This blog has been updated to reflect recent developments
The Trump administration has so far targeted three law firms that took legal action against President Donald Trump or represented his political opponents. The most recent executive order came days after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction for a similar order against Perkins Coie. The EO against Paul Weiss removed security clearances, threatened to remove its contracts with the federal government, and limited access to federal government buildings.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, is the 1,200-attorney law firm noted for representing Wall Street clients. Attorneys at Paul Weiss also took on, pro bono, cases against those who stormed the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021.
This representation was cited in the March 14 executive order, including removing former employee Mark Pomerantz's security detail. After retiring from his work in the litigation department of Paul Weiss, Pomerantz worked as a prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney's office, which was considering bringing criminal charges against Trump. Pomerantz later wrote a book about Trump.
The first executive order was against Covington & Burling, which represented Special Counsel Jack Smith. That EO removed the firm's security detail.
A Warning to Big Law That's Being Heeded
A Paul Weiss spokeswoman had a muted response after the EO was announced, telling the Wall Street Journal that the executive order was focused on Pomerantz, not Paul Weiss itself. The firm, which was quick to represent separated migrant families during the first Trump administration, has undertaken no similar efforts against the Trump administration during Trump's second term.
A similar cautious approach seems to be the norm for Big Law, with firms quiet about the recent executive orders.
Perkins Coie is the exception, having filed a lawsuit against the EO targeting them. Perkins Coie alleged that the EO against them violates:
- The separation of powers
- Procedural and substantive due process
- Equal protection
- The First Amendment
- The Fifth Amendment
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howe agreed, issuing a partial temporary restraining order allowing Perkins Coie employees to enter federal buildings and government contracts.
Paul Weiss Apologizes, Pledges $40 Million in Legal Services
On March 20, days after the EO was issued, Paul Weiss capitulated, apologizing for Pomerantz (who has long since retired from the firm), agreeing to end all DEI policies at the firm, and committing to providing $40 million worth of legal services to "mutually agreed projects" that were not disclosed.
It was a controversial decision considering the EO may very well have been unenforceable. In the immediate aftermath of the announcement, some lawyers expressed outrage. However, there were also real financial concerns for Paul Weiss, and some have praised it as a practical solution. Some clients may view it favorably as an efficient way of avoiding negative impacts.
Even if Perkins Coie wins its lawsuit, for example, it could suffer significant financial harm, as some clients may proactively leave the firm regardless of the executive order's constitutionality. Whatever you think of your lawyer, the corporate clients Paul Weiss routinely represents are likely to view representation by someone clearly targeted by the U.S. government as unnecessarily risky. Paul Weiss apparently lost at least one high-profile client in those few days, according to USA Today.
Is this a difficult decision that other law firms will have to make?
Related Resources
- First Circuit Denies Stay on Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- While Blocking Order Against Perkins Coie, Judge Likens Trump to the Queen of Hearts (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- Concern From Many Judges as Rhetoric Escalates and Threats Keep Increasing (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
