Some lawyers said the agreement was due to the profit. Others said it allowed the empire. Someone said that the movement prompted her to abandon her legal work with disgust.
Throughout the legal world, lawyers on Friday talked about the agreement that Paul Weiss, one of the most important law firms of the nation, had made President Trump escaping from a burdensome executive order that would prevent her from representing many clients before the federal government. To avoid hitting its activities, the company agreed to make $ 40 million worth Pro Bono work for reasons favored by the White House.
It was a striking development in the widespread White House campaign against major law firms represented by lawyers or prosecutors in criminal cases against Mr Trump before the 2024 elections.
Paul Weiss’s move was a special point of dispute due to the position of the business in the legal community. The operation has long been dominated by the Democrats and boasts of the first line of the Government against the government for civil rights.
“They have all the resources they need to combat an illegal mandate,” said John Moscow, who was a senior prosecutor at the Manhattan lawyer under Robert Morgenthau. “The example they set is to surrender to illegal orders and not to fight them in court.”
Business lawyers, both large and small, took the social media to denounce the business.
“Absolutely shameful and unknown behavior,” a lawyer was published in X.
“This is the time to search for the soul,” wrote another lawyer who worked at Paul Weiss on LinkedIn.
“It’s not too late to leave your business and find one with a spine,” a commentator on Paul Weiss’s LinkedIn Corporate Page.
Leslie Levin, a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, said it was “deeply disappointed” that the business had reached an agreement with Mr Trump, especially given its history.
Many big businesses, he said, are struggling with how to respond to pressure from Trump’s administration. However, decisions on the concern about their business damage are contrary to the basic principles of the legal profession, he said.
“Lawyers are supposed to withstand the government when there is abuse of power and a business like Paul Weiss has the ability to do so,” Ms Levin said.
Another critic of Paul Weiss’s movement, Mark Zaid, a lawyer representing the whistles, including the case that led to Mr Trump’s first challenge, said: “There are things where the beginning is stronger than the dollar.”
On Thursday, Mr Trump said he had reached an agreement with Brad Karp, president of Paul Weiss, to expel the executive order he issued against the operation. The mandate will limit the clearance of security – something it often needs to review government contracts for corporate customers – and prevented its lawyers from federal buildings.
In return, the company agreed to represent customers, regardless of their political relationship and making $ 40 million worth pro Bono work for the reasons supported by Trump’s administration, such as the fight against anti -Semitism.
Mr Trump has issued executive orders aimed at other law firms, including Perkins Coie, who chose to sue the federal court last week. A federal judge in Washington decided that the targeting order was probably unconstitutional and issued a retention order. This legal battle continues.
The US Bar Association published a statement this month that condemns Trump’s efforts to undermine significant legal offices, stating that these White House actions “deny customers of access to justice and betray our fundamental values”. The link refused to comment on Friday on Paul Weiss’s regulation with the White House.
Hundreds of partners in top corporate law firms have signed an open letter calling on their employers to speak against Trump’s moves, arguing that the White House’s behavior could intimidate businesses to take on specific customers.
On Thursday, Rachel Cohen, a partner of the Law Firm Skadden, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER and FLOM, common screen snapshots on LinkedIn of a resignation message sent to the company’s staff, citing the “lack of business response to Trump’s administration attacks”. Paul Weiss’s decision to make concessions to the Trump administration “has forced my hand,” Ms Cohen wrote in her email.
In an interview, Mrs Cohen said that Paul Weiss’s agreement with Mr Trump was reflected “frustrating cowardice”, which would undermine the fame and business prospects of the company in the long run in the long run.
“At the end of the day, I think it’s really good for you as a business decision, as an important corporate law firm that charges excessive interest rates if your customers can trust that you are seeing the long -term impact of these general executive orders,” Ms Cohen said.
“And also that you think the law exists”
Skadden did not respond to requests for comments.
Some lawyers supported Paul Weiss’s decision to settle with Mr Trump. They point out that the damage to the business of the law firm would be significant.
Several lawyers said it was clear that many clients would be paused about their work with Paul Weiss, as many of their projects include the federal government.
“I fully understand its kind, where Paul Weiss comes from because he was facing an existential threat,” said Ronald Barusch, a retired partner of Skadden Arps.
“Remember: Lawyers tell customers every day to compromise in principle, that you have to settle the differences and resolve them,” Barusch said. “So they probably follow the tips they could give themselves.”
But, he added, it’s frustrating: “I like to see people standing for the system.”
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at Yale, who worked with Mr Karp at the impulse of companies to take their attitude on social issues, such as the safeguarding of democracy, claimed that the agreement would not significantly prevent the company’s ability to serve its clients.
Mr Sonnenfeld added that many components of the agreement were consistent with the pre -existing priorities of the business, a feeling expressed by Mr Karp in an email to his staff.
“Under no circumstances does the agreement limit Paul Weiss’s ability to zeal the interests of customers in defending them against the actions of Trump’s administration or regulatory disputes by executive offices,” Mr Sonnenfeld said.
But Paul Weiss’s drama has asked more questions in the legal industry: What does it mean to be a lawyer if the administration can ask how a business manages its business?
Paul Weiss “is simply remodeling the proverbial deck chairs in the Titanic”, writes Michigan’s Attorney General, Dana Nessel, wrote in X. “With this administration, there will be no legal legal system and does not need real lawyers.”
Jessica Silver-Greenberg They contributed reports.
