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
u.s. constitution
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
Trump ‘Won’t Forget’ the Roberts Court Helped Him Win—Neither Should We
As people harmed by this flood of illegal actions turn to the courts for relief, we must be clear that the Supreme Court helped bring about this crisis by helping Donald Trump win the 2024 election.
Mar 19, 2025
Say what you will about the president who is dismantling our democracy, but at least he says “thank you” once in a while.
Two weeks ago, after delivering a lengthy and divisive address to a Joint Session of Congress, President Donald Trump mingled with the crowd, shaking hands with his supporters. In a revealing moment, he patted Chief Justice John Roberts on the back and said, “Thank you. Thank you again. I won’t forget.”
Presumably President Trump was thanking Chief Justice Roberts for aiding his election victory and granting him unprecedented power, and not for some great tips on fixing his backswing. Either way, Justice Roberts appeared much obliged. After all, it’s nice to hear a “thank you” when you compromise your personal integrity and trample the Constitution to help a convicted felon win an election.
Structural court reform will be a necessary step to rebuilding our democracy.
Trump understands that he owes a debt of gratitude to Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court. Yet, as we look to the courts to protect us from the Trump administration’s abuses, many have overlooked or forgotten how SCOTUS got us here in the first place. As people harmed by this flood of illegal actions turn to the courts for relief, we must be clear that the Supreme Court helped bring about this crisis by helping Donald Trump win the 2024 election. While the Supreme Court did not directly decide the election for Trump in the way it did for former President George W. Bush in 2000 with its decision in Bush v. Gore, the justices interfered with our elections, our politics, and our society in ways that certainly helped, and may have been decisive, to Trump’s win.
The People’s Parity Project Action released a new report, “The Supreme Court Helped Trump Win,” which examines the numerous forms of assistance the court gave to Trump, from the structural to the political. The court shielded Trump from prosecution for his attempt to steal the 2020 election. The justices prevented states from striking him from the ballot despite the 14th Amendment’s bar on insurrectionists holding office. They allowed unlimited money to flood our politics, permitting billionaires to buy the presidency. They gutted the Voting Rights Act and permitted racial and ethnic gerrymandering, which reduced competition, worsened extremism, and handed Republicans control of the House.
The court also obstructed the signature policy achievements of former President Joe Biden, including student debt relief, protections for transgender people, and immigration reform, leaving Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris with fewer successes to highlight in their campaigns. Over decades, the court weakened labor unions, harming working people’s economic and collective power and benefiting Republican candidates. The persistent threat that the court will strike down any progressive policies has created a sense of futility among voters and elected officials, reinforcing voters’ and potential voters’ belief that “both sides do nothing” and that traditional politicians will not enact meaningful change. This bolstered Trump's renegade, antihero image, making his promises to break everything and start anew more appealing.
As Trump and Musk barrel into Trump’s second term, they are defying laws and the Constitution at every turn. In just a month, they have attempted to end birthright citizenship; frozen federal spending and payments that were already appropriated; illegally accessed Americans’ private data; attempted to eliminate or stymie legislatively created agencies and fire officials in violation of the law; and launched assaults on Black people, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities.
Trump’s actions are so extreme and lawless that the Supreme Court will likely step in to curb some of them, such as the ruling this week to stop the Trump administration from illegally blocking $2 billion in funding to USAID. The USAID ruling, and any other SCOTUS attempts to rein in the would-be king, will not outweigh the court’s role in causing this crisis. It will not mean the court has become a brave defender of our most cherished principles. It will simply mean that some breaches are too blatant for even the justices to justify.
As we confront this daunting moment, we must be realistic and clearheaded. This is not the time for false heroes or misplaced faith in systems that have consistently failed the people. We cannot afford to fall into a collective Stockholm syndrome regarding the nation’s highest court, even if the justices do rein in some of Trump’s most extreme actions.
Structural court reform will be a necessary step to rebuilding our democracy. There are no shortcuts or silver bullets; systemic change will require a broad, long-lasting movement of Americans who claim a different vision for our country’s future. Although the idea of significant court reform and planning for the future—four, eight, or even twelve years out—may seem daunting, it is far less radical than what unfolds right before our eyes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Rules Musk's DOGE Acted Unconstitutionally by Dismantling USAID
"This case is a milestone in pushing back on Musk and DOGE's illegality," said Norm Eisen of the State Democracy Defenders Fund.
Mar 18, 2025
A U.S. judge on Tuesday barred the Trump administration-created Department of Government Efficiency from taking "any actions relating" to the federal international aid agency it began pushing to dismantle in February, and said "special government employee" Elon Musk likely acted unconstitutionally "in multiple ways" by moving to shut down the agency.
In Maryland, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled in favor of 26 current and former employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), one of the earliest targets of Musk's push to slash government spending and fire tens of thousands of civil servants. Chuang ordered DOGE to restore email, payment, and system access to all current USAID employees.
The workers are being represented by the State Democracy Defenders Fund, and have accused Musk of acting unconstitutionally.
"Today's decision is an important victory against Elon Musk and his DOGE attack on USAID, the United States government, and the Constitution," said Norm Eisen, executive chair of the group. "They are performing surgery with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel, harming not just the people USAID serves but also the majority of Americans who count on the stability of our government. This case is a milestone in pushing back on Musk and DOGE's illegality."
Chuang is one of several federal judges who have blocked President Donald Trump and Musk's actions ostensibly aimed at improving "efficiency" and eliminating waste in the federal government; other judges have blocked the president's freezing of federal grants and loans, his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, and his order attacking diversity, equity, and inclusiveness programs.
But Chuang's ruling reportedly marks the first time a judge has ruled that Musk should likely be required to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate under the Constitution's appointments clause.
"The record of his activities to date establishes that his role has been and will continue to be as the leader of DOGE, with the same duties and degree of continuity as if he was formally in that position,'" wrote Chuang.
The State Democracy Defenders Fund noted Tuesday that "the Constitution's appointments clause only gives those powers to people nominated by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, neither of which applies to Musk. Since Musk's role as the de facto DOGE administrator constitutes the performance of significant governmental duties that should only be handled by duly appointed officers of the United States, the plaintiffs ultimately seek a permanent injunction preventing Musk and his team from continuing their roles."
The Trump administration has claimed Musk is only an adviser to the president and is not the administrator of DOGE, which has spearheaded efforts to shut down agencies including the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and to fire federal employees across agencies.
"If a president could escape appointments clause scrutiny by having advisers go beyond the traditional role of White House advisers who communicate the president's priorities to agency heads and instead exercise significant authority throughout the federal government so as to bypass duly appointed officers, the appointments clause would be reduced to nothing more than a technical formality," the judge said.
Chuang rejected the claim that DOGE's actions are not being directed by Musk, saying the Tesla CEO and Trump megadonor appeared to have been involved in closing the CFPB and to "have taken other unilateral actions without any apparent authorization from agency officials."
"The evidence presently favors the conclusion that contrary to defendants' sweeping claim that Musk acted only as an adviser, Musk made the decisions to shut down USAID's headquarters and website even though he 'lacked the authority to make that decision,'" Chuang said, quoting an argument from the Trump administration.
Mimi Marziani of Marziani, Stevens & Gonzalez PLLC, which helped defend the USAID workers in court, said the plaintiffs "are regular Americans who have faithfully served our country and the public good but have had their lives turned upside down because Musk wants to play master of the universe."
"We are proud to stand up for the plaintiffs and the Constitution," said Marziani, "which is designed to guard against these very sorts of abuses because our nation depends upon a government for all, not for a few."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular