WILL THE BIG COWERING LAW FIRMS NOW STAND UP TO TRUMP AND HIS LACKEYS?
Placing Money Above Principles Is Their Commonality
MEMBERS OF THE HALL OF SHAME:
1.Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
2.Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
3.Milbank
4.Willkie Farr & Gallagher
5.Kirkland & Ellis
6.Latham & Watkins
7.Allen Overy Shearman Sterling
8.Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
9.Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
On April 11, 2025, The Guardian reported that the above 9 prominent law firms signed agreements or “settlements” on or about March 20, 2025 with the Trump administration that were characterized in the press as having been coercive and/or intimidating, though I would characterize them as blackmail.
Trump had previously punished several firms with executive orders because of their connection to adversaries or involvement in causes inconsistent with his policies or positions. These orders threatened to cripple the firms by essentially making it impossible for them to do business with any client that had business before the government.
1. What punishments did Trump actually order?
Between February and April 2025, Trump issued a memorandum and several executive orders targeting law firms that had represented political adversaries, litigated causes he opposed, or employed attorneys involved in investigations of him.
The orders contained five principal sanctions:
1.Punishment
Practical consequence
2. Suspension of security clearances
Attorneys could no longer handle classified or national-security matters requiring those clearances.
3. Loss of federal contracts
Federal agencies were directed to terminate contracts with targeted law firms, to the extent permitted by law.
4. Scrutiny of the firms’ corporate clients
Companies holding federal contracts were required to disclose relationships with targeted firms; their federal contracts would then be reviewed.
5. Restrictions on access to federal buildings and personnel.
Lawyers could be impeded in representing clients before federal agencies or dealing with government officials.
6. Exclusion from federal employment
Agencies were directed to refrain from hiring employees of the targeted firms, subject to specified exceptions.
With the above orders in mind, the “settlements” that the Trump administration extraced from 9 additional law firms called for these firms to devote a total of $940 million in pro bono legal services to a list of beneficiaries and causes specified by the Trump administration.
These were operative presidential directives, not merely warnings of future action. However, the orders did not instantly accomplish every contemplated consequence. Some measures required implementation by federal agencies and were subsequently blocked by the courts.
Trump’s punitive sanctions with the greatest financial impact included the following:
Consider a large corporation that uses one of these firms to advise it on a merger, regulatory investigation, or substantial commercial transaction. Suppose that this corporation also receives billions of dollars in federal contracts. The executive orders issued by Trump required disclosure and scrutiny of relationships between federal contractors and the disfavored firms. Although they did not automatically cancel every contract held by a client, the government was expressly directed to examine those relationships and consider contractual action. Therefore, a corporation could have a powerful reason to discharge a targeted law firm, even if the firm were providing excellent legal services and had committed no professional misconduct. The economic risk extended beyond the law firm’s own federal contracts to its much larger private-client business.
On March 23, 2025, Brad S. Karp, Chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, sent an extraordinary email to the firm’s 2,500 attorneys and employees three days after his agreement with President Trump. In his email, he stated:
“Only several days ago, our firm faced an existential crisis. The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm.”
Karp explained that the government’s actions threatened not only Paul Weiss but its clients, who faced possible loss of federal contracts if they continued to employ the firm.
Karp went on to explain that the firm had initially prepared to sue the administration, but concluded that even obtaining an injunction might not rescue its business.
He disclosed that clients had already indicated they could not continue using Paul Weiss, despite wanting to maintain the relationship. He believed the stigma of being regarded as unacceptable to the administration could persist even after a courtroom victory.
Karp also explained that he considered himself responsible for protecting the livelihoods of the firm’s approximately 2,500 lawyers and other employees.
HOWEVER: Four major law firms refused to reach settlements with the Trump administration and instead challenged the punitive executive orders in federal court. ALL FOUR PREVAILED.
The results are particularly significant because four different federal district judges in those cases concluded that the executive orders violated constitutional protections.
All four courts found violations of the First Amendment, with additional constitutional grounds addressed in individual decisions. These cases are now on appeal by the D.O.J.
The four successful district court challenges provide substantial judicial authority for the proposition that the executive branch cannot use its regulatory and contracting powers to punish lawyers for constitutionally protected representation of disfavored clients.
How is it that these 4 major law firms were successful in exercising their legal and moral integrity by vindicating their Constitutional rights and the Constitutional rights of their clients while Paul Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and the other eight big money law firms were more concerned with “protecting the livelihoods of the firm’s lawyers and other employees”?.
One would have to wonder how Paul Weiss and the other 8 law firms who succumbed to “settlements” with the Trump administration would handle an issue whereby, in the middle of the case, there was a clearly foreseeable successful path to a highly profitable judgment against the U.S. Government that would greatly benefit their client but which would be in violation of that law firm’s prior “settlement”with the Trump administration if it pursued the issue. Such a predicament would clearly constitute a conflict of interest by Paul Weiss which would have to be disclosed to the client per the standard rules of legal ethics. With a clear win within sight by raising the issue but violating the settlement with the Government, would Paul Weiss disclose the conflict of interest to the client that Paul Weiss could win the client’s case if they could raise that issue but that Paul Weiss is precluded from raising the issue per Paul Weiss’ settlement with the Trump administration? The client, of course, would then most likely fire Paul Weiss, ask for their fee back, and go to a law firm that had the moral backbone to stand up to Trump, as the 4 major law firms above did.
What would be the worse case scenario for Paul Weiss’ client be if Paul Weiss knowingly and intentionally withheld the conflict of interest from its client and simply decided to collect its fee from the client and not raise the issue against the Trump administration and thereby lose the case?
Given the comeuppance that Trump and his lackeys just received from the American people, one would have to wonder if these nine law firms will begin to give less priority to “protecting the livelihoods of the firm’s lawyers and other employees” and more priority to moral courage and legal integrity by nullifying their “settlements” with Donald Trump and his lackeys.
Thank you for bringing Kelsie Kimberlin to us here. The genocide of Palestinian is well known & a huge problem of Israeli influence, but our betrayal of Ukraine, allowing people representing the U.S. to profit from conspiring with Russia in destroying Ukraine is, to me, even more insidious, promoting world domination & letting it pass like it's just a Tuesday. We need to see the reality of what Ukraine is surviving (& too often not), because complete submission & total disregard for for humanity is very much what a "ruling class" intends to impose on all of us.
Hear hear!
WILL THE BIG COWERING LAW FIRMS NOW STAND UP TO TRUMP AND HIS LACKEYS?
Placing Money Above Principles Is Their Commonality
MEMBERS OF THE HALL OF SHAME:
1.Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
2.Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
3.Milbank
4.Willkie Farr & Gallagher
5.Kirkland & Ellis
6.Latham & Watkins
7.Allen Overy Shearman Sterling
8.Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
9.Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
On April 11, 2025, The Guardian reported that the above 9 prominent law firms signed agreements or “settlements” on or about March 20, 2025 with the Trump administration that were characterized in the press as having been coercive and/or intimidating, though I would characterize them as blackmail.
Trump had previously punished several firms with executive orders because of their connection to adversaries or involvement in causes inconsistent with his policies or positions. These orders threatened to cripple the firms by essentially making it impossible for them to do business with any client that had business before the government.
1. What punishments did Trump actually order?
Between February and April 2025, Trump issued a memorandum and several executive orders targeting law firms that had represented political adversaries, litigated causes he opposed, or employed attorneys involved in investigations of him.
The orders contained five principal sanctions:
1.Punishment
Practical consequence
2. Suspension of security clearances
Attorneys could no longer handle classified or national-security matters requiring those clearances.
3. Loss of federal contracts
Federal agencies were directed to terminate contracts with targeted law firms, to the extent permitted by law.
4. Scrutiny of the firms’ corporate clients
Companies holding federal contracts were required to disclose relationships with targeted firms; their federal contracts would then be reviewed.
5. Restrictions on access to federal buildings and personnel.
Lawyers could be impeded in representing clients before federal agencies or dealing with government officials.
6. Exclusion from federal employment
Agencies were directed to refrain from hiring employees of the targeted firms, subject to specified exceptions.
With the above orders in mind, the “settlements” that the Trump administration extraced from 9 additional law firms called for these firms to devote a total of $940 million in pro bono legal services to a list of beneficiaries and causes specified by the Trump administration.
These were operative presidential directives, not merely warnings of future action. However, the orders did not instantly accomplish every contemplated consequence. Some measures required implementation by federal agencies and were subsequently blocked by the courts.
Trump’s punitive sanctions with the greatest financial impact included the following:
Consider a large corporation that uses one of these firms to advise it on a merger, regulatory investigation, or substantial commercial transaction. Suppose that this corporation also receives billions of dollars in federal contracts. The executive orders issued by Trump required disclosure and scrutiny of relationships between federal contractors and the disfavored firms. Although they did not automatically cancel every contract held by a client, the government was expressly directed to examine those relationships and consider contractual action. Therefore, a corporation could have a powerful reason to discharge a targeted law firm, even if the firm were providing excellent legal services and had committed no professional misconduct. The economic risk extended beyond the law firm’s own federal contracts to its much larger private-client business.
On March 23, 2025, Brad S. Karp, Chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, sent an extraordinary email to the firm’s 2,500 attorneys and employees three days after his agreement with President Trump. In his email, he stated:
“Only several days ago, our firm faced an existential crisis. The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm.”
Karp explained that the government’s actions threatened not only Paul Weiss but its clients, who faced possible loss of federal contracts if they continued to employ the firm.
Karp went on to explain that the firm had initially prepared to sue the administration, but concluded that even obtaining an injunction might not rescue its business.
He disclosed that clients had already indicated they could not continue using Paul Weiss, despite wanting to maintain the relationship. He believed the stigma of being regarded as unacceptable to the administration could persist even after a courtroom victory.
Karp also explained that he considered himself responsible for protecting the livelihoods of the firm’s approximately 2,500 lawyers and other employees.
HOWEVER: Four major law firms refused to reach settlements with the Trump administration and instead challenged the punitive executive orders in federal court. ALL FOUR PREVAILED.
The results are particularly significant because four different federal district judges in those cases concluded that the executive orders violated constitutional protections.
All four courts found violations of the First Amendment, with additional constitutional grounds addressed in individual decisions. These cases are now on appeal by the D.O.J.
The four successful district court challenges provide substantial judicial authority for the proposition that the executive branch cannot use its regulatory and contracting powers to punish lawyers for constitutionally protected representation of disfavored clients.
How is it that these 4 major law firms were successful in exercising their legal and moral integrity by vindicating their Constitutional rights and the Constitutional rights of their clients while Paul Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and the other eight big money law firms were more concerned with “protecting the livelihoods of the firm’s lawyers and other employees”?.
One would have to wonder how Paul Weiss and the other 8 law firms who succumbed to “settlements” with the Trump administration would handle an issue whereby, in the middle of the case, there was a clearly foreseeable successful path to a highly profitable judgment against the U.S. Government that would greatly benefit their client but which would be in violation of that law firm’s prior “settlement”with the Trump administration if it pursued the issue. Such a predicament would clearly constitute a conflict of interest by Paul Weiss which would have to be disclosed to the client per the standard rules of legal ethics. With a clear win within sight by raising the issue but violating the settlement with the Government, would Paul Weiss disclose the conflict of interest to the client that Paul Weiss could win the client’s case if they could raise that issue but that Paul Weiss is precluded from raising the issue per Paul Weiss’ settlement with the Trump administration? The client, of course, would then most likely fire Paul Weiss, ask for their fee back, and go to a law firm that had the moral backbone to stand up to Trump, as the 4 major law firms above did.
What would be the worse case scenario for Paul Weiss’ client be if Paul Weiss knowingly and intentionally withheld the conflict of interest from its client and simply decided to collect its fee from the client and not raise the issue against the Trump administration and thereby lose the case?
Given the comeuppance that Trump and his lackeys just received from the American people, one would have to wonder if these nine law firms will begin to give less priority to “protecting the livelihoods of the firm’s lawyers and other employees” and more priority to moral courage and legal integrity by nullifying their “settlements” with Donald Trump and his lackeys.
Where can we watch the full film please
Thank you for bringing Kelsie Kimberlin to us here. The genocide of Palestinian is well known & a huge problem of Israeli influence, but our betrayal of Ukraine, allowing people representing the U.S. to profit from conspiring with Russia in destroying Ukraine is, to me, even more insidious, promoting world domination & letting it pass like it's just a Tuesday. We need to see the reality of what Ukraine is surviving (& too often not), because complete submission & total disregard for for humanity is very much what a "ruling class" intends to impose on all of us.
Thanks to you and to Kelsie. We need to make sure that our government knows that the future of Ukraine is important to Americans.