SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
authoritarianism
Making Big Money But Losing Your Soul: The Shame of the Legal Titans
Every lawyer takes an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. To abandon that pledge at this moment, when the Constitution is in mortal danger, is shameful.
Apr 11, 2025
As part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s seemingly endless journey on the Good Ship Retribution, he has, as widely reported, now fired shots across the bow of a number of law firms. Their “crime” has been having the audacity to employ lawyers Trump dislikes or representing people or causes he dislikes. The sanctions he wants to enforce are significant, including barring the offending firms’ attorneys from receiving federal contracts, striping them of security clearances, and even barring them from entering federal buildings. And this is in addition to launching federal investigations into their DEI policies.
Because, after all, what could be worse than diversity, equity, and inclusion?
The law firms Trump is attacking are, at least mostly, huge operations, the type of firms that are collectively known as “Big Law.” While some of these firms are fighting back, many have chosen to cut a deal. In other words, they’ve caved. Large firms that have folded include Milbank, Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Willkie Farr & Gallagher. The “honor” of being regarded as the leader of the pack, however, goes to Paul Weiss, as the first to cave.
While earning a living is important, being a lawyer is about much more than money.
As an attorney practicing in a small law firm in Wichita, Kansas, I have little in common with lawyers working in Big Law firms. A Paul Weiss lawyer and I are both attorneys, but we practice in different worlds. For 40 years I have defended healthcare providers in malpractice cases. These lawsuits sometimes involve millions of dollars. That’s chicken feed to these guys. The top Big Law litigators will at times handle litigation involving hundreds of millions of dollars or even more, while, at the same time, the firm’s business lawyers represent corporations in transactions involving multiple billions of dollars.
These Big Law firms are immense. Paul Weiss has over 1,000 lawyers.
My firm has six, and that includes one who is basically retired.
Top partners in Big Law firms like Paul Weiss can charge $2,400 an hour or more.
My usual billing rate is less than a tenth of that number.
The annual pay last year for an equity partner in Paul Weiss was $7.5 million.
My pay is, shall we say, somewhat lower.
A true multinational firm, Paul Weiss has offices located from Asia to Europe and their home base in North America, with offices in both the U.S. and Canada.
My firm has just the one office and none of us have practiced law outside the United States. But I have visited Canada a few times.
I do, however, have one thing in common with Big Law attorneys. We all took the same oath to support and defend the Constitution which, by definition, includes supporting and defending the Rule of Law.
Very few lawyers specialize in constitutional law or professional ethics. Most of us practice in areas like divorce cases (family law), defending or prosecuting criminal cases (criminal law), trying civil lawsuits (trial lawyers), probating wills (estate practice), and representing corporations in business transactions (business law). Working in these specialized areas of the law there’s little occasion to think deeply about concepts like defending the Constitution. But the oath, and the lawyer’s obligation to follow it, is always there.
Law is a profession, but also a business—and, as they say, the business of business is business—in other words, making money. And there is nothing wrong with this. EMS providers save lives, but they also have bills to pay. The need to pay bills is just as true for lawyers. But while earning a living is important, being a lawyer is about much more than money.
Those leaders of Big Law, still refusing to vigorously defend or even speak out in support of the Rule of Law, need to consider what matters most to them. What they would most want to be remembered for—maximizing profit or defending freedom?
Defending the Constitution when, and if, the need arises must always come first. This is true even when doing so is painful, which at times it can be. As a publication of the American Bar Association has said, lawyers “are obligated to act in support of the U.S. Constitution in all situations, especially where it’s the hardest for you.”
Many lawyers have gone through an entire career never having to face an issue like this. But those of us practicing today aren’t that lucky. We live in a time when the survival of the Constitution and the Rule of Law are in the greatest jeopardy since the Civil War. The American people decided to give the staggering power of the presidency to a man who has never tried to conceal his hunger for absolute power, nor his love of cruelty.
Making matters worse, the separation of powers, which is supposed to protect us from presidential overreach, has, in the words of Don McLean, caught the first train to the coast. Congress is moribund. The Supreme Court hasn’t clearly spoken yet. There is reason for concern, given the majority’s far-right ideology, as to how they will rule when the time comes. And even if the Supreme Court rules against Trump he may refuse to accept it, creating a constitutional crisis.
To be honest, I can live with a constitutional crisis. What scares me more is if there isn’t one. That when the general public is finally forced to face up to Trump’s authoritarian agenda, people will yawn and go about their lives. And why wouldn’t they, given the example set by institutions like Columbia University caving to Trump’s extortion/ And the same goes for much of Big Law—choosing the easy route of ignoring their oath to keep the cash flowing into the firm accounts.
Big Law does have much to lose if they fight. Crossing Trump has the potential of creating a serious crimp in their cash flow. Not only would they be risking government business, but they would face a real risk of losing major corporate clients—their biggest cash cow. Corporations will have no problem recognizing that if they continue to retain lawyers who are on Trump’s enemies list, they will face a significant risk that Trump will sic MAGA on them, which could seriously damage their business. If Columbia University and Big Law are willing to kiss Trump’s ring, can anyone doubt that for-profit corporations will do the same?
So yes, Big Law has much to lose. But realistically we aren’t talking about closing the doors of a firm. The worst-case scenario is probably something like equity partners at Paul Weiss only taking home $4 million a year for a few years instead of $7.5 million. But the fact remains, they took an oath. This is part of the quid pro quo inherent in becoming a lawyer. You are allowed to practice your profession, but to do so you must first take an oath accepting the obligation to support and defend the Constitution. This is a duty all lawyers share, whether they work in big firms, small firms, corporate legal departments, the government, or a nonprofit entity. It’s a big part of what defines us.
To abandon that pledge at this moment, when the Constitution is in mortal danger, is shameful. Those leaders of Big Law, still refusing to vigorously defend or even speak out in support of the Rule of Law, need to consider what matters most to them. What they would most want to be remembered for—maximizing profit or defending freedom?
It shouldn’t be a hard decision.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Can Unions Fight Back Against Anti-Worker Trump? Organize!
What better way to spark democratic resistance than a series of new organizing campaigns that deliver material gains for workers and agitate workers to engage in mass action such as sick-outs, protests, and recognition strikes?
Apr 10, 2025
Don’t let U.S. President Donald Trump’s cozy relationship with Teamsters President Sean O’Brien fool you. The new administration is a bunch of scabs—union busters of the highest order, cut from the same cloth as the radically anti-worker Reagans and Thatchers of the world.
In his frenetic and destructive first few months back in office, Donald Trump has pursued a sweeping set of anti-worker and anti-union executive actions that have our country’s oligarchs salivating. Here is a small and disturbing sampling of Trump administration actions. He:
- Fired hundreds of thousands of unionized federal workers across dozens of federal departments and agencies, many of them illegally;
- Illegally nullified the Transportation Security Administration’s union contract and ended collective bargaining for thousands of federal workers, ominous first steps in the right-wing plot to destroy public sector unions entirely;
- Started an unlawful campaign to stack the National Labor Relations Board with anti-labor zealots;
- Elevated Elon Musk—an openly corrupt oligarch and notorious union-buster currently suing to rule the NLRB unconstitutional— to the very highest level of decision-making authority in his administration;
- Began an illegal and authoritarian crackdown on the right to free speech and free assembly—indispensably important union rights protected by the Constitution; and
- Opened up a new privatization front targeting Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and other federal agencies and programs that employ thousands of union workers and serve millions of working families.
In the midst of this overwhelming onslaught of anti-union action, some in the labor movement might be tempted to retreat—to cut our losses and hope that we get a friendlier administration and more favorable political environment in four years. Like millions of union workers across this country who recognize what’s at stake here, I believe this would be a terrible mistake. Our best defense is a good offense.
Rather than sheltering dues in rainy day funds or freezing hiring during this uncertain time, unions should pour resources into new organizing. I know from my time as a United Auto Workers (UAW) member organizing the first-ever private sector grad worker union on the West Coast that new organizing takes a real institutional commitment. It takes hiring talented and dedicated member-organizers to staff campaigns, spending money on training and leadership development programs, and funding the nuts and bolts of new organizing campaigns like legal representation and organizing materials.
Unfortunately, as Chris Bohner has written, most labor unions have largely eschewed new organizing in recent years, even as union war chests have grown to record levels. This has to change.
Investing in new organizing is the single most strategically sound decision unions can make in order to build power.
First, organized labor is historically popular right now. In a time when nearly every type of institution is hitting record lows in approval ratings, unions are at their highest level of popularity since the New Deal era. At the same time, traditionally anti-union institutions like corporations as well as mainstream institutions are losing the faith of the public. Labor can and should use this in its favor.
Additionally, some of the fastest growing sectors in terms of union density, such as the nonprofit sector, higher education, and healthcare, are among those being targeted systematically by the Trump administration and its oligarch backers. Now is the time for labor to keep its foot on the gas and redouble its efforts to organize new workers and workplaces in these sectors.
New organizing can also catalyze people’s faith in democracy and inspire broader efforts to resist oligarchic power grabs. While the Democratic Party and the news media largely fail to meet the moment, organized labor can and must fill the void through organizing new workers and workplaces. What better way to spark democratic resistance than a series of new organizing campaigns that deliver material gains for workers and agitate workers to engage in mass action such as sick-outs, protests, and recognition strikes?
This most basic expression of democratic willpower—harnessing “people power” to force change rather than beg for it—is the labor movement’s bread and butter, and it’s precisely what everyday people need to see modeled for them in order to not feel powerless. The Trump administration, following the terrifying blueprint of Project 2025, hopes that by causing maximum chaos and using state power to sow destruction on as many fronts as possible, the broad anti-fascist coalition that opposes its unpopular and authoritarian actions will fall into disarray and adopt a defensive posture. Instead, the effort to save our democracy must take a page out of Trump’s chaos playbook and deploy every tactic in the book to fight back.
By organizing new workplaces, we can tie up the time and resources of anti-union entities and actors in the short term while growing our membership and financial resources to build for the medium and long term. If other lines of defense fail, a mass labor stoppage can be the only thing preventing a plunge into full-blown authoritarianism.
Union density is still on the decline, and current density is far too low to pull off anything on the level of an effective general strike—and the bad guys know it. As union organizers know, having a credible strike threat is the foundation of any union’s ability to win its demands. We have to organize new workers, and fast.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In the Mess of Our National Disaster, Can We Find the Seeds to Renew Democracy?
History suggests that disaster not only destroys—it also disrupts. It crushes old assumptions, forcing people to see one another, to respond, to rebuild.
Apr 09, 2025
In 2023, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued a stark warning: America is suffering from an epidemic of loneliness, and the consequences are dire. “If we fail to [address this crisis], we will pay an ever-increasing price in the form of our individual and collective health and well-being,” he wrote. Then came the line that now feels prophetic: “We will continue to splinter and divide until we can no longer stand as a community or a country.”
This country is certainly dividing, and whether it can stand remains to be seen. As an immigrant from apartheid-era South Africa and a Californian shaken by the fires, I love and fear for the country I have known as home since adolescence. Having grown up in a society fractured by systemic oppression and seeing firsthand how division and authoritarianism hollow out a nation, I recognize the peril America faces. Trump and his allies have solidified their hold on power, reshaping institutions to entrench minority rule, while political violence moves from the fringes to the mainstream. State leaders openly defy court rulings, and democratic backsliding is no longer a theoretical threat but a lived reality. The consequences stretch far beyond our borders, fueling global instability.
Given everything at stake—from escalating climate disasters to an economy teetering on crisis—many are wondering: Are we entirely lost?
No, I say. It’s disastrous, yes. But it is precisely in the disastrous that we may find the seeds of renewal.
We now have a choice: Succumb to panic, numbness, and doomscrolling; or take purposeful action by confronting disaster head-on.
The reality is that democracy has been eroding for years; climate disruption worsens daily. The difference now is that we can no longer ignore the truth of our situation. Mass deportations. The rise of authoritarianism. A looming constitutional crisis. Wildfires, hurricanes, bomb cyclones, rising sea levels. The unraveling is no longer theoretical. It is here.
And this recognition could be our saving grace.
Murthy’s warning underscores the link between personal loneliness, social fragmentation, and political chaos. As Hannah Arendt wrote in The Origins of Totalitarianism, “The isolation of atomized individuals provides the mass basis for totalitarian rule.” Contemporary research supports her argument. A 2021 RAND Corporation study found loneliness is a primary driver for adopting extremist views and joining extremist groups. A 2022 study published in Political Psychology found that weak social bonds correlate with lower voter turnout and increased support for populist parties.
In this context, the disastrous might offer an unexpected antidote.
Charles Fritz, a sociologist who helped lead the University of Chicago’s Disaster Research Project in the 1950s, analyzed a broad data set of catastrophic events and concluded: “The widespread sharing of danger, loss, and deprivation produces an intimate, primary group solidarity among the survivors, which overcomes social isolation, provides a channel for intimate communication and expression, and provides a major source of physical and emotional support and reassurance.” There is ample further evidence to back up his conclusion, as Rebecca Solnit documents at length in A Paradise Built in Hell.
We are wired to adapt to slow declines, to normalize the unraveling. But disaster shatters the illusion of stability. It forces a reckoning. History suggests that disaster not only destroys—it also disrupts. It crushes old assumptions, forcing people to see one another, to respond, to rebuild.
Most of us aren’t living in an actual disaster zone right now. But when we see images of Los Angeles burning, Asheville flooding, or state officials openly defying the rule of law, we feel the urgency of the moment.
We now have a choice: Succumb to panic, numbness, and doomscrolling; or take purposeful action by confronting disaster head-on. This isn’t just about responding to immediate crises, but about addressing the isolation and division that have fueled them. By acting with intention, we don’t just face disaster—we undo the fragmentation that made it possible.
Growing up under apartheid, I learned how systems of oppression function and how they fail. I saw firsthand that division is not inevitable, that transformation is possible—but only when people refuse to be passive in the face of crisis. Former U.S. President Abraham Lincoln understood this too. “We are not enemies, but friends,” he declared in his first inaugural address in 1861, on the eve of national collapse. “We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.” Those bonds of affection, Lincoln said, could be rekindled by the “better angels of our nature.” He knew then what we must remember now: Survival depends on rebuilding these bonds.
Regardless of how our political situation unfolds, we are entering an era of massive upheaval, and none of us will remain untouched. Whether through fire, flood, or political collapse, displacement is no longer a distant threat—it is a certainty.
Can you feel it? The disaster at your doorstep?
Let it inspire you to act. Talk to the neighbor who voted red. Reach out to your friends. Volunteer with organizations fighting for justice. Host a community discussion, support local activism, or donate to causes that uplift marginalized communities. Advocate for change by calling your representatives. Support artists and thinkers who challenge the status quo. Every action—big or small—helps rebuild what’s been broken.
Let the better angels of our nature prevail. It’s the only way forward.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular