'd pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king,– as king I will be,–

ALL. God save your majesty!

JACK CADE. I thank you, good people:– there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

DICK. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to feel bad for big law.

Especially since BigLaw spent every minute of the Biden administration challenging every regulation and attacking the legitimacy of basically every independent agency.

Wtf?? I am at a fed regulator and I know this is normal - we issue rules and they get challenged, biglaw represents some of the industry litigants. That's the normal process of judicial review.

The government playing favorites and punishing private actors who have not done anything unlawful is unprecedented and scary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to feel bad for big law.

It’s not about feeling “bad” for big law. It’s the deterioration of our fundamental rules of law. If our president is going after law firms based on who they represent we are not far off from full dictatorship.

They are hardcore Trump voters. Who cares?

You obviously don’t know many in big law.

DP. Do you? Several, not all, voted Trump, even if they suggested otherwise during water cooler conversations.