Paul Weiss Cuts A Deal With Donald Trump

Trump will rescind his executive order targeting the firm, in exchange for various concessions agreed to by chair Brad Karp.

The Equitable Building aka 1285 Avenue of the Americas, the New York headquarters of Paul Weiss (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.

---

Donald Trump continues to wage war against Biglaw. In addition to the executive actions his administration has taken against Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie, and Paul Weiss, on Monday his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sent letters to 20 leading law firms, seeking information about their employment practices related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

What’s driving the administration’s attack on the world of large law firms? According to former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, a leading voice of the MAGA right, Biglaw partners are no longer “going to be walking around making four and five, six million bucks a year, because [Trump is] going to put those law firms out of business. Let me repeat this. There’s major law firms in Washington, D.C., and… what we are trying to do is put you out of business and bankrupt you.”

Different firms are responding in different ways to the Trump administration’s onslaught. Perkins Coie is fighting back—with the help of Williams & Connolly, one of the nation’s most formidable firms in the courtroom.

Covington & Burling is keeping calm and carrying on. Unlike Perkins Coie, Covington hasn’t raised a legal challenge to its targeting by the administration. At the same time, it’s not being cowed into submission: while it hasn’t sued the federal government on its own behalf, it continues to represent clients against the Trump administration.

And then there’s Paul Weiss. Yesterday, Donald Trump made the following announcement on Truth Social:

Today, President Donald J. Trump agreed to withdraw his March 14, 2025, Executive Order regarding the Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP law firm (“Paul, Weiss”), which has entered into the following agreement with the President:

1. Paul, Weiss agrees that the bedrock principle of American Justice is that it must be fair and nonpartisan for all. Our Justice System is betrayed when it is misused to achieve political ends….

2. Paul, Weiss affirms its unwavering commitment to these core ideals and principles, and will not deny representation to clients, including in pro bono matters and in support of non-profits, because of the personal political views of individual lawyers.

3. Paul, Weiss will take on a wide range of pro bono matters that represent the full spectrum of political viewpoints of our society, whether “conservative” or “liberal.”

4. Paul, Weiss affirms its commitment to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention, and will not adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies. As part of its commitment, it will engage experts, to be mutually agreed upon within 14 days, to conduct a comprehensive audit of all of its employment practices.

5. Paul, Weiss will dedicate the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services over the course of President Trump’s term to support the Administration’s initiatives, including: assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in the Justice System, the President’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and other mutually agreed projects.

Statement from the White House: “The President is agreeing to this action in light of a meeting with Paul, Weiss Chairman, Brad Karp, during which Mr. Karp acknowledged the wrongdoing of former Paul, Weiss partner, Mark Pomerantz, the grave dangers of Weaponization, and the vital need to restore our System of Justice.”

In response to the President’s announcement, Paul, Weiss’s Chairman Brad Karp said: “We are gratified that the President has agreed to withdraw the Executive Order concerning Paul, Weiss. We look forward to an engaged and constructive relationship with the President and his Administration.”

The deal came together after Karp, chair of the firm since 2008, met face-to-face with Trump at the White House. And here’s how that tête-à-tête came about, according to Michael Schmidt of The New York Times (gift link):

Paul, Weiss reached out to Bill Burck, the co-managing partner of the firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, to represent it. Quinn Emanuel, one of the few large law firms that has done work for Mr. Trump’s company and top officials in his administration, prepared to represent Paul, Weiss in bringing a suit against the president.

At the same time, Mr. Burck engaged in discussions with the White House to potentially broker a deal between Mr. Karp and Mr. Trump. On Wednesday, Mr. Karp and Mr. Trump met in the Oval Office to discuss the framework for an agreement. In the day that followed, White House aides and Mr. Karp finalized the terms of the agreement.

Reactions to the Trump/Paul Weiss deal on social media, at least from the folks that I follow, were largely negative. The majority view was captured by this tweet from George Conway, a leading Trump critic (and former Biglaw partner, at Wachtell Lipton):

This Paul Weiss capitulation is the most disgraceful action by a major law firm in my lifetime, so appalling that I couldn’t believe it at first. Any lawyers at that firm—partners or associates—who don’t promptly resign will defile their moral and professional reputations beyond repair.

On the other hand, here’s what Katherine Yon Ebright—a lawyer at the left-leaning Brennan Center, so far from a MAGA partisan—had to say:

This is a very bad look, but it reads to me like a Sheinbaum negotiation where Paul Weiss has promised to do something that it’s probably already doing or close to doing.

[“Sheinbaum” refers to President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico, who succeeded in getting Trump to postpone certain tariffs by committing to take actions that her nation was already doing or was willing to do, such as crack down on drug cartels.]

I can see where Ebright is coming from. Let’s review what Paul Weiss agreed to do:

1. Paul, Weiss agrees that the bedrock principle of American Justice is that it must be fair and nonpartisan for all. Our Justice System is betrayed when it is misused to achieve political ends.

Of course Brad Karp had no problem agreeing with that overarching principle—even if he and Trump might disagree on what that looks like on the ground.

2. Paul, Weiss affirms its unwavering commitment to these core ideals and principles, and will not deny representation to clients, including in pro bono matters and in support of non-profits, because of the personal political views of individual lawyers.

This doesn’t strike me as much of a concession either. I suspect Paul Weiss’s official position is that they don’t currently “deny representation… because of the personal political views of individual lawyers.” (And to the extent that they actually do this in practice, coming up with non-political reasons for denying representation isn’t hard.)

3. Paul, Weiss will take on a wide range of pro bono matters that represent the full spectrum of political viewpoints of our society, whether “conservative” or “liberal.”

There’s nothing concrete here—no specific pro bono matters or causes the firm will take on, and no metrics for establishing compliance (e.g., 5 percent of pro bono hours will go to representing pro-life causes). It won’t be hard for the firm to claim it’s in compliance.

4. Paul, Weiss affirms its commitment to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention, and will not adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies.

Also not much of a concession. In light of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against racial preferences in higher education, subsequent litigation in the lower courts contending that racial preferences in employment are illegal, and the Trump administration’s declaration that it’s going to investigate law firms for their DEI-related employment practices, Paul Weiss probably had to abandon racial preferences in employment anyway (to the extent that it had them).

5. Paul, Weiss will dedicate the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services over the course of President Trump’s term to support the Administration’s initiatives, including: assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in the Justice System, the President’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and other mutually agreed projects.

Pro bono work on behalf of veterans, to advance fairness in the justice system, and to combat antisemitism? I don’t know what the fine print is here (hinted at by the reference to “other mutually agreed projects”), but this doesn’t sound like it will require Paul Weiss to do much that it wasn’t already doing or isn’t willing to do going forward. It reminds me of the time in college when I gave up sex with women for Lent.

But after giving the matter more thought, I’ve come closer to George Conway’s view. Why? Paul Weiss cut a deal that might make a lot of sense—for Paul Weiss. But there’s a collective action problem here: what might make sense for Paul Weiss could have very negative consequences for the rest of Biglaw.

By entering into an agreement with the Trump administration that looks like a capitulation—even if, in reality, Paul Weiss isn’t giving up much—the firm has given Donald Trump a win, at least in the court of public opinion. Trump can now claim that he forced one of the nation’s most powerful, prestigious, and profitable law firms to bend the knee before him—just as he has arguably gotten many others, from tech billionaires to major media companies, to kiss his ring.

I strongly condemned the Perkins Coie order, and I feel the same way about the Paul Weiss order. But by rewarding Trump’s baseless order with a public-relations win, Paul Weiss is only encouraging Trump to issue more meritless orders in the future. You don’t need to be a law-and-economics guru to understand that if you incentivize certain behavior, you’ll probably get more of it.

To be fair to Paul Weiss chair Brad Karp, his job is to not to stand up for all of Biglaw, but to protect the interests of Paul Weiss and its people—not just its partners but its associates and staff, who could lose their jobs if the firm suffers financially because of the executive order. And he’s the proverbial “man in the arena”; it’s easy for folks like me, typing away in my pajamas, to sit on the sidelines and carp about Karp.

Consider what another longtime commentator on the legal profession, Vivia Chen, recently wrote:

I got criticized by several former and current partners in management roles for urging Biglaw to present a united front against Trump. “Exactly what mind is that designed to change?” asked a former Biglaw managing partner. “Donald Trump’s? Seems unlikely to work.”

Others told me statements of protests would be “meaningless,” “naive,” or “virtue signaling.” Another snipped, “you obviously have not managed a business or much of anything and been responsible for hundreds of people.”

But allow me to quote Chen’s response to these critics:

True that. But even if it boils down to “virtue signaling,” isn’t there merit for standing up for what’s right? As we know, Biglaw has not been shy in the past voicing support for social justice and other political issues—and now that it’s faced with an existential threat to its own independence, it’s saying nothing?

There’s also a short-term versus long-term issue here. In the short term, it might give Paul Weiss some relief to get Trump’s boot off its neck. But in the long term, it could be a bad thing—both for Paul Weiss and for Biglaw—to have capitulated so quickly. It has shown to Donald Trump, as well as others who might follow in his footsteps, how easily bullied the firm can be. That will only encourage more bullying in the future.

And it doesn’t send a great message to clients that are looking for a law firm to vigorously represent their interests, whether in the courtroom or the boardroom. Clients might think: if Paul Weiss isn’t willing to stand up for itself, can I count on it to stand up for me?

So that’s my current thinking on the deal Paul Weiss cut with Donald Trump. But I’m open to reconsidering—especially after hearing from you, my readers.

This is a Notice and Comment (N&C) post, so comments are open to all, not just paid subscribers. Please share your views on the Paul Weiss/Trump deal, in the comments to this post, in the generally civil and thoughtful manner that you usually employ. Thanks!

UPDATE (3/23/2025, 9:57 p.m.): For more on Paul Weiss’s detente with Donald Trump, see Brad Karp’s firmwide message of March 23, providing a more detailed defense of the deal than his original missive, and my Judicial Notice news roundup from the same day, offering additional reporting and thoughts from me.

---

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.