Law firm, Paul Weiss, has surrendered to Trump. Trump has gone on to sign an executive order to go after more law firms.
If your law firm represents Trump’s political opponents, be prepared for the consequences. That’s the message that the Trump administration is sending out to all law firms. This message was made perfectly clear when Trump went after two law firms, Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss earlier.
While Perkins Coie rightfully fought against the constitutionally questionable attack on it, Pail Weiss stunned the legal world when it basically surrendered to Trump’s pressure to stop representing Trump’s legal opponents. From TechDirt:
Paul Weiss, a firm that has long touted its commitment to democratic principles, had multiple obvious paths to fight this blatantly unconstitutional order. They could have filed their own challenge or sought to join Perkins Coie’s successful case. Instead, they chose perhaps the worst possible option: complete surrender.
In short, they caved. They folded like a cheap suit. They made it clear that Paul Weiss not only won’t fight for its clients, it won’t fight for itself.
This Orwellian logic — that providing free legal services somehow reduces access to justice — is incredibly dangerous. But rather than challenge this absurd reasoning, Paul Weiss has now agreed to redirect $40 million worth of pro bono work specifically “to support the Administration’s initiatives.” In other words, they’ve agreed to let the government dictate how they allocate their charitable legal services.
This is nothing less than government compelled speech – a textbook First Amendment violation. The government is explicitly forcing a private entity to dedicate resources to supporting specific political initiatives. That a major law firm would accept such an obviously unconstitutional demand, rather than challenge it as Perkins Coie did, represents a complete abdication of their professional responsibilities.
The agreement’s Orwellian doublespeak only compounds the offense. While claiming to prevent “partisan decision-making,” it literally requires the firm to engage in partisan pro bono work supporting specific administration initiatives. And everyone (including the firm’s current and potential clients) knows exactly what happened here.
It isn’t just TechDirt that was disgusted by what Paul Weiss has done. It has also shaken the legal community as a whole. From The Bulwark:
THERE ARE FEW TOPICS THE LEGAL WORLD loves discussing more than the legal world itself.
But even by its standards of self-interest, the chatter about Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison’s decision to reach a settlement with President Donald Trump over his executive order threatening the firm has been immense.
Lawyers at the firm described starkly different internal reactions to the decision. Some expressed despair over what they deemed a morally indefensible capitulation, fearing that in an effort to save the firm, leadership may have harmed it by signaling to clients that it can be coerced. Others rationalized the decision as a small humiliation that didn’t fundamentally alter much of anything; the firm would continue doing what it was doing, minus the threat of immolation.
AMONG THE MAJOR FIRMS with business before the government, there is universal recognition that the industry stands in peril. Trump has moved aggressively to target firms that he believes have worked against him. And he has done so in ways that would likely cripple their business, such as by pulling security clearances for lawyers, prohibiting them from federal buildings, and threatening contractors who hire those firms.
What to do about it all has proved deeply divisive. Lawyers in D.C. have been working behind the scenes to present a united front to the Trump threats. But collective action has proven elusive. Only one major firm, Williams & Connolly, has agreed to represent one of the main firms in Trump’s crosshairs, Perkins Coie. An amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie has reportedly been in the works among other major firms for over a week but has yet to be published. Since the Paul Weiss settlement, some lawyers now expect that a united front in opposition to Trump’s actions will never materialize.
“Seeing the capitulation of Paul Weiss and Brad Karp, for whom I’ve had a great deal of respect since first meeting him in the 2010s, has been devastating,” said one lawyer at another firm. “It only reinforces my belief that my firm—mighty and capable, but smaller than Paul Weiss—would do the same.”
As if to follow along with a familiar pattern, Trump has been looking at seeing what he can get away with. This is an echo of the tariffs being arbitrarily slapped on allies in an effort to burn as many international bridges as humanly possible for no reason other than to cause international chaos. As soon as Trump feels like he got away with something, he tries to increase his attacks on the system. That’s exactly what has happened with his war on law firms who dare represent his legal opponents.
More recently, Trump has signed and executive order targeting any law firm that commits the crime of representing someone the Trump administration doesn’t like. From Trump’s executive order:
Lawyers and law firms that engage in actions that violate the laws of the United States or rules governing attorney conduct must be efficiently and effectively held accountable. Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.
Recent examples of grossly unethical misconduct are far too common. For instance, in 2016, Marc Elias, founder and chair of Elias Law Group LLP, was deeply involved in the creation of a false “dossier” by a foreign national designed to provide a fraudulent basis for Federal law enforcement to investigate a Presidential candidate in order to alter the outcome of the Presidential election. Elias also intentionally sought to conceal the role of his client — failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — in the dossier.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 prohibits attorneys from engaging in certain unethical conduct in Federal courts. Attorneys must not present legal filings “for improper purpose[s],” including “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” FRCP 11(b)(1). Attorneys must ensure that legal arguments are “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” FRCP 11(b)(2). And attorneys must ensure that their statements about facts are “reasonably based” on evidentiary support, or a belief that such evidence actually exists. FRCP 11(b)(3)-(b)(4). When these commands are violated, opposing parties are authorized to file a motion for sanctions. FRCP 11(c). The text of the rule specifically addresses and provides for sanctions for attorneys and their firms as well as for recalcitrant parties given the solemn obligation that attorneys have to respect the rule of law and uphold our Nation’s legal system with integrity. Furthermore, Rule 3.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides that, “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.”
Unfortunately, far too many attorneys and law firms have long ignored these requirements when litigating against the Federal Government or in pursuing baseless partisan attacks. To address these concerns, I hereby direct the Attorney General to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States.
I further direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to prioritize enforcement of their respective regulations governing attorney conduct and discipline.
I further direct that, when the Attorney General determines that conduct by an attorney or law firm in litigation against the Federal Government warrants seeking sanctions or other disciplinary action, the Attorney General shall, in consultation with any relevant senior executive official, recommend to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, additional steps that may be taken, including reassessment of security clearances held by the attorney or termination of any Federal contract for which the relevant attorney or law firm has been hired to perform services.
I further direct the Attorney General, in consultation with any relevant senior executive official, to review conduct by attorneys or their law firms in litigation against the Federal Government over the last 8 years. If the Attorney General identifies misconduct that may warrant additional action, such as filing frivolous litigation or engaging in fraudulent practices, the Attorney General is directed to recommend to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, additional steps that may be taken, including reassessment of security clearances held by the attorney, termination of any contract for which the relevant attorney or law firm has been hired to perform services, or any other appropriate actions.
It’s bad enough that Trump is targeting law firms, but this is also combined with Trump’s war on judges for committing the “crime” of ruling against him as well. After all, it was just last week that Trump ordered a crackdown on such judges. For Trump, he feels that the judicial system is there to serve his personal interests and that he expects full obedience from the entire legal community to be at his own personal beck and call. That’s why it is so disturbing that Paul Weiss has already opted to lick Trump’s boot like a dog. Hopefully, the Paul Weiss surrender represents little more than a temporary setback for the legal community.
