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
perkins coie
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
The Contemptible Cowardice of Big Law Firms Bowing to Trump
The big firms that refused to sign because they’re afraid of angering Trump have let America down. Cowards one and all before a power-hungry bully.
Apr 08, 2025
Let me first congratulate the 504 law firms that have thrown their support behind Perkins Coie in a friend-of-the-court brief. Perkins Coie was the first firm to receive a vindictive executive order from Trump that jeopardized its ability to represent government contractors and limited its access to federal buildings, all because one of its attorneys had helped investigate Russia’s support for Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
The 504 firms rightfully declare that Trump’s attack on law firms poses “a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself.” Their brief goes on to say:
“Unless the judiciary acts decisively now, what was once beyond the pale will in short order become a stark reality. Corporations and individuals alike will risk losing their right to be represented by the law firms of their choice and a profound chill will be cast over the First Amendment right to petition the courts for redress.”
Perkins Coie and two other firms that received almost identical executive orders —WilmerHale and Jenner & Block — are now fighting the executive orders in court (WilmerHale and Jenner & Block also signed the friend-of-the-court brief).
Big firms supporting Perkins Coie include Covington & Burling (28th in The American Lawyer’s rankings of the top revenue-generating firms) and Arnold & Porter (47th).
Frighteningly, though, not a single one of the nation’s top 20 firms by revenue have signed on — including Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Gibson Dunn, and Sullivan & Cromwell. Nor did Skadden Arps, which recently struck a deal with Trump to avoid an executive order. Nor did Paul Weiss, which was the target of an executive order before it reached a deal of its own.
Two other firms chose to cave to Trump’s demands even before being hit with an executive order. Last week, the two firms — Willkie Farr and Milbank — cut deals with Trump promising to dedicate $100 million of pro bono work to causes that Trump supports.
The big firms that refused to sign on to the friend-of-the-court brief worry that signing the document will draw Trump’s ire and cost them clients.
It’s a clear choice between courage and greed.
The big firms that did sign the friend-of-the-court brief have enough courage to put their potential profits on the line. They know that failure to stand up to Trump only emboldens him to go after more firms whose partners or attorneys (or former partners or attorneys) have sought to hold him accountable for his various crimes.
The big firms that refused to sign because they’re afraid of angering Trump have let America down. They’ve also violated the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which state that “it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action” and “it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.”
What to do?
1. If I were a law school dean, I’d refuse to allow any of the unprincipled law firms to recruit students on my premises. Why teach students law and ethics only to have them drawn into an unethical law firm?
2. If I were graduating from law school and had an offer from one of these unprincipled law firms that refused to put their name on the friend-of-the-court brief, I’d have second thoughts about joining the firm. Why join an unprincipled law firm?
3. If I were an associate in one of the big firms that wimped out, I’d organize all other associates at that firm and seek a meeting with the partners—at which I’d ask why the partners put profits before principle. Then I’d seriously consider resigning from the firm.
Friends, this is serious. The only way to confront Trump is through unified action—as exemplified by the 504 law firms that have signed on to the friend-of-the-court brief opposing his executive order against law firms that have upset him.
Disunity—as exemplified by the unwillingness of the largest law firms in America to sign on—only feeds Trump’s power-mad bullying.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Law Is Winning in Court—Now Is Not the Time to Fold
The law firms fighting back against Trump’s executive orders are winning, and those cutting deals with the White House are suffering irreparable damage behind the scenes.
Apr 06, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump’s political attack on the legal profession has entered a realm we have never seen before. The campaign of intimidation against firms that represent clients and causes he does not like shows no signs of stopping.
The battle is at a turning point. From the outside, it appears the profession is divided, with two firms caving in to Trump’s demands and three firms fighting in court. Trump has promoted his success in bringing two large firms to heel so that he is viewed as holding the upper hand and his power is enhanced.
That is not what is happening in court. The momentum has shifted, and the president has the losing hand. Lost amid the shock that accompanied the initial wave of punishing executive orders is that those fighting back are winning in court and those cutting deals with the White House are suffering irreparable damage behind the scenes where law firm reputations, clients, and the best legal talent are won and lost.
Firms that have yet to be targeted have to ask themselves the question: When the law has dealt you a winning hand, why would you fold?
It is critical right now that the next firms targeted choose to fight and not fold. To understand why, law firms should take a close look at what has been happening in the three cases where firms are standing and fighting, and the fallout facing the firms that have folded.
So far, Trump has issued five executive orders against leading law firms. Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps capitulated, agreeing to provide as much as $100 million in free legal services to support Trump initiatives. Three other large firms—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block—are fighting in federal court, with remarkably quick and unanimous success.
Perkins, Wilmer, and Jenner all claimed that the retaliatory orders terminating all federal contracts with the firms, barring their employees from access to federal buildings, and subjecting the firms’ clients to onerous and punitive disclosure requirements constituted retaliation for protected “viewpoint” speech that violated the firms’ First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights.
Judge Beryl Howell (appointed by Obama) was the first to rule, striking down the Perkins executive order and finding that it threatened “the very foundation of our legal system.” Her ruling was followed March 28 by similar decisions in the Wilmer and Jenner cases.
Judge Richard Leon, (appointed by George W. Bush), held that the retaliatory nature of the Wilmer order was “clear from its face” and that there was “no doubt” it “chills speech and legal advocacy or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm.” He also found that the retaliation would cause the firm “irreparable injury,” noting that “at least 21 of the firm’s 25 largest clients in 2024 have contracts with federal agencies.” With the firm handling more than “100 open government contracting matters involving various federal agencies,” Judge Leon concluded the order threatened the firm’s “very existence.”
Judge John Bates (also a Bush appointee) moved within hours of receiving Jenner’s complaint to stop enforcement of the executive order targeting that firm, specifically directing the government to rescind parts of the order designed to intimidate the firm’s clients.
The speed and unanimity with which these decisions were reached by federal judges appointed by both political parties is remarkable. All have found the constitutional violations obvious. There is no reason to believe the Supreme Court will find differently.
Lawyers are officers of the court. We take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law. Entering into a deal that has been held to violate the Constitution violates our oaths as lawyers. That alone should be reason for firms targeted by Trump to fight these orders and not cave as Paul Weiss and Skadden have done.
Beyond the clear legal duty to oppose an unconstitutional practice, why would any firm capitulate when it can fight and win? All of Trump’s potential targets have the ability and resources to defend themselves. Firms that have yet to be targeted have to ask themselves the question: When the law has dealt you a winning hand, why would you fold? Surely, they would not advise their own clients to fold in similar circumstances.
Contrast these legal victories with the badge of infamy that is being applied to Paul Weiss and Skadden. Behind the scenes, lawyers and in-house corporate counsel at many of America’s largest and most influential corporations are talking. Many are shocked and disgusted by the craven and cowardly way these two firms have responded, and how they have sold out their own principles and those of the legal profession. Most recently, over 1,650 alumni of the United States Department of Justice signed a statement opposing the executive branch attacking lawyers and law firms, and the number continues to grow.
This is a decision that goes to the core of an institution, that defines it in ways that will not be forgotten. For many years, Skadden was defined by the prestigious public interest fellowship that it pioneered decades ago and has used as a recruiting tool for decades. When the news broke that Skadden might be signing a deal, close to 400 former Skadden Fellows opposed any deal, and urged the firm to stand up for the rule of law, fight unjust actions by the government, and speak publicly about the critical role lawyers play in defending democracy.
More than the Skadden Fellowship has now been tarnished. The brand of both Skadden and Paul Weiss has been irreparably damaged in ways that may well impair their ability to recruit quality attorneys and clients in the years to come. The decision these firms have made is already being discussed in law school classrooms where Paul Weiss and Skadden compete with the rest of Big Law for legal talent. The attention focused on these two firms is withering and threatens to drag them down.
No matter how one looks at it—from a legal, ethical, or pragmatic business perspective—it is increasingly clear Paul Weiss and Skadden have made a grievous mistake for which they will pay a price much larger than the ransom they have agreed to pay Trump. The next firm to face an executive order would be wise to take a page from the Perkins-Wilmer-Jenner playbook. It is far better for them, and the entire profession, to fight than fold. If law firms stand up for themselves and their clients, the campaign of intimidation can be shut down.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular