A Skadden Associate Urges Peers To Stand Up For The Rule Of Law

A 2022 Harvard Law graduate, Rachel Cohen is willing to forsake her lucrative and prestigious post based on her principles.

Rachel Cohen (photo by David Lat).

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.

A version of this article originally appeared on Bloomberg Law, part of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc. (800-372-1033), and is reproduced here with permission. The footnotes contain material that did not appear in the Bloomberg Law version of the piece. You can think of the footnotes as “bonus content” for Original Jurisdiction subscribers.

---

President Donald Trump’s aggressive actions toward law firms, most recently against Jenner & Block, have been met mostly with silence from Biglaw. Two firms targeted by executive orders have taken public stances: Perkins Coie sued the Trump administration, while Paul Weiss cut a deal. But other large firms have kept quiet, perhaps fearing they might be next.

Most individual partners have also stayed mum. But associates are speaking out, including more than 1,500 associates who have signed an open letter condemning the Trump administration’s “all-out attack aimed at dismantling rule-of-law norms.”

The associates signed the letter anonymously, providing only their firms and class years. But one organizer behind the letter has stepped forward publicly: Rachel Cohen, a 2022 graduate of Harvard Law School and third-year finance associate in the Chicago office of Skadden.

Cohen discussed the letter and how it came together with multiple news outlets and on social media, including LinkedIn and TikTok. And last Thursday, after news broke of Paul Weiss’s agreement with Trump, she kicked things up a notch.

In a letter shared with everyone at Skadden, she provided “conditional notice” of her resignation, “revocable if the firm comes up with a satisfactory response to the current moment.” She then listed specific steps the firm could take toward that end.

Cohen posted screenshots of her letter on LinkedIn, where it promptly went viral. But as of now, it hasn’t prompted any action by the firm—other than acceptance of her two-week resignation notice.¹

In an interview on Monday, Cohen told me she had a positive experience at Skadden. She enjoyed her work as a finance lawyer, the company of her colleagues, and the extensive opportunities for pro bono work—which she spent as much as 30 percent of her time on, focusing on immigration issues.

But she felt that remaining at the firm was untenable if Skadden was unwilling to take a public stand in favor of the rule of law and in opposition to the Trump administration. And it’s not just Skadden, Cohen said; the refusal to speak out is a problem throughout Biglaw right now.²

“These partnerships are totally abdicating their moral duty and responsibility,” she argued. “They’re acting as if they did not spend the past few decades holding themselves out as places committed to justice and the rule of law. You can’t spend decades proclaiming your dedication to these values, as a form of reputation management, and then abandon them when it’s most important.”

The threat of associates leaving might have exerted significant influence over firms in years past. But associate hiring has plummeted recently, and today it’s a buyer’s market for legal talent. Haven’t associates lost their leverage?

“Some partners might think, ‘It’s a tough market—what are associates going to do?’ But many of their best associates are the ones who are most likely to be concerned about these issues and willing to push back,” Cohen said.

She added that while she never expected Skadden to act in response to her resignation as just one associate, she hoped her highly public departure would encourage other associates, whether at Skadden or other firms, to reflect on how they might work collaboratively to promote change.³ When associates band together, they don’t have to go as far as Cohen did to have an impact.

For example, Cohen said, associates at some of the 20 firms under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for DEI-related hiring practices are considering “recruiting strikes”—not interviewing candidates or encouraging them to join their firms—until firms confirm that they won’t cooperate with the EEOC investigations (Skadden is one of the firms under investigation). With early recruiting ramping up soon, this could be quite timely.

Another possible approach, suggested by former Orrick partner Pat Gillette on LinkedIn, would be a one-day work stoppage. “A day without associates billing will definitely have an impact, but it won’t break the bank,” she wrote. “It will, however, send a message.”

Addressing associates, Gillette told them that “your firms cannot afford to have you all—the engine that makes the firm work and drives the firm profits—disgruntled. You have the power to disrupt the business—to make the firm feel your power and your outrage.”

Apart from the open letter coordinated by Cohen, associate organizing thus far has been taking place behind the scenes. And almost all associates involved in these efforts have remained anonymous.

I say “almost all” because on Monday I also interviewed Ramon Ryan, a managing associate in Orrick’s U.S. Supreme Court and appellate practice group. He and other associates in the group have been urging the firm to take a stand—and they won’t respond to associate surveys from industry publications, the basis for closely followed industry rankings, until Orrick takes action. (Although Ryan is working with other associates on this effort, he spoke only on his own behalf.)

I confirmed with Ryan that we were talking on the record. He said yes: “If I’m not willing to speak out and put myself on the line, I can’t really tell Orrick that they need to do that too.”

“For me, as a Black and queer associate, reading about firms like DLA Piper disbanding affinity groups and removing pronouns from email signatures has been pretty scary,” Ryan said. “And it’s pretty scary to be met with silence from our own firms.”

So far, Orrick hasn’t announced any actions, internally or externally. Ryan said that partners have responded “professionally and politely, expressing that they understand our concerns and are giving these issues a lot of consideration.” We might know more about where Orrick stands very soon; firm chair Mitch Zuklie scheduled a “town hall” with associates for Wednesday afternoon, to discuss “what various Executive Orders mean for our firm and how we might respond.”⁴

“We’re definitely hoping Orrick will do the right thing,” Ryan told me. “In the past, they have. We’re hopeful that will continue—and the firm doesn’t get bullied into doing something like what Paul Weiss did.”

“Many law students who entered Biglaw—and people like me, who came to Orrick after clerking—were looking for firms that spoke to our values,” he continued. “We joined these firms on the assumption that they would stick with those values. So to see something like what Paul Weiss did is disturbing. It’s a firm going back on this promise of, ‘Hey, come join us, because we share your values and want to work with you and support you.’”

“I get that keeping our heads down might be a tempting choice—but given the urgency of the situation, there can’t be any bystanders,” Ryan concluded. “We’ve seen in the past what happens when these things go unchecked. Right now, the rule of law is all we have that’s keeping us from authoritarian government.”

1. I previously reported—incorrectly, as it turns out—that Cohen was terminated by Skadden shortly after her email. Although she was quickly removed from internal firm systems like email, as well as the Skadden website, she remains an employee of the firm—and on the payroll—until the end of the two weeks.

2. For a detailed and thoughtful discussion that places Trump v. Biglaw in broader context, check out this piece for The Hill by Jay Edelson, the prominent plaintiff-side lawyer. He wrote: “As a center-left lawyer who has spent his career fighting powerful interests on behalf of everyday people, I find the current moment deeply alarming. Ironically, despite my skepticism of Biglaw, the first line of defense is going to be these large firms, on whom we now must rely to protect both themselves and, by extension, the legal system as a whole from many of the powerful interests it has historically served.”

3. Some critics of Cohen’s email, such as Sarah Isgur and David French of Advisory Opinions, read Cohen’s message as self-important—making the situation too much about her. As Isgur put it, “This person is two and a half years out of law school…. And so she sent a firm-wide email threatening the firm. If they didn’t do what she wanted, then she would resign? What did she think they would do?”

Cohen clarified to me that regardless of how her email might have been read, this was not her intent. “I didn’t expect [executive partner] Jeremy London to respond to my email and say, ‘Thanks, Rachel—we’re going to do all the things you suggest!’” She said she didn’t expect the firm to do anything other than what it actually did: accept her notice. And she told me she wasn’t trying to draw attention to herself (although she certainly got a lot of it); she simply wanted to engender conversations and introspection.

Cohen added that she actually doesn’t think everyone should do what she did and publicly quit their firms. Instead, she said, “People should make the sacrifices that feel tenable to them.” She added that she doesn’t think another associate quitting in the same manner as she did moves the ball forward that much—with the possible exception of associates at Paul Weiss….

4. I reached out to Orrick late Wednesday to see if it had any statement about the meeting or the issues it was held to address. The firm declined to comment.

---

Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; (3) transcripts of podcast interviews; and (4) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below.