Cowardice and Capitulation Stain the Legacy of Once-Esteemed Mega Law Firm

Paul, Weiss joins the list of institutions and individuals with ample resources to defend themselves, who nevertheless have refused to stand up for justice in the face of MAGA intimidation

Jennifer Rubin Mar 24

“Abject cowardice.”

“[T]he most disgraceful action by a major law firm in my lifetime.”

“[A] stain on the firm, every one of its partners, and the entire legal profession.”

“Unbelievably shameful”

Those were just a few choice reactions to the decision from the Paul, Weiss law firm to capitulate to the Trump regime’s bullying. In exchange for revocation of an inappropriate, unconstitutional, shameful executive decree that sought to bar Paul Weiss lawyers from doing business with the federal government or even appearing inside federal buildings, Paul Weiss agreed to unprecedented infringement on its operations, choice of clients, and hiring practices.

Faced with this assault on the 1^st, 5^th, and 6^th Amendments, Paul Weiss chose not to litigate as another targeted law firm, Perkins & Coie had, but to submit itself to the micromanagement of the federal government, a move so craven and fraught with conflict that every client, associate, partner, and employee will need to reevaluate its relationship with the mega-firm.

“[T]he firm agreed to represent clients no matter their political affiliation and do $40 million worth of pro bono work on causes that the Trump administration supports, such as fighting antisemitism,” the New York Times reported. How taking clients specifically agreeable to Trump complies with insistence on not taking cases based on their political affiliation is as inexplicable and nonsensical as agreeing to an “expert” monitor approved by the administration to review its hiring practices.

The firm’s internal memo explaining the deal was silent on the specific topic of “DEI,” whereas the Trump version stated the firm agreed it “will not adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies.” In a statement attempting to rationalize the firm’s decision, Chairman Brad Karp insisted that “the Administration is not dictating what matters we take on, approving our matters, or anything like that.” But the plain language of the “agreement” says otherwise. (His statement that other firms had not rallied to the firm’s defense is belied by Perkins’s decision to litigate and Paul Weiss’s unquestionable ability to obtain counsel from a respected firm…had it chosen to fight.)

The firm’s version made no mention of former partner Mark Pomerantz, who had worked in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office and publicly admonished Bragg for not filing charges against Trump. (Of course, Bragg later filed charges and obtained a 34-count conviction of the now-president.) The version of the agreement released by the White House states, “[Managing partner Brad] Karp acknowledged the wrongdoing of former Paul, Weiss partner, Mark Pomerantz.”

Let us count the ways in which this violates professional ethics, common sense, and basic decency.

• Paul Weiss has not explained the discrepancies between the versions of the agreement. Did it actually reach a complete agreement with the government? Is Paul Weiss trying to distance itself from the most intrusive and objectionable aspects of the deal? If it does not repudiate the White House version, many will assume it tried to sugarcoat the deal to clamp down on criticism. Piling one betrayal on top of another only deepens its ethical quagmire.

• Every client expects robust representation free from conflicts of interest and ulterior motives. What client could truly expect to receive that from a firm that crumbles in the face of the ire of one vindictive president and his lawless flunkies?

• The firm has now become complicit in the bullying and intimidation of other firms and their clients, making it less likely that firms will stand their ground. (As Above the Law reported, the Trump bullies already “sicced the EEOC on 20 additional Biglaw firms over their DEI policies,” a baseless attempt to deter hiring of diverse talent. There is no evidence any of these firms have violated any employment law, nor are they obligated to turn over a slew of confidential records regarding their employees, prospective employees, and internal personnel matters to the Trump snoops.)

• Paul Weiss has only fueled the Trump stormtroopers appetite for more conquest. The White House released a new “memorandum” ordering the attorney general to seek federal court sanctions against opposing counsel and to recommend other punishments (e.g. loss of security clearances) for what the Trump crew deems “unscrupulous” conduct. (Considering this “Justice” Department’s frivolous arguments in litigation and flouting of judicial authority, this is rich.)

• Paul Weiss may well set off an exodus of lawyers and scare away law students from considering working there. Reuters reports, “Paul Weiss may be dealt a setback in recruiting young lawyers because of its apparent retreat from diversity commitments that have spread through law firms in recent years, and are now under attack from Trump.”

Its reputation as a progressive firm and support for the Democratic Party is permanently sullied. The right to determine its clientele and to advance causes of its own choosing are core 1^st Amendment activities that virtually all firms guard fervently.

In an effort to protect its multi-million-dollar practice, Paul Weiss may wind up accelerating its decline. Its lawyers, clients, prospective employees, and law school deans can exact a price by condemning this move, disassociating themselves from the firm and thereby sending a signal to other firms not to follow Paul Weiss’s example. Given a choice between joining a firm of quislings or a firm such as Perkins & Coie or Williams & Connelly, which exemplify the highest ideals of the profession, what top law recruit would join the former?

The decision to cave is peculiar in the extreme. The Wall Street Journal reported:

“Over deliberations last weekend, Paul Weiss partners laid the groundwork to sue the administration, people familiar with the matter said. And the prospects for success were high: Perkins Coie already sued and quickly won a restraining order from a judge, who said the White House moves were likely unconstitutional.”

So even after finding “a partner at litigation powerhouse Quinn Emanuel,” Paul Weiss decided to surrender, running to the White House to negotiate away its independence.

Apparently, Robert Kraft (a Paul Weiss client) “helped set up the meeting, which included Trump, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, Trump adviser Steve Witkoff, and Boris Epshteyn, Trump’s outside legal counsel.” In other words, this was not the sole handiwork of a single partner.

And that raises another troubling, surprisingly under-reported issue. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer’s brother, Robert, who has sat on the senator’s advisory committee for judicial nominations, is a long-time Paul Weiss corporate law partner. I reached out to Senator Schumer’s office with several questions:

1. Has he at any point discussed with President Trump or a Trump official the executive order concerning Paul Weiss? The resolution of the EO that the White House reached with Paul Weiss?

2. Has Senator Schumer discussed the EO or the resolution of the EO with his brother, who is a Paul Weiss partner? Has he advised his brother to resign (or not) from the firm?

3. What steps, if any, has Senator Schumer taken to eliminate any conflicts of interest either on regulatory or legislative matters with Paul Weiss over the years?

I received no response after repeated efforts to obtain comment. (Just a few days earlier, in an effort to defend his decision to support the MAGA continuing resolution, Senator Schumer trumpeted his condemnation of Trump on Meet the Press: “[D]emocracy is at risk. Look, Donald Trump is a lawless, angry man. He thinks he should be king. He thinks he should do whatever he wants, regardless of the law…. Now we have to fight that back in every single way.”)

Senator Schumer is not responsible for his adult brother’s career decisions. But, as a U.S. senator, he has a duty to disclose whether he had any role whatsoever in this shameful surrender of the legal profession. At the very least, the Democrats’ Senate minority leader should explain his views on the matter, whether he thinks it is appropriate for the Trump regime to go about such shocking bullying, and if not, what he intends to do about it.

Paul Weiss’s capitulation is one more example contributing to a deeply alarming pattern of cowardice from corporate media, universities, Republican toadies, and some misguided Democrats. Too many people and institutions with ample power and resources to defend themselves nevertheless have refused to stand up to MAGA intimidation. Instead, they have betrayed fundamental values that are the cornerstone of our democracy.

The debate rages as to whether we are in a constitutional crisis. The more troubling question remains: Why are so many people afraid to defend the Constitution?

The Contrarian is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support our work and litigation, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.