Thank you for the opportunity to comment! Since you are asking us to be civil, I can't really write what I would have told Mr. Trump if I were Mr. Karp. And I hope everyone who voted for this mentally and morally deranged sociopath is now realizing what that vote has unleashed.
I'll embrace, for arguments sake, initially that this is really just a case of "Paul Weiss was doing this anyway". If Paul Weiss was doing this, it had/has an optics problem as many people do not believe so (including me, as it pertains to my former biglaw firm). If you have an optics problem, the best thing to do is to confirm your stances. If everyone at the table thinks you're cheating at poker, and asks you to agree to not cheat at poker going forward, and you resist -- you're only going to enflame the perception that you cheat at poker. This doesn't make anything better about your optics problem. You may be principled in resisting, and people who already think you don't cheat at poker will stand by you for not capitulating, but the optics problem remains.
Now, I don't think this is a case of "Paul Weiss was doing this anyway" (or, at least, most biglaw firms don't, Paul Weiss may be an exception). If my experience at my former biglaw firm was indicative, the SFFA ruling was reviled -- there was overwhelming internal support for discriminating on the basis of preferred immutable characteristics -- and practices I viewed as probably illegal continued. Further, if my group chats with former colleagues still in biglaw are indicative, there continues to be strong desires to discriminate on the basis of preferred immutable characteristics. I also observed veterans and other conservative-coded pro bono efforts decline (both because the number of conservative associates likely was declining, and because of institutional forces) in relation to explosions in growth for progressive-coded pro bono efforts. Additionally, there were vocal efforts internally (by associates) to drop certain clients for political (anti-conservative) reasons (and Paul Clement can speak to the effectiveness thereof at certain firms).
It strikes me that the rub here *truly* is that this is a concession to Trump. These items were not what Paul Weiss was doing (and/or attorneys at other biglaw firms know its not what their firms are doing). Lawyers at firms don't *want* their firms to comply with this list, and have internally lobbied to move their firms directly in the opposite directions. Because this is an affront to that, it is enraging on a substantive matter -- the lawyers substantively disagree with the concessions made. And because of that is precisely why I think that it *is* bad that Trump did this, and that Paul Weiss should not have agreed to the demands. The president shouldn't be throwing around baseless national-security concerns (put aside discrimination, which I think is happening constantly in biglaw -- largely at client demands -- which should be investigated and litigated appropriately) to force you to adopt a certain political stance. Even though I *want* Paul Weiss to have that political stance anyway! I want Paul Weiss and its attorneys to want it, because I think it is a good thing. But I am firmly opposed to enforced political beliefs through implicit threats of litigation/prosecution. It sets a horrible precedent and is bad for the legal community.
Well said. One further point: at least according to Trump, Paul Weiss agreed that it would not "adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies" including with respect to retention. That concession will have sweeping consequences, especially since we know this administration has taken increasingly aggressive views of what constitutes impermissible attempts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.
What could this mean for retention, as a practical matter? Most biglaw firms not only permit affinity groups (in part as a means of recruitment and retention), but support them financially, through firm sponsored events. Will Paul Weiss withdraw all financial support? Disband those groups? Prohibit attorneys from being members of specific bar associations (New York, for example, has a Women's Bar Association). Given what happened at West Point, we should assume the administration is laser focused on these sorts of activities, and will not hesitate to demand the most expansive interpretation of this concession.
This is bad for many reasons, but purely as a business matter, the level of control and intrusion in the firm's affairs that Paul Weiss has given away is alarming and frankly breathtaking (and that's without getting into the "audit" of its hiring practices!).
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. If I understand you right, you're saying that Paul Weiss's attorneys (and biglaw attorneys in general) as well as Paul Weiss's clients (and biglaw clients in general) want racial preferences and politically tilted support of causes., and should resist demands to stop them (or pretend to stop them). Further, it's an abuse by Trump to make these demands on spurious national security grounds.
On the last point, I agree completely, the government shouldn't claim a basis (national security in this case) to abuse powers in pursuit of some other objective. Sadly, I believe that governments at all levels do this routinely, because people in government will use whatever means are available to them to achieve whatever objectives they favor. To cite just one example, the federal government has used Patriot-Act powers, enacted to combat terrorism, more to attack drug dealers and organizations than to attack terrorists. There are probably some government officials that don't do such things, but there are so many who do that it's not unusual. It's still wrong, of course, and should be called out whenever it's visible. As in these actions by Trump.
On the first point, it looks like there are two distinct constituencies involved: associates and clients. As far as associates are concerned, the senior partners should tell them, in effect, that management is in charge and sets policy for the firm. If associates don't like this policy, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. Furthermore, it is the obligation of lawyers to represent clients and their interests, even if the attorneys find the clients or their causes distasteful. Such situations are a part of practicing law, and lawyers should get used to it. It's even in lawyers' professional interest to become familiar with viewpoints and causes they don't like, if for no other reason than to be able to fight them in the future.
This might make it harder for Paul Weiss or other firms to attract the very top graduates of the very top law schools, but so what? Are there really no similarly talented lawyers from other schools that Paul Weiss could hire?
As far as clients, I expect that most of biglaw's business is from corporate accounts representing issues like patent claims, regulatory compliance, or similar generally non-ideological causes. I expect that many corporate clients want some sort of attention to DEI, in order to satisfy their own internal constituencies as well as various governments. But given the change in the legal environment which seems to be underway, I doubt they'd lose much of their business if they became less politically aligned.
Which brings me to what I think is the crux of the DEI issue: the practitioners of DEI have for years done things that plainly violate the clear wording of the Civil Rights Act, while hiding their actions behind a smokescreen of "oh, we're just bending over backwards to be fair to people who may not have had a fair shot in the past." It's becoming clearer to the population that DEI actions are noxious, and the practitioners are deceptive, which is behind the backlash we've seen. The practitioners of DEI have shown that they cannot be trusted to tell the truth, which is bad for higher education, professional organizations, large corporations, and governmental bodies.
I realize that, in effect, I'm advocating for a change in the law. Federal, state, and local governments have for years enforced various quotas in hiring and promotion, which in many cases can only be achieved by blatant discrimination. Organizations have altered their practices to comply with requirements. It may be necessary now to alter their practices again to comply with the law as written. But that would be in everyone's best interest.
Lastly, I think lawyers especially suffer reputational harm by using subterfuge to violate the law. I'm not a lawyer, but I expect lawyers are often in the position of advising clients who want to violate the law how they can do as much of what they want while staying within the law. I'm sure they're often in such a position with respect to their own desires. They could (probably) enact some policies to pursue their social or political agenda while staying within the law. They shouldn't try to violate the law and hide it by subterfuge.
In very broad strokes, yes you do understand my reasoning. I just left a lot that could have been stated unsaid.
The framework of "Associates should X, given their position", "Paul Weiss partners/management should Y, because of their position" or "lawyers in general should Z, given their position" are concepts detached from how the industry actually works -- and in my opinion (and it seems yours) how the industry actually works has its faults.
One point I'll disagree with you on is i don't think you're actually advocating for a change in law. You're advocating for a change in practice. I think the law is quite clear that many practices are illegal -- however the people with prosecution power have declined to prosecute. And lawyers who should know better (cough cough Eric Holder, I'm looking at you), have advised clients extremely poorly due to political partisan ends. I just think many attorneys have convinced themselves that because they want something for the "right" reasons, well then it can't actually be illegal, can it? And actually enforcing the law could therefore only be done for the "wrong" reasons. But that's not true -- and I personally insist on using language ("discriminate on the basis of preferred immutable characteristics") that I hope wakes people up to what the policies they're advocating for actually are.
Thanks for the reply. When I said "change in the law," I wasn't referring specifically to the Civil Rights Act, but to how it's been implemented, based on governmental rules and regulations. For one specific example, the Department of Labor provides employers with reference data on the appropriate demographics for many (most/all?) occupations in specific geographical areas, telling employers how many Black women, white men, Hispanics, etc. they should have in each employment category. I recall a Nixon-administration official saying on 60 Minutes something to the effect of "If you don't like quotas, I'm fine with calling them goals, timetables, or whatever else you like. But these are the requirements." So, the law has been interpreted for over 50 years to require things that the text of the law actually forbids. This is not just a case of declining to prosecute, but issuing actual rules that plainly conflict with the law as written.
As far as the way the industry actually works, I realize that things often go in counterintuitive directions, in any industry. For another example, higher education seems to be in the thrall of an extreme vision of social justice - majorities of administrators, faculty, and students seem intent not merely on espousing an ideological position, but excluding other ideas from discussion, punishing anyone who even questions the premises, and acting in accordance with that ideology even if it violates the law, all while claiming to be defending academic freedom and the pursuit of truth.
What do you think would happen if the management of a biglaw firm announced a commitment to genuinely ideological neutrality? Or would it be impossible for lawyers with that sort of outlook to rise to the top ranks of the firm?
>What do you think would happen if the management of a biglaw firm announced a commitment to genuinely ideological neutrality? Or would it be impossible for lawyers with that sort of outlook to rise to the top ranks of the firm?
I mean, exactly what we have seen here. The legal community loses its mind on "fascistic dogwhistles". I've seen my group-chats explode over Paul Weiss's statements about reaffirming their "commitment to viewpoint diversity". Grown adults, years out of law school, earnestly throwing around phrases like "the end of democracy" and "coup" with respect to Paul Weiss's actions. I cannot impress upon people enough just how hyper-partisan the associates at biglaw firms are in 2025. I think everyone of the prior era underestimates just how animated Trump 1.0 made law school applicants in 2017, and how the racial reckoning in 2020 turned things into overdrive for young idealistic progressive lawyers and law students.
What is the fallout for Paul Weiss here? I mean, it wouldn't surprise me to see certain clients who have already asserted their partisan views on their outside counsel (cough cough Meta in 2017 -- and no amount of Zuck about-face in 2025 is going to change the existing in-house lawyer cohort views) hold business back in an effort to make a political point. Additionally the politically active associates (probably 10-20% of any biglaw firm's associate class) will cause endless headaches internally around the decision. You'll see some amount of top law students refuse to go to Paul Weiss -- which will annoy partners.
Biglaw has just become captured by partisan excess. Rainmaker partners operate so far above the masses that the bottom line is not directly impacted by the internal turmoil of politically active associates fighting with HR to enact (partisan, often times openly discriminatory) policies they want.
Nothing is predictable from the outside. You have to have been in biglaw recently to understand the existing frameworks. And they're an absolute mess, as ideological and viewpoint diversity has plummeted into the toilet.
"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 ...."
This is the most outrageous part of the whole deal, Mr. Lat.
Unless Karp is on TV this afternoon denying this assertion, his firm has joined Trump in publicly indicting Pomerantz for wrongthink, a crime against our Dear Leader Trump. It's not even clear whether Pomerantz' "wrongdoing" occurred while he was a partner, much less that his fellow partners joined in or even knew of the "wrongdoing."
It's a cowardly capitulation. Clients seeking lawyers who will cowardly capitulate now know exactly where to take their business.
I totally understand Paul, Weiss's reasoning and strategy. But I can't help condemning the capitulation anyway. So I say, shame on Paul, Weiss -- it's a "shanda". There is a principle involved i.e. stand up for what you believe. More power to Perkins Coie who deserves my respect for deciding to fight not cave.
Remember, everything Trump touches dies. By giving in to Trump, Paul Weiss has opened the door to more Trump demands on the firm. Now that Trump knows Paul Weiss is an easy target, what is to keep Trump from declaring that to prevent the entry of another executive order, Paul Weiss must defend the federal government on a pro bono basis in the litigation filed to stop the dismantling of the Department of Education, for example? We all know that Trump's vengeance has no limits.
Paul Weiss threw former longtime partner Mark Pomerantz under the bus in this “deal.” His crime
: attempting to prosecute Trump during a stint with the Manhattan DA’s office. Isn’t that worth mentioning? Disgraceful for the firm to acknowledge “wrongdoing” by him as part of this agreement.
I agree on the collective action problem, the optics, and most of the list. But I think the last one really is a problem, even though I agree that work is salutary. It is agreeing to do it at the government's direction that is the problem.
"He fights" gets a little too much credence when it comes to picking a lawyer. Lawyers can hurt their clients just as much by fighting too much as by fighting too little. But when your company is on the line, you want a law firm with steel in its spine. Williams & Connolly has it. Paul Weiss doesn't. Simple as that.
I agree; easy to take a "long-term" principled position as a law professor or journalist. But without taking any position on the substantive merits here, you left out the most important group that any law firm should be protecting -- its clients. You know my background; I come from a firm that has proven it puts client interests above all other issues, including short-term profits, and I believe that is the most important interest a law firm can serve. Of course, it has to do its business stuff well too, because it needs to attract and retain the quality of lawyers that can attract and will effectively serve clients, but in the end, a lawyer exists to serve clients. The partners, associates and staff all benefit in the long run from a clear commitment to client service, and indeed their long-term interests are irrevocably tied to that commitment.
These orders are obviously illegal - and just a really bad idea. But that said, I agree with this. Karp essentially runs a very large business. His job is to protect the interest of the firm's clients, it's partnership, associates and staff. He's not an activist nor is a a politician. In business sometimes things don't go your way and you don't have the bargaining power you want. The agreement is mostly anodyne, and everyone will forget about this in about 3 minutes.
My grandparents were able to come to the USA in 1938 from Vienna, Austria as refugees only because Louis Weiss signed an affidavit on their behalf, to wit that he would ensure that he would support them so they did not become dependent upon government assistance. Forty years later, I became a lawyer.
Capitulating to a bully and criminal? Louis Weiss is turning over in his grave.
When I think of Paul Weiss, I think of Pauli Murray and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom worked at the firm in the 1950s, at a time when very few -- if any -- other firms would have given them such an opportunity.
Negotiating with Trump is like negotiating with the Devil: you give up your soul in exchange for a few promises that are immediately forgotten. Watch the defections from Paul Weiss by lawyers who actually believe in the rule of law.
One can only hope, but the reality is that the market is flooded right now with hopeful lateral hires, so it goes back to the individual analysis -- take a stand for what's right or pay the mortgage or child care or etc... It's hard to stand for what's right when those golden handcuffs want you to just stay in line and continue the lifestyle that's been built.
Understood and concur. Been there, done that in my early career. Had to choose between feeding the kids and looking the other way. It takes more courage than I had to move outside your comfort zone!
It's not lateral associates/counsel I suspect PW should be worried about; it's the middle-book partners who weren't large enough to be consulted on the decisionmaking but whose clients are big enough to make their displeasure with this kowtowing known.
Especially in light of this agreement, I recommend checking out this interview John Quinn recently did with Brad Karp https://law-disrupted.fm/brad-karp-reinvention-of-paul-weiss/ . Karp talked a lot about other firms and the importance of standing up for values.
The bending of the knee by Paul Weiss will only encourage Trump to increase political pressure on other firms, and subdue potential future attempts to uphold justice and protect our constitution. It's a fundamental betrayal of our justice system. And our country. Putting dollars clearly ahead of ethics and integrity speaks volumes. Let's not pretend that this is about protecting the financial futures of associates and staff. The top partners could afford to weather some bumps in the road while protecting rank and file. Truly disappointing.
Thanks for writing this piece, David. I, too, am deeply disappointed by Paul Weiss’s capitulation to Trump’s bullying of law firms that have represented those on the other side of him. Many people, deservedly or not, view lawyers—and the rule of law itself—as the last line of defense against authoritarianism. One of my friends, also a lawyer, told me he felt proud to be part of the profession when Perkins Coie stood its ground. That’s why it’s so disheartening to see a firm as powerful and respected as Paul Weiss so readily give in. Maybe I’m idealistic, but I still believe lawyers have a duty to stand firm in the face of political pressure—especially when the profession itself is under threat.
True, most of what PW agreed to are things it's already doing or abstract aspirational statements. As such I agree with your take on this. But as you note the optics are terrible, not just for PW but for BigLaw generally; and second, name shaming Mark Pomerantz is disgraceful. I don't pretend to know anything about his departure from PW but he served the Manhattan DA's prosecution team with distinction, and ultimately his view that Trump could be prosecuted and convicted turned out to be correct; but the real problem here is that Karp was willing to let Trump publicly target Pomerantz. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether Karp owes loyalty to a former (as opposed to his current partners). It's also true, as you point out, that Karp's job is to protect PW, not its former partners or the entire legal profession. But still, the optics are terrible and he might be able to justify cutting a deal with Trump, but he should not feel good about it, and neither should anyone else in our profession.
Pomerantz is not just a former partner, he was a client of the firm. PW represented Pomerantz in connection with Republican investigations into his work at the DA's office. If true, the alleged admission of "wrongdoing" is not only disgraceful, but likely unethical.
Well-put, thank you. And I accept your offer to disagree over whether Karp owes loyalty to former partners. If you assume, as you appear to, that he owes loyalty to current partners, consider that current partners are former partners to be. Current partners, and associates, should be worried that when they leave they could be treated as no more than cannon fodder if the firm is in a bind.
Mr. Lat
Thank you for the opportunity to comment! Since you are asking us to be civil, I can't really write what I would have told Mr. Trump if I were Mr. Karp. And I hope everyone who voted for this mentally and morally deranged sociopath is now realizing what that vote has unleashed.
Edward Dougherty
I'll embrace, for arguments sake, initially that this is really just a case of "Paul Weiss was doing this anyway". If Paul Weiss was doing this, it had/has an optics problem as many people do not believe so (including me, as it pertains to my former biglaw firm). If you have an optics problem, the best thing to do is to confirm your stances. If everyone at the table thinks you're cheating at poker, and asks you to agree to not cheat at poker going forward, and you resist -- you're only going to enflame the perception that you cheat at poker. This doesn't make anything better about your optics problem. You may be principled in resisting, and people who already think you don't cheat at poker will stand by you for not capitulating, but the optics problem remains.
Now, I don't think this is a case of "Paul Weiss was doing this anyway" (or, at least, most biglaw firms don't, Paul Weiss may be an exception). If my experience at my former biglaw firm was indicative, the SFFA ruling was reviled -- there was overwhelming internal support for discriminating on the basis of preferred immutable characteristics -- and practices I viewed as probably illegal continued. Further, if my group chats with former colleagues still in biglaw are indicative, there continues to be strong desires to discriminate on the basis of preferred immutable characteristics. I also observed veterans and other conservative-coded pro bono efforts decline (both because the number of conservative associates likely was declining, and because of institutional forces) in relation to explosions in growth for progressive-coded pro bono efforts. Additionally, there were vocal efforts internally (by associates) to drop certain clients for political (anti-conservative) reasons (and Paul Clement can speak to the effectiveness thereof at certain firms).
It strikes me that the rub here *truly* is that this is a concession to Trump. These items were not what Paul Weiss was doing (and/or attorneys at other biglaw firms know its not what their firms are doing). Lawyers at firms don't *want* their firms to comply with this list, and have internally lobbied to move their firms directly in the opposite directions. Because this is an affront to that, it is enraging on a substantive matter -- the lawyers substantively disagree with the concessions made. And because of that is precisely why I think that it *is* bad that Trump did this, and that Paul Weiss should not have agreed to the demands. The president shouldn't be throwing around baseless national-security concerns (put aside discrimination, which I think is happening constantly in biglaw -- largely at client demands -- which should be investigated and litigated appropriately) to force you to adopt a certain political stance. Even though I *want* Paul Weiss to have that political stance anyway! I want Paul Weiss and its attorneys to want it, because I think it is a good thing. But I am firmly opposed to enforced political beliefs through implicit threats of litigation/prosecution. It sets a horrible precedent and is bad for the legal community.
I appreciate your principled and nuanced analysis.
Well said. One further point: at least according to Trump, Paul Weiss agreed that it would not "adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies" including with respect to retention. That concession will have sweeping consequences, especially since we know this administration has taken increasingly aggressive views of what constitutes impermissible attempts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.
What could this mean for retention, as a practical matter? Most biglaw firms not only permit affinity groups (in part as a means of recruitment and retention), but support them financially, through firm sponsored events. Will Paul Weiss withdraw all financial support? Disband those groups? Prohibit attorneys from being members of specific bar associations (New York, for example, has a Women's Bar Association). Given what happened at West Point, we should assume the administration is laser focused on these sorts of activities, and will not hesitate to demand the most expansive interpretation of this concession.
This is bad for many reasons, but purely as a business matter, the level of control and intrusion in the firm's affairs that Paul Weiss has given away is alarming and frankly breathtaking (and that's without getting into the "audit" of its hiring practices!).
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. If I understand you right, you're saying that Paul Weiss's attorneys (and biglaw attorneys in general) as well as Paul Weiss's clients (and biglaw clients in general) want racial preferences and politically tilted support of causes., and should resist demands to stop them (or pretend to stop them). Further, it's an abuse by Trump to make these demands on spurious national security grounds.
On the last point, I agree completely, the government shouldn't claim a basis (national security in this case) to abuse powers in pursuit of some other objective. Sadly, I believe that governments at all levels do this routinely, because people in government will use whatever means are available to them to achieve whatever objectives they favor. To cite just one example, the federal government has used Patriot-Act powers, enacted to combat terrorism, more to attack drug dealers and organizations than to attack terrorists. There are probably some government officials that don't do such things, but there are so many who do that it's not unusual. It's still wrong, of course, and should be called out whenever it's visible. As in these actions by Trump.
On the first point, it looks like there are two distinct constituencies involved: associates and clients. As far as associates are concerned, the senior partners should tell them, in effect, that management is in charge and sets policy for the firm. If associates don't like this policy, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. Furthermore, it is the obligation of lawyers to represent clients and their interests, even if the attorneys find the clients or their causes distasteful. Such situations are a part of practicing law, and lawyers should get used to it. It's even in lawyers' professional interest to become familiar with viewpoints and causes they don't like, if for no other reason than to be able to fight them in the future.
This might make it harder for Paul Weiss or other firms to attract the very top graduates of the very top law schools, but so what? Are there really no similarly talented lawyers from other schools that Paul Weiss could hire?
As far as clients, I expect that most of biglaw's business is from corporate accounts representing issues like patent claims, regulatory compliance, or similar generally non-ideological causes. I expect that many corporate clients want some sort of attention to DEI, in order to satisfy their own internal constituencies as well as various governments. But given the change in the legal environment which seems to be underway, I doubt they'd lose much of their business if they became less politically aligned.
Which brings me to what I think is the crux of the DEI issue: the practitioners of DEI have for years done things that plainly violate the clear wording of the Civil Rights Act, while hiding their actions behind a smokescreen of "oh, we're just bending over backwards to be fair to people who may not have had a fair shot in the past." It's becoming clearer to the population that DEI actions are noxious, and the practitioners are deceptive, which is behind the backlash we've seen. The practitioners of DEI have shown that they cannot be trusted to tell the truth, which is bad for higher education, professional organizations, large corporations, and governmental bodies.
I realize that, in effect, I'm advocating for a change in the law. Federal, state, and local governments have for years enforced various quotas in hiring and promotion, which in many cases can only be achieved by blatant discrimination. Organizations have altered their practices to comply with requirements. It may be necessary now to alter their practices again to comply with the law as written. But that would be in everyone's best interest.
Lastly, I think lawyers especially suffer reputational harm by using subterfuge to violate the law. I'm not a lawyer, but I expect lawyers are often in the position of advising clients who want to violate the law how they can do as much of what they want while staying within the law. I'm sure they're often in such a position with respect to their own desires. They could (probably) enact some policies to pursue their social or political agenda while staying within the law. They shouldn't try to violate the law and hide it by subterfuge.
In very broad strokes, yes you do understand my reasoning. I just left a lot that could have been stated unsaid.
The framework of "Associates should X, given their position", "Paul Weiss partners/management should Y, because of their position" or "lawyers in general should Z, given their position" are concepts detached from how the industry actually works -- and in my opinion (and it seems yours) how the industry actually works has its faults.
One point I'll disagree with you on is i don't think you're actually advocating for a change in law. You're advocating for a change in practice. I think the law is quite clear that many practices are illegal -- however the people with prosecution power have declined to prosecute. And lawyers who should know better (cough cough Eric Holder, I'm looking at you), have advised clients extremely poorly due to political partisan ends. I just think many attorneys have convinced themselves that because they want something for the "right" reasons, well then it can't actually be illegal, can it? And actually enforcing the law could therefore only be done for the "wrong" reasons. But that's not true -- and I personally insist on using language ("discriminate on the basis of preferred immutable characteristics") that I hope wakes people up to what the policies they're advocating for actually are.
Thanks for the reply. When I said "change in the law," I wasn't referring specifically to the Civil Rights Act, but to how it's been implemented, based on governmental rules and regulations. For one specific example, the Department of Labor provides employers with reference data on the appropriate demographics for many (most/all?) occupations in specific geographical areas, telling employers how many Black women, white men, Hispanics, etc. they should have in each employment category. I recall a Nixon-administration official saying on 60 Minutes something to the effect of "If you don't like quotas, I'm fine with calling them goals, timetables, or whatever else you like. But these are the requirements." So, the law has been interpreted for over 50 years to require things that the text of the law actually forbids. This is not just a case of declining to prosecute, but issuing actual rules that plainly conflict with the law as written.
As far as the way the industry actually works, I realize that things often go in counterintuitive directions, in any industry. For another example, higher education seems to be in the thrall of an extreme vision of social justice - majorities of administrators, faculty, and students seem intent not merely on espousing an ideological position, but excluding other ideas from discussion, punishing anyone who even questions the premises, and acting in accordance with that ideology even if it violates the law, all while claiming to be defending academic freedom and the pursuit of truth.
What do you think would happen if the management of a biglaw firm announced a commitment to genuinely ideological neutrality? Or would it be impossible for lawyers with that sort of outlook to rise to the top ranks of the firm?
>What do you think would happen if the management of a biglaw firm announced a commitment to genuinely ideological neutrality? Or would it be impossible for lawyers with that sort of outlook to rise to the top ranks of the firm?
I mean, exactly what we have seen here. The legal community loses its mind on "fascistic dogwhistles". I've seen my group-chats explode over Paul Weiss's statements about reaffirming their "commitment to viewpoint diversity". Grown adults, years out of law school, earnestly throwing around phrases like "the end of democracy" and "coup" with respect to Paul Weiss's actions. I cannot impress upon people enough just how hyper-partisan the associates at biglaw firms are in 2025. I think everyone of the prior era underestimates just how animated Trump 1.0 made law school applicants in 2017, and how the racial reckoning in 2020 turned things into overdrive for young idealistic progressive lawyers and law students.
What is the fallout for Paul Weiss here? I mean, it wouldn't surprise me to see certain clients who have already asserted their partisan views on their outside counsel (cough cough Meta in 2017 -- and no amount of Zuck about-face in 2025 is going to change the existing in-house lawyer cohort views) hold business back in an effort to make a political point. Additionally the politically active associates (probably 10-20% of any biglaw firm's associate class) will cause endless headaches internally around the decision. You'll see some amount of top law students refuse to go to Paul Weiss -- which will annoy partners.
Biglaw has just become captured by partisan excess. Rainmaker partners operate so far above the masses that the bottom line is not directly impacted by the internal turmoil of politically active associates fighting with HR to enact (partisan, often times openly discriminatory) policies they want.
Nothing is predictable from the outside. You have to have been in biglaw recently to understand the existing frameworks. And they're an absolute mess, as ideological and viewpoint diversity has plummeted into the toilet.
How far we've fallen. We've completed the transition from a profession of principles to a profession of profits.
The lack of condemnation from the top 20 Amlaw firms against these blatantly unconstitutional executive orders is telling.
If biglaw won't fight against a direct attack on itself, who else will stand up to Trump and to the continuing dismantling of constitutional norms?
Pretty sure that transition happened more than a hundred years ago.
"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 ...."
This is the most outrageous part of the whole deal, Mr. Lat.
Unless Karp is on TV this afternoon denying this assertion, his firm has joined Trump in publicly indicting Pomerantz for wrongthink, a crime against our Dear Leader Trump. It's not even clear whether Pomerantz' "wrongdoing" occurred while he was a partner, much less that his fellow partners joined in or even knew of the "wrongdoing."
It's a cowardly capitulation. Clients seeking lawyers who will cowardly capitulate now know exactly where to take their business.
[Edited to correct switched-name misnomer — WJD]
I totally understand Paul, Weiss's reasoning and strategy. But I can't help condemning the capitulation anyway. So I say, shame on Paul, Weiss -- it's a "shanda". There is a principle involved i.e. stand up for what you believe. More power to Perkins Coie who deserves my respect for deciding to fight not cave.
Remember, everything Trump touches dies. By giving in to Trump, Paul Weiss has opened the door to more Trump demands on the firm. Now that Trump knows Paul Weiss is an easy target, what is to keep Trump from declaring that to prevent the entry of another executive order, Paul Weiss must defend the federal government on a pro bono basis in the litigation filed to stop the dismantling of the Department of Education, for example? We all know that Trump's vengeance has no limits.
Paul Weiss threw former longtime partner Mark Pomerantz under the bus in this “deal.” His crime
: attempting to prosecute Trump during a stint with the Manhattan DA’s office. Isn’t that worth mentioning? Disgraceful for the firm to acknowledge “wrongdoing” by him as part of this agreement.
I was also surprised that it wasn’t included in this summary!
I agree on the collective action problem, the optics, and most of the list. But I think the last one really is a problem, even though I agree that work is salutary. It is agreeing to do it at the government's direction that is the problem.
"He fights" gets a little too much credence when it comes to picking a lawyer. Lawyers can hurt their clients just as much by fighting too much as by fighting too little. But when your company is on the line, you want a law firm with steel in its spine. Williams & Connolly has it. Paul Weiss doesn't. Simple as that.
I agree; easy to take a "long-term" principled position as a law professor or journalist. But without taking any position on the substantive merits here, you left out the most important group that any law firm should be protecting -- its clients. You know my background; I come from a firm that has proven it puts client interests above all other issues, including short-term profits, and I believe that is the most important interest a law firm can serve. Of course, it has to do its business stuff well too, because it needs to attract and retain the quality of lawyers that can attract and will effectively serve clients, but in the end, a lawyer exists to serve clients. The partners, associates and staff all benefit in the long run from a clear commitment to client service, and indeed their long-term interests are irrevocably tied to that commitment.
These orders are obviously illegal - and just a really bad idea. But that said, I agree with this. Karp essentially runs a very large business. His job is to protect the interest of the firm's clients, it's partnership, associates and staff. He's not an activist nor is a a politician. In business sometimes things don't go your way and you don't have the bargaining power you want. The agreement is mostly anodyne, and everyone will forget about this in about 3 minutes.
My grandparents were able to come to the USA in 1938 from Vienna, Austria as refugees only because Louis Weiss signed an affidavit on their behalf, to wit that he would ensure that he would support them so they did not become dependent upon government assistance. Forty years later, I became a lawyer.
Capitulating to a bully and criminal? Louis Weiss is turning over in his grave.
Irwin E. Weiss.
When I think of Paul Weiss, I think of Pauli Murray and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom worked at the firm in the 1950s, at a time when very few -- if any -- other firms would have given them such an opportunity.
Negotiating with Trump is like negotiating with the Devil: you give up your soul in exchange for a few promises that are immediately forgotten. Watch the defections from Paul Weiss by lawyers who actually believe in the rule of law.
One can only hope, but the reality is that the market is flooded right now with hopeful lateral hires, so it goes back to the individual analysis -- take a stand for what's right or pay the mortgage or child care or etc... It's hard to stand for what's right when those golden handcuffs want you to just stay in line and continue the lifestyle that's been built.
Understood and concur. Been there, done that in my early career. Had to choose between feeding the kids and looking the other way. It takes more courage than I had to move outside your comfort zone!
It's not lateral associates/counsel I suspect PW should be worried about; it's the middle-book partners who weren't large enough to be consulted on the decisionmaking but whose clients are big enough to make their displeasure with this kowtowing known.
Especially in light of this agreement, I recommend checking out this interview John Quinn recently did with Brad Karp https://law-disrupted.fm/brad-karp-reinvention-of-paul-weiss/ . Karp talked a lot about other firms and the importance of standing up for values.
The bending of the knee by Paul Weiss will only encourage Trump to increase political pressure on other firms, and subdue potential future attempts to uphold justice and protect our constitution. It's a fundamental betrayal of our justice system. And our country. Putting dollars clearly ahead of ethics and integrity speaks volumes. Let's not pretend that this is about protecting the financial futures of associates and staff. The top partners could afford to weather some bumps in the road while protecting rank and file. Truly disappointing.
Thanks for writing this piece, David. I, too, am deeply disappointed by Paul Weiss’s capitulation to Trump’s bullying of law firms that have represented those on the other side of him. Many people, deservedly or not, view lawyers—and the rule of law itself—as the last line of defense against authoritarianism. One of my friends, also a lawyer, told me he felt proud to be part of the profession when Perkins Coie stood its ground. That’s why it’s so disheartening to see a firm as powerful and respected as Paul Weiss so readily give in. Maybe I’m idealistic, but I still believe lawyers have a duty to stand firm in the face of political pressure—especially when the profession itself is under threat.
True, most of what PW agreed to are things it's already doing or abstract aspirational statements. As such I agree with your take on this. But as you note the optics are terrible, not just for PW but for BigLaw generally; and second, name shaming Mark Pomerantz is disgraceful. I don't pretend to know anything about his departure from PW but he served the Manhattan DA's prosecution team with distinction, and ultimately his view that Trump could be prosecuted and convicted turned out to be correct; but the real problem here is that Karp was willing to let Trump publicly target Pomerantz. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether Karp owes loyalty to a former (as opposed to his current partners). It's also true, as you point out, that Karp's job is to protect PW, not its former partners or the entire legal profession. But still, the optics are terrible and he might be able to justify cutting a deal with Trump, but he should not feel good about it, and neither should anyone else in our profession.
Pomerantz is not just a former partner, he was a client of the firm. PW represented Pomerantz in connection with Republican investigations into his work at the DA's office. If true, the alleged admission of "wrongdoing" is not only disgraceful, but likely unethical.
Well-put, thank you. And I accept your offer to disagree over whether Karp owes loyalty to former partners. If you assume, as you appear to, that he owes loyalty to current partners, consider that current partners are former partners to be. Current partners, and associates, should be worried that when they leave they could be treated as no more than cannon fodder if the firm is in a bind.
Inconceivable to me that anyone will hire Paul Weiss in the near future.