Some lawyers said the deal was driven by profit. Others said it was enabling autocracy. One said the move had prompted her to quit her legal job in disgust.
All over the legal world, lawyers on Friday were talking about the deal that Paul Weiss, one of the nation’s most prominent law firms, had made with President Trump to escape an onerous executive order that would have prevented it from representing many clients before the federal government. To avoid the hit to its business, the firm agreed to do $40 million worth of pro bono work for causes favored by the White House.
It was a striking development in the White House’s broad retribution campaign against big law firms that represented lawyers or prosecutors in the criminal cases against Mr. Trump before the 2024 election.
Paul Weiss’s move was a particular point of contention because of the firm’s standing in the legal community. The firm has long been dominated by Democrats and prided itself on being at the forefront of fights against the government for civil rights.
“They have all the resources they need to fight an unlawful order,” said John Moscow, who was a top prosecutor at the Manhattan district attorney’s office under Robert Morgenthau. “The example they are setting is to surrender to unlawful orders rather than fight them in court.”
Lawyers at firms both large and small took to social media to denounce the firm.
“Absolutely shameful and spineless behavior,” one lawyer posted on X.
“This is a time for soul-searching,” another lawyer, who used to work at Paul Weiss, wrote on LinkedIn.
“It’s not too late to leave your firm and find one with a backbone,” said a commenter on Paul Weiss’s corporate LinkedIn page.
Leslie Levin, a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, said she was “deeply disappointed” that the firm had struck a deal with Mr. Trump, especially given its history.
Many large firms, she said, are struggling with how to respond to pressure from the Trump administration. But basing decisions on concern about harm to their business goes against key tenets of the legal profession, she said.
“Lawyers are supposed to stand up to the government when there’s an abuse of power, and a firm like Paul Weiss has the capacity to do that,” Ms. Levin said.
Another critic of Paul Weiss’s move, Mark Zaid, a lawyer who represents whistle-blowers, including in a case that led to Mr. Trump’s first impeachment, said, “There are things where principle is stronger than the dollar.”
On Thursday, Mr. Trump said he had reached a deal with Brad Karp, the chairman of Paul Weiss, to drop the executive order he issued against the firm. The order would have restricted the firm’s security clearance — something that is often needed to review government contracts for corporate clients — and barred its lawyers from federal buildings.
In exchange, the 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.
Mr. Trump has issued executive orders targeting other law firms, too, including Perkins Coie, which opted last week to sue in federal court. A federal judge in Washington ruled that the order targeting Perkins was likely unconstitutional and issued a restraining order halting it. That legal battle is ongoing.
The American Bar Association released a statement this month condemning the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine major law firms, stating that these actions by the White House “deny clients access to justice and betray our fundamental values.” The association declined to comment on Friday on Paul Weiss’s arrangement with the White House.
Hundreds of associates at leading corporate law firms have signed an open letter calling on their employers to speak out against the Trump administration’s moves, arguing that the White House’s behavior could intimidate firms from taking on specific clients.
On Thursday, Rachel Cohen, an associate at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, shared screenshots on LinkedIn of a resignation email she had sent to the firm’s staff, citing the firm’s “lack of response to the Trump administration’s attacks on our peers.” Paul Weiss’s decision to make concessions to the Trump administration “has forced my hand,” Ms. Cohen wrote in her email.
In an interview, Ms. Cohen said Paul Weiss’s deal with Mr. Trump reflected “abject cowardice,’’ which would undermine the firm’s reputation and business prospects over the long term
“At the end of the day, I think that it’s actually good for you as a business decision, as a major corporate law firm that charges exorbitant rates, if your clients can trust that you see the long-term impacts of these blanket executive orders,’’ Ms. Cohen said.
“And also, that you believe that the law exists”
Skadden did not respond to requests for comment.
Some lawyers supported Paul Weiss’s decision to settle with Mr. Trump. They pointed out that the damage to the law firm’s business would have been significant.
Several lawyers said it was clear that many clients would have hit pause on their work with Paul Weiss since a great deal of their work involves the federal government.
“I totally understand kind of where Paul Weiss is coming from, because it was facing an existential threat,” said Ronald Barusch, a retired partner from Skadden Arps.
“Remember: Lawyers tell clients every day to make compromises on principle, that you need to settle disputes and resolve them,” Mr. Barusch said. “So they are probably following the advice they might give themselves.”
But, he added, it’s disappointing: “I like to see people standing up for the system.”
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at Yale who has teamed up with Mr. Karp in pushing companies to take a stance on societal issues, like safeguarding democracy, argued that the deal would not significantly hamstring the firm’s ability to serve its clients.
Mr. Sonnenfeld added that many components of the deal were consistent with the firm’s pre-existing priorities, a sentiment that Mr. Karp expressed in an email to his staff.
“In no way does the agreement constrain Paul Weiss’s ability to zealously represent clients’ interests in their defense against Trump administration actions or regulatory litigation from executive agencies,” Mr. Sonnenfeld said.
But the Paul Weiss drama has raised bigger questions in the legal industry: What does it mean to be a lawyer if the administration can make demands on how a firm runs its business?
Paul Weiss “is merely rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic,” Michigan’s attorney general, Dana Nessel, wrote on X. “With this administration, there will be no legitimate legal system and no need for actual lawyers.”
Jessica Silver-Greenberg contributed reporting.
