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
lawyers
The One-Word Reason Paul Weiss Caved to Trump
The decision was a culminating event in Big Law’s transformation from a noble profession to a collection of profit-maximizing businesses.
Mar 28, 2025
1,613.
That’s how many words Brad Karp, chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, & Garrison LLP, used in his March 23 memo defending his firm’s capitulation to U.S. President Donald Trump.
One would have been enough: greed.
Observers have been shocked and puzzled at Paul Weiss’ refusal to fight Trump’s unconstitutional order aimed at destroying the firm. But its decision was a culminating event in Big Law’s transformation from a noble profession to a collection of profit-maximizing businesses.
The Big Law business model values only what it can measure. And there’s no metric for defending the Constitution, preserving democracy, or upholding the rule of law.
The Lawyer Bubble: a Profession in Crisis documents that transformation. It’s based on my 30-year career as a litigator in Big Law—a select group of the nation’s largest and most lucrative law firms. The vast majority share the same goal: maximizing equity partners’ current income. A few metrics—size, growth, revenues, billable hours, leverage, profits per partner—have become the definitive measures of a firm’s success.
By those criteria, Paul Weiss has been wildly successful. In 2024, the firm’s revenues exceeded $2.6 billion and its average profits per equity partner were more than $7.5 million.
A Successful Business Model—Especially for the Few
Karp addressed his memo to the “Paul Weiss Community” of more than 1,000 lawyers. But the real players at any Big Law firm are the equity partners. As of September 2024, Paul Weiss had 212.
At most firms, a small subset of that group controls clients that bring in the most business. Those equity partners run the place, set the culture, and get the largest share of the profits pie. On average, the highest-paid equity partners in a Big Law firm earn 10 times more than their lowest-paid equity-partner colleagues.
From an economic perspective, it’s important to run any large institution efficiently. But most Big Law firm leaders have become so obsessed with the metrics of their business model that they have forgotten why they went to law school in the first place.
Practicing law is not just maximizing revenues and minimizing costs. But the Big Law business model values only what it can measure. And there’s no metric for defending the Constitution, preserving democracy, or upholding the rule of law. Karp’s memo observes that, like many Big Law firms, Paul Weiss attorneys donate significant time to worthy causes. That’s laudable but no excuse for caving in to Trump’s unlawful demands.
Trump’s Test
Trump’s relentless assault on the judicial system has targeted attorneys and judges as “unfair” to him personally. None of those specious attacks reached Big Law or its business model until now.
Trump directed his first Big Law assault at Covington & Burling, but it was limited to a handful of individuals. Then he went aftereveryone at Perkins Coie. With survival on the line, Perkins Coie and its litigation counsel Williams & Connolly rose to the challenge. Federal District Court Judge Beryl Howell sided with the firm and brought Trump’s effort to a screeching halt.
Except it didn’t. After that unambiguous loss, Trump issued a similar order against Paul Weiss. It was classic Trump: Never admit a mistake; after a defeat, double down. Trump then sought Judge Howell’s disqualification from the Perkins Coie case. He lost that one too.
Epic Fail
Rarely does a potential litigant have the confidence of victory that Judge Howell’s ruling in favor of Perkins Coie had given Paul Weiss. For many reasons, resistance should have been an easy call.
First, every attorney’s sworn oath demanded it. Upon entering the bar, all lawyers pledge to defend the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. We don’t get to pick and choose when to honor it.
Second, Paul Weiss’s multimillionaire equity partners could afford the fight financially.
As leaders of the profession in these perilous times, all Big Law partners have a special obligation to think beyond the metrics of profit-maximization.
Third, along with the corporate world, the entire legal profession was looking to Paul Weiss—one of the most preeminent Big Law firms—for leadership at a dangerous moment.
Finally, Trump had declared that his attacks on the judiciary system, Big Law, and anyone he disfavored would continue.
But Paul Weiss capitulated. Karp said that clients worried about retaining a law firm that was “persona non grata” with the administration—a phrase he used twice in his memo. If that’s true, those clients are as short-sighted as Karp and his colleagues. Whether a client thinks its lawyer should resist a rogue president is irrelevant.
Perhaps the firm did not explain to its corporate clients the long-run implications of capitulation. Without the rule of law, the underlying legal certainty necessary for effective commerce disappears. Contracts become unenforceable. Constitutional rights are lost. Chaos reigns.
Even at a practical level, relying on attorneys who give in to Trump’s unlawful demands is risky. What happens when those clients become persona non grata because Trump directs his next arbitrary and illegal attack at them? How will clients feel when the only lawyers who are not persona non grata are the ones whom Trump likes? Should clients worry that its lawyers’ desire to remain “Trump-approved” might tempt their counsel to compromise clients’ interests when challenging his administration’s illegal policies?
Karp also said that he followed the path that the firm recommends to clients facing “bet-the-company” litigation: settle rather than risk extinction. Let’s test that with a thought experiment:
A client comes to Paul Weiss with a “bet-the-company” crisis. Precedent in an identical case virtually guarantees that the client will win.
“If you settle this frivolous attack, it will embolden your adversaries,” the lawyer warns. “In the long-run, the best business decision is to fight it.”
“Is that what you would do?” the client asks.
“Yes,” the attorney responds.
“But it’s not what you did, is it?”
As leaders of the profession in these perilous times, all Big Law partners have a special obligation to think beyond the metrics of profit-maximization.
As William Bruce Cameron said, “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”
The fight isn’t over. Four days after Paul Weiss surrendered, Trump issued an executive order targeting Jenner & Block.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Law Needs to Stand up to Trump
The attack on law firms will not stop until the entire legal profession uses the skills of advocacy and persuasion that is its craft to explain how and why the political intimidation being used by the administration threatens its independence.
Mar 26, 2025
The legal profession is under attack in ways never imagined before. In recent weeks, U.S. President Donald Trump has targeted three large law firms with executive orders designed to cripple their practices in retaliation for representing Democratic candidates and causes.
On Friday, the assault moved to a new level with the issuance of a memorandum threatening all lawyers with unspecified sanctions and penalties who challenge the president or his administration.
What matters now is how the legal profession responds.
Why would a client choose lawyers to represent them who won’t stand up for themselves?
The orders pose existential threats to the firms. Two of the orders bar the firms’ lawyers from entering federal buildings and require the firms’ clients to report their connection with the law firm in any bid for government contracts.
Faced with the risk that their corporate clients would leave, one of the law firms, Perkins Coie, decided to fight, and another, Paul Weiss, decided last Thursday to cut a deal with the White House. In exchange for lifting the executive order, Paul Weiss promised to provide $40 million of free legal services to support President Trump’s political initiatives and agenda.
The decision made by Paul Weiss was a grievous mistake.
In the short term, it is hard to understand how cutting a deal with this President solves the problem Paul Weiss faces. It is as likely that clients will bolt the firm in disgust over the firm’s decision to capitulate in the face of a threat as it was with the executive order in place. Why would a client choose lawyers to represent them who won’t stand up for themselves?
This sentiment may well gain traction in the coming weeks, given that the firm that decided to fight, Perkins Coie, so far appears successful in its efforts to hold the executive order unlawful in court.
It is also difficult to see how Paul Weiss can ensure the benefit of any bargain it thinks it got. A deal with Trump is not worth the paper it is written on. The White House is already recasting the deal to promote its interests. It claims that Brad Karp, the managing partner of Paul Weiss, promised to end diversity initiatives at the firm and agreed that a former partner at the firm, Mark Pomerantz, who left the firm years ago and later joined the prosecution team in a case brought against President Trump, had engaged in “wrongdoing.” None of that appears in the copy of the agreement circulated by Mr. Karp to his firm.
And nothing in the agreement prevents President Trump from reinstating the executive order if Paul Weiss fails to do what he wants. It is no different from what the Trump Justice Department has attempted to do with New York City Mayor Eric Adams. There, Justice Department lawyers have asked a federal judge to drop bribery charges against the mayor, but without giving up the right to reassert the charges in the future. Like a mafia boss, it gives the president unfettered power to force a supplicant to do his bidding.
But the more important point that has been lost in the discussion over what Paul Weiss has done is the long-term damage it will do to the independence of the legal profession.
Before Paul Weiss cut its deal, President Trump made clear he was coming after the entire profession, not just three firms. Ten days ago, the newly installed chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced the agency was investigating 20 of the country’s most prominent firms for alleged discriminatory practices related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
The EEOC investigation is a fishing expedition. None of the investigatory letters sent to the law firms identifies any practice that violates federal anti-discrimination law. As seven former EEOC officials point out in a recent open letter, the EEOC has far exceeded its own authority in making the inquiry. The purpose is to intimidate and create fear. It sends the message to all firms, and their collective clients, to end efforts to diversify their workforce or the government will come for you.
Paul Weiss’ decision to capitulate adds fuel to the fire. Having put a gun to the head of one of the country’s biggest firms and walked away with $40 million in free legal services makes it more likely President Trump will target more law firms with executive orders and investigations. He did just that on Friday night with the issuance of the new memorandum.
The threat to the rule of law posed by this attack is far bigger than any one legal issue. It is a brazen assault on the right of lawyers to represent their clients to the best of their ability within the bounds of the law and the ethics of the profession.
The executive orders directed at Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss are designed to deter them from representing clients or causes President Trump opposes. The EEOC investigation warns firms not to interpret the law in ways the Trump government disapproves of. The memorandum is an effort to keep lawyers from challenging the legality of Trump’s actions in court. It is all part of the Trump playbook designed to intimidate and co-opt the best lawyers and law firms who might oppose him, and get them instead to support his initiatives.
We all lose if lawyers fear to represent clients or give their best advice based on political affiliation or interests. An independent judiciary depends on strong and independent lawyers who are free to advocate for and protect the rights of their clients, no matter what political party they belong to. No cases can be decided, and no law can be made, without lawyers to bring cases before judges and argue the merits of a client’s position.
Democracy and the rule of law, in turn, depend on an independent judiciary as a check on tyranny. But it begins with the lawyers. Without a free and unfettered bar, the engine of the judiciary can’t operate.
Chief Justice Roberts has spoken up for the independence of the judiciary with his rebuke of those calling to impeach a federal judge who ruled against the president. It is high time for all law firms to follow suit and stand up in defense of their profession.
The news has reported that Donald Verrilli, the former solicitor general, is preparing an amicus brief, or “friend of the court” brief, in support of Perkins Coie, but that law firms are undecided whether to file it. The handwringing needs to end. Every law firm that cares about its First Amendment freedoms, and the right to practice law as it has been done in this country since its founding, must now come together in support of Perkins Coie with a single voice.
There is no alternative. Benjamin Franklin is credited with observing that “we must all hang together or, most assuredly, we will hang separately.” The attack on law firms will not stop until the entire legal profession, especially Big Law, stands up and uses the skills of advocacy and persuasion that is its craft to explain how and why the political intimidation being used by the Trump administration threatens its independence, and that of the judiciary, upon which our democracy relies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Attacks the Right to a Lawyer
The presidential assault on the lawyers and law firms representing his litigation adversaries is an attack on the very foundation of the legal system.
Mar 12, 2025
In America’s legal system, both sides to a dispute are entitled to counsel. President Donald Trump rejects that premise because he prefers a one-sided battle that he is more likely to win.
To that end, he is using his special ability to combine vindictiveness with strategy. Wielding the power of the presidency, he is penalizing the attorneys who represent his opponents. Even more troubling, other lawyers are helping him undermine the foundation of our justice system.
Throughout his campaign, candidate Trump railed against his supposed “enemies.” In addition to prosecutors who pressed charges and judges who presided over cases against him, he promised “retribution” against private-sector lawyers who had represented his political adversaries. As president, he’s keeping that promise.
President Trump is not a lawyer, but he did swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Who will hold him to that promise?
The president’s first attack came in early February when he revoked the security clearances of Mark Zaid and Norm Eisen—outspoken Trump critics. For decades, Mr. Zaid has represented whistleblowers in Republican and Democratic administrations, including the whistleblower at the center of President Trump’s first impeachment. Mr. Eisen helped House Democrats develop the articles of impeachment. Because the president “flooded the zone” with tariffs, terminations, and tantrums, those suspensions received little news coverage.
His second blow landed on February 25, 2025, when he issued an executive order suspending the security clearances of all attorneys and employees at Covington & Burling—a premier 1,300-attorney global law firm representing former special counsel Jack Smith. During the campaign, he had threatened Smith repeatedly with deportation and worse. Smith retained Covington, which represented him pro bono before he resigned as special counsel. The firm is still his defense counsel.
The executive order prevents Smith’s attorneys from accessing important government materials and makes defending him more challenging. Perhaps more importantly, it was also a warning to other attorneys contemplating the representation of anyone the president does not like.
The third attack occurred with the executive order of March 6. He suspended the security clearances of individuals at Perkins Coie—a global law firm of more than 1,200 attorneys worldwide. Among other penalties, the president instructed the heads of all federal agencies to limit Perkins employees’ access to federal government buildings.
At their core, the executive orders are a transparent effort to intimidate other attorneys who represent the president’s adversaries. For example, his stated justifications for the Perkins suspension are nonsensical. He complains about work that two partners at the firm, Marc Elias and Michael Sussman, did on behalf of the Clinton campaign in 2016. But both lawyers left Perkins years ago. Trump’s order also criticizes the firm’s involvement in successful challenges to voter restriction laws in Republican-controlled states. And he even includes the firm’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion as a reason for its suspension.
The presidential assault on the lawyers and law firms representing his litigation adversaries is an attack on the very foundation of the legal system. The American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL)—an elite body of litigation attorneys—responded immediately to his executive orders:
Lawyers throughout the country should unite in condemning these actions in the strongest possible terms.
The White House’s retaliating against a law firm merely because it represented a client against whom the Executive Branch has a grievance, threatens the bedrock principles of our system of justice. Under those principles, everyone is entitled to legal representation. In criminal matters, that right is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.
The ACTL’s statement outlined the broader consequences of the president’s assault:
Lawyers cannot be denied access to the courts nor should their advocacy be throttled merely because the government disagrees with the positions asserted or because litigants seek to enjoin Executive actions that may violate statutory and constitutional rights of a free people. When government retaliation is grounded in efforts to punish lawyers for the parties that they represent or the positions that they assert, our system of justice is undermined.
Likewise, speaking for the entire profession, the American Bar Association declared, “These government actions deny clients access to justice and betray our fundamental values.”
To become a licensed member of the bar, every attorney swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. Every attorney is bound by rules of ethical conduct requiring them to support the rule of law. Every attorney has an obligation to enhance public confidence in the legal system. Yet attorneys drafted, reviewed, and approved the executive orders that are undermining the bedrock principles of our justice system.
President Trump is not a lawyer, but he did swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Who will hold him to that promise? Asking for a friend of democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular