Surely Brad Karp's speedy capitulation could or did cause many associates and possibly partners to leave in disgust, as well as give pause to many concerned existing and potential clients. Seems to me a decision that cowardly could have collateral damage in either direction, so why not take the principled stand? Assuming you can't work it out based on your principles.
To be clear about my personal views, I've been very critical of both the executive orders and the Biglaw deals with Trump—in story after story, in media interviews, and in talks I've been giving (such as one I gave yesterday at NYU Law).
And I have highlighted and praised the lawyers and law firms who are fighting the EOs, whether in courts of law or the court of public opinion—e.g., Perkins Coie, Jenner, Wilmer, Susman Godfrey, Williams & Connolly, Cooley, Clement & Murphy, Munger Tolles, Dane Butswinkas, Mike Attanasio, Paul Clement, Don Verrilli, Neel Chatterjee, Rachel Cohen, and all the other lawyers who, like Rachel, have left their firms in protest over the orders.
This column has a different purpose. It's explanatory and descriptive. Why are some law firms and their leaders—who you might accuse of being cowardly or greedy, but who aren't stupid—entering into these deals?
The argument of this column is that the EOs reflect a certain "evil genius." They seem perfectly designed to exploit the vulnerabilities of Biglaw today, marked by (1) an obsessive focus on maximizing profitability and (2) very high levels of lateral partner movement.
This column is NOT prescriptive or normative. I have made my normative views, on both the EOs and the deals, very clear. To quote some of my past writings:
- "The [Perkins Coie] Order is atrocious and appalling, it sets a terrible precedent, and it deserves strong condemnation from anyone who cares about the rule of law."
- "[B]y 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."
- "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?"
I completely understand and appreciate that. I just wanted to point out something that seemed to me subsidiary to but not completely irrelevant to you piece.
Your point is definitely an important one! I've been reporting on the lawyer departures that these settlements are causing.
I just wanted to clarify my views (because I've also received emails from readers who have viewed this column as a "defense" of the deals—which was not how I intended it).
Biglaw free-agency should also increase the compensation for those partners and associates that do not move laterally because of the potential for such moves and the lack of stigma associated with lateral moves.
Surely Brad Karp's speedy capitulation could or did cause many associates and possibly partners to leave in disgust, as well as give pause to many concerned existing and potential clients. Seems to me a decision that cowardly could have collateral damage in either direction, so why not take the principled stand? Assuming you can't work it out based on your principles.
To be clear about my personal views, I've been very critical of both the executive orders and the Biglaw deals with Trump—in story after story, in media interviews, and in talks I've been giving (such as one I gave yesterday at NYU Law).
And I have highlighted and praised the lawyers and law firms who are fighting the EOs, whether in courts of law or the court of public opinion—e.g., Perkins Coie, Jenner, Wilmer, Susman Godfrey, Williams & Connolly, Cooley, Clement & Murphy, Munger Tolles, Dane Butswinkas, Mike Attanasio, Paul Clement, Don Verrilli, Neel Chatterjee, Rachel Cohen, and all the other lawyers who, like Rachel, have left their firms in protest over the orders.
This column has a different purpose. It's explanatory and descriptive. Why are some law firms and their leaders—who you might accuse of being cowardly or greedy, but who aren't stupid—entering into these deals?
The argument of this column is that the EOs reflect a certain "evil genius." They seem perfectly designed to exploit the vulnerabilities of Biglaw today, marked by (1) an obsessive focus on maximizing profitability and (2) very high levels of lateral partner movement.
This column is NOT prescriptive or normative. I have made my normative views, on both the EOs and the deals, very clear. To quote some of my past writings:
- "The [Perkins Coie] Order is atrocious and appalling, it sets a terrible precedent, and it deserves strong condemnation from anyone who cares about the rule of law."
- "[B]y 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."
- "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?"
I completely understand and appreciate that. I just wanted to point out something that seemed to me subsidiary to but not completely irrelevant to you piece.
Your point is definitely an important one! I've been reporting on the lawyer departures that these settlements are causing.
I just wanted to clarify my views (because I've also received emails from readers who have viewed this column as a "defense" of the deals—which was not how I intended it).
Biglaw free-agency should also increase the compensation for those partners and associates that do not move laterally because of the potential for such moves and the lack of stigma associated with lateral moves.