Donald Trump, when history will be written, will be known as the president who treated everyone fairly, and never played favorites. He will be viewed as the president who never held a grudge, who was always eager to forgive his former enemies. He will be viewed as the president who never took advantage of the bully pulpit to bully anyone.
And that would include law firms. Donald Trump would never try to extort a law firm, be it Perkins, Coie or Covington and Burling or Paul, Weiss.
All right, so much for fiction. Let’s move to the factual part of this probe.
Donald Trump wanted to punish (and I mean punish) the New York law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison because, as I understand it, a former (yes, former) partner left the firm, moved to the District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and investigated and worked on the indictment of Donald Trump for the crimes for which he has been convicted. To my knowledge, the firm itself, which employs more than 1,000 lawyers in its many offices, was not itself involved in any of this.
Yet, Donald Trump decided that Paul, Weiss needed to be punished, and issued an Executive Order saying that its attorneys could not get any security clearances and could not (I think this was in it) practice in federal buildings, and certainly could not be hired by the federal government. Paul, Weiss is primarily a litigation firm and these restrictions would cripple the firm both as to ongoing and future work, and would certainly discourage clients from engaging the firm.
When the Executive Order was announced, law experts expected the firm to stand up and fight. But it didn’t. The managing partner of the firm paid the White House a visit, and walked out with a deal with the president, who promptly canceled the Executive Order.
The details were publicized both by Paul, Weiss and the president. There were some differences in how the two parties described it. Obviously, there was no single written description signed by both parties.
The legal and journalism worlds seem stunned by what Paul, Weiss did, presumably putting its own interests over those of society at large.
I think it was a Hobson’s choice, and I am not giving an opinion now on whether it was the right or wrong thing to do. I am going to make a few points.
First, Paul, Weiss had to think not only about its future business, but it had to think about its present clients. If suddenly, Paul, Weiss’s ability to continue matters it was currently involved with was compromised, where would it leave its clients? Secondly, while I heard George Conway say that he would have resigned from a firm that caved like Paul, Weiss the very next day. Well, maybe and maybe some lawyers will, but active lawyers can’t simply leave a firm for the same reason. They need a place to go. Otherwise, what would happen to their current work and clients? Big cases need large teams; you can’t just move across the street without a lot of preparation. And, who knows? Who knows if Trump would just follow you across the street and punish your new firm just for taking you in?
Other problems relate to the discrepancies, as I understand them, in the two versions of the deal. Paul, Weiss says they agreed to merit hiring, and the White House said they agreed to no DEI. Those are different standards, and how will the White House determine if Paul, Weiss is in compliance? Secondly, Paul Weiss agreed to perform $40 million of pro bono work. That seems like a lot, but it is probably about what they do now. But from here on, the work must involve representing a variety of clients, including conservative as well as liberal clients, but according to the White House, must support Trump initiatives, at least in part. The Paul, Weiss description does not mention White House initiatives.
So, there’s the rub. Paul, Weiss takes a pro bono matter. Do they have to report it to the White House? Or will there be an annual White House report and audit. There is, of course, such a thing as lawyer/client privilege. Will Trump expect Paul, Weiss to violate it? Will Trump expect Paul, Weiss to let DOGE look at its books? And how do you balance representing both liberals and conservatives (just to be simplistic for a minute)? Everything doesn’t fit into those categories, and a law firm has problems if they take two matters, otherwise not connected, and their lawyers have to argue opposite sides of a single issue. I only see problems ahead.
Two of the best scholars of historic and contemporary Fascism are Tim Snyder of Yale and Ruth Ben-Ghiat of NYU. They both say you can’t successfully fight Fascism by making agreements with the Fascists to avoid punishments. It only emboldens the Fascists. Okay, Fascism is just a label, somewhat ill-defined, and it may or may not really apply here. But you know what I mean.
One more obvious point. Most everything I say here applies to universities, too.
Down we go.


































































