Latest news with #PerkinsCoie
New York Times
16-06-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Trump's Strategy in Law Firm Cases: Lose, Don't Appeal, Yet Prevail
The Trump administration is ordinarily quick to appeal its losses. When courts in recent weeks blocked President Trump's tariff plans and his takeover of National Guard troops in California, government lawyers filed appeals within hours. The administration has also filed 19 emergency applications with the Supreme Court since the president took office. But administration lawyers have done nothing to challenge a series of stinging rulings rejecting Mr. Trump's efforts to punish prominent law firms for what he called 'conduct detrimental to critical American interests' by representing clients and causes not to his liking. The administration's unconventional litigation strategy is telling, said W. Bradley Wendel, a law professor at Cornell who is an authority on legal ethics. 'They knew that these were losing positions from the beginning and were not actually hoping to win in court, but rather to intimidate firms into settling, as many firms did,' he said. 'Now that they have racked up the four losses in district courts, it is not surprising that they are not appealing, because I don't think they ever thought these were serious positions.' Three rulings permanently blocked Mr. Trump's executive orders in cases brought by law firms that chose to fight: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. A judge has temporarily blocked a fourth executive order, against Susman Godfrey, and will almost certainly strike it down. But many more firms chose to capitulate to Mr. Trump's demands in the face of threats to lift security clearances, cancel contracts and bar entry to government buildings. Among the firms that promised to provide a cumulative total of many hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono representation to causes favored by the administration were Paul Weiss, Skadden and Latham & Watkins. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Fast Company
13-06-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
Law firms have a new way to attract clients and talent: Stand up to Trump
Branded is a weekly column devoted to the intersection of marketing, business, design, and culture. Elite law firms like Paul Weiss and Jenner & Block may not advertise in traditional ways, or for a mainstream audience. But they and a handful of other prominent white-shoe firms are in the middle of an unprecedented brand test right now. At issue is how best to respond to pressure from the Trump administration and how that response affects their reputation. That has turned into a branding moment for these firms—whether they like it or not. The full verdict isn't in yet. But those who have chosen to fight executive orders designed to punish firms that President Trump apparently dislikes seem to be faring better, scoring early legal victories and burnishing an image of bravely standing up for principle. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that those who have cut deals with the administration (promising a collective $940 million in pro bono work) are, reputationally and perhaps substantively, faring worse: losing partners, angering some clients, and even being labeled ' The Yellow-Bellied Nine ' by critical peers. The test began back in March, when Trump signed a series of executive orders restricting security clearances for lawyers and employees of various firms that had represented his perceived enemies or political opponents—a move that would severely cut into their business. The prominent firm Perkins Coie, which among other things had represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, responded by suing the administration. The order was swiftly blocked by a judge who called it ' chilling.' Other targeted firms, including Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, have won similar blocks. Paul Weiss, one of the most storied and powerful law firms in the world, was among the first to take a different path: In exchange for the administration agreeing to lift an executive order targeting the firm, it agreed to perform $40 million in unpaid legal work for mutually agreed-upon causes and matters. The deal startled (and was immediately criticized by) many legal observers. (In a firm-wide memo, its executive chairman defended the settlement: 'The resolution we reached with the Administration will have no effect on our work and our shared culture and values.') Lately, Paul Weiss has made headlines for losing several high-profile attorneys, including the cochair of its litigation group, who left with three other partners to form their own firm, and a former U.S. attorney who went to Jenner & Block, which has sued the administration. Eight more major firms—including Skadden, Kirkland & Ellis, Simpson Thacher, and Latham & Watkins—cut similar deals. Many others have remained above the fray, declining, for example, to join an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie or others fighting the administration in court. Law firms are often paid to help mitigate risk, but in this case some may have underestimated the risk of brand damage. In the latest sign of tangible reputational fallout, The Wall Street Journal recently reported that 'at least 11' major companies, including Oracle and Morgan Stanley, are withdrawing business from firms that cut deals to get executive orders lifted or that are otherwise supporting the government in what some view as an effort to warp the legal system. As one client cited by The Journal put it: We prefer to work with law firms willing to fight. More broadly, the divergent response to the executive orders continues to draw scrutiny and controversy within the profession, with the potential to affect both recruiting and retention. Above the Law, a snarky but serious online publication popular with younger lawyers, coined the 'Yellow-Bellied Nine' moniker, and has introduced a ' Spine Index ' that rates major firms' responses to the executive orders (and notes, in addition, those that have scrapped DEI efforts). A survey of its readers found that a vast majority supported firms fighting the orders, and felt that 'law firms who make agreements with the administration are giving in to extortion, which sends a bad message to the entire profession.' Still, while the firms fighting back have been winning new clients and winning in the courts (so far), it's hard to gauge how that will ultimately affect their business: Clients who would rather steer clear of potential trouble with Trump aren't likely to be very public about distancing themselves from the conflict. Meanwhile, as Above the Law has noted, neither the administration nor the firms that agreed to deals involving pro bono promises have offered up much detail or any sense of timing about those commitments. For Trump, that may be a matter of biding time; for the firms, it may be in hopes that the matter will fade from the court of public opinion.
Forbes
12-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Henry VIII, Sir Thomas More, And The Rule Of Law
The Rule Of Law Remains A Trending Topic In 2025 America. The flurry of executive orders issued by President Trump continues to impact many facets of American life, including the federal government, higher education, transportation, and the environment. Perhaps the most telling objectives of the Trump administration's sweeping directives have been orders issued to a number of major law firms in the United States. Business people, paperwork and planning in office meeting, collaboration and teamwork for proposal. ... More Employees, talking and documents for finance review, support and briefing in boardroom for project To date, the Trump administration has had notable tensions with such firms as Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, Jones Day, Sidley & Austin, and Kirkland & Ellis. While the details of the orders issued to these firms have nuanced variances, they share the generalized requirement that the firms refrain from certain litigation and provide pro bono services to the administration. Failure to observe these mandates would result in sanctions that would severely impact these firms' practice of law and business viability. To avert sanctions, a number of firms, including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and Cadwalader, have reached settlements with the administration. Other law firms, such as Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, have challenged the administration's orders and petitioned federal courts to bar enforcement of these orders that, in their view, are retaliatory in nature and abridge their right to free speech and engage freely in the practice of law. Law firms that have challenged the Trump administration's orders have garnered a significant degree of success. Last month, a federal judge blocked the administration's order targeting WilmerHale, stating that the order's punitive measures such as revoking security clearances and building access, violated constitutional protections and undermined the independence of the judiciary and legal profession. Similar rulings issued earlier offered similar protections to other law firms such as Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie. The Trump administration's exercise of executive power to limit powerful law firms from opposing certain governmental actions has far-reaching implications for a modern democracy. The legal profession has historically been tasked to check the government through a challenge of its exercise of power. Threats to the legal profession stymie this checking mechanism and commensurately, potentially erodes the salience of the rule of law, which has been a foundational staple of American democracy. There has always been periodic tension between the legal profession and the government's agendas. The profession's pursuit of justice in the face of governmental opposition constitutes an age-old phenomenon of historic proportions. Over 500 years ago, the dramatic confrontation between King Henry VIII England and his Lord Chancellor, Thomas More, has remained an iconic illustration of the tension between governmental authority and the legal profession. Henry VIII's clash with More also demonstrates the perennial dilemma lawyers face as they pursue justice under the law. In summary, King Henry VIII, desperate to sire a son, sought to divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, and marry Anne Boleyn. To accomplish this objective, he issued two proclamations - one that declared him head of the Church of England and the other establishing that any issue from his union with Anne Boleyn would succeed him on the throne. Henry VIII sought his Lord Thomas More's endorsement of these proclamations. More, who strongly believed in the rule of law and a lawyer's duty to strive for universal justice, would not endorse the King's proclamations. He found both to be violative of moral and positive law. Despite pressure from Henry VIII, and pleas from his family to capitulate, More remained steadfast. While he never spoke against the King's proclamations, he adamantly refused endorsement. That refusal cost him dearly, resulting in his execution by decapitation. The dramatic confrontation between Henry VIII and Thomas More, which illustrated the tension between a lawyer's duty to uphold the rule of law while satisfying the objectives of a client, has contemporary relevance. Today, law firms that have been subjected to the demands of the executive branch are now experiencing their dilemmas of conscience. Achievement of the balance between adherence to legal rules and appeasement of authority can be precarious. Most lawyers attempt to maintain a lucrative practice while adhering to their duty to uphold the rule of law. Layered within this struggle lies society's need for judicial impartiality, justice, and sustenance of a democracy, which are all dependent upon adherence to the rule of law. Also at stake in the balancing of rule adherence and professional appeasement is the public's perception of the judicial system and the legal profession in general. Lawyers have had a longstanding duty to uphold the rule of law and foster societal confidence in the profession. This ethical duty ensures public faith in the legal system and, in turn, sustains a functional democracy. Without public confidence in these fundamental principles, democracy will, at best, wither. Fulfillment of a lawyer's ethical obligations requires firm commitment and, at times, bravery. As Sir Thomas More's narrative demonstrates, adherence to the principles of justice can be perilous. That said, abandonment of this important duty leads, at best, to cognitive dissonance for lawyers and, at worst, a crippled democracy. Lessons from Henry VIII and Thomas More's narrative have instructive value for those on either side of the political divide. For those seeking greater support for the executive branch, the conflict between the King and More tacitly suggests the value of engagement and negotiation rather than governance by fiat. Consensus through negotiation constitutes a tactic that heightens governmental efficiency and minimizes costly litigation. It also optimizes the possibility of achieving mutually acceptable settlements that might garner more universal acceptance. 'A Man For All Seasons,' which is a famous play written by Robert Bolt, captures the essence of Thomas More's dilemma of conscience. One scene from the play focuses on a conversation between More and his daughter, Elizabeth Roper, who argued valiantly for More to save his life by capitulating to Henry VIII. Emphasizing that moral integrity required steadfast adherence to the rule of law, More tells Elizabeth that, 'If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us good, and greed would make us saintly … but since in fact we see that avarice, anger, envy, pride, sloth, lust and stupidity, commonly profit far beyond humility, chastity, fortitude, justice, and thought, … why then perhaps we must stand fast a little — even at the risk of being heroes.' Legal practitioners today will hopefully be inspired by More's example. By holding fast, lawyers would not only preserve the rule of law, but also ensure democracy's survival.
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's attacks on the rule of law threaten all Americans
Since returning to the White House, President Trump has repeatedly and persistently misused his executive authority to attack and intimidate anyone who would dare to check him. In his first few months, he has gone after the free press, encroached on the independence of Congress and the courts, stifled institutions of higher learning, fired inspectors general and others inside the federal government who could hold him accountable, and even targeted law firms that represent clients he dislikes. These abuses of power trample the values of our democracy and violate the rights of everyday Americans. When a president threatens law firms for retribution, it's an attack on the constitutional rights of all Americans to access legal counsel, voice dissent and make clear what we expect from our leaders. As attorney general of Minnesota, I know lawyers are not just spectators to the Constitution — we are its agents. We defend laws that protect people from harm. We hold bad actors accountable. We take a solemn oath to respect the courts. And when the executive branch oversteps the bounds of its authority, state attorneys general check the federal government to protect our residents' rights. Above all, we stand for the rule of law. But attacks on the rule of law have become a hallmark of the new administration. President Trump has disparaged federal judges as 'lunatics' and called for their impeachment, earning the reprimand of Chief Justice John Roberts. He has ignored court orders after illegally deporting a lawful U.S. resident without due process, treading close to charges of contempt. He has signed executive orders to punish some of the largest law firms in the country because they dared to go against him in court or take on clients he viewed as political enemies. When 'Meet the Press' recently asked the president if his job is to uphold the Constitution, he said, 'I don't know.' But that is absolutely his job: The president took an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,' and we all watched him do it. To disregard this duty is unacceptable and alarming. These escalating attacks on courts, judges, lawyers and the rule of law are a blatant attempt to avoid accountability and to intimidate the people whose job it is to uphold the Constitution. Fortunately, our legal system is showing its resilience in the face of these attacks. A federal judge made it abundantly clear last week that the president's retaliation campaign against law firms is unconstitutional. In a powerful 102-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell called the president's executive order against Perkins Coie — a law firm that has represented Trump's opponents — an 'unprecedented attack' on our foundational principles. She issued a warning that we should all take heed of: 'Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.' The ruling is a heartening decision for the rule of law. But we must stay vigilant: Trump has a boundless appetite for retaliation against anyone who sides with the truth over his lies. In addition to his attacks on Perkins Coie and other firms, last month, the president called on the Department of Justice to investigate and sanction officials from his prior administration because they had the audacity to defy him. In one executive order, Trump called Christopher Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, 'abusive' because he said the 2020 election was secure and accurate. We have seen what happens when the president's allies side with Trump instead of the truth and the rule of law. Even when Trump manages to escape accountability, those around him often do not. The failed campaign to overturn the accurate results of the 2020 election led to the punishment of several unethical attorneys behind it, such as John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis. They were held accountable by state and federal justice departments, as well as several state bar authorities, for failing to uphold their oaths as attorneys committed to the rule of law. In this challenging time, when Americans' right to choose their counsel and defend their constitutional rights is under attack, lawyers who serve the public have a critical role to play. But those who want to honor their oaths to the American public are in a difficult position — we've already seen government lawyers who stand up to the administration dismissed from their positions. We should all be ready to support them for honoring their values, and for sharing the truth of the administration's willingness to abandon the rule of law. And they should know that attorneys general across the states are standing with them, working to ensure the law applies equally to everyone. As attorneys and public servants, our loyalty must be to faithfully execute and defend the law, not bow to the bully in the White House. Keith Ellison is attorney general of Minnesota. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
05-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump's attacks on the rule of law threaten all Americans
Since returning to the White House, President Trump has repeatedly and persistently misused his executive authority to attack and intimidate anyone who would dare to check him. In his first few months, he has gone after the free press, encroached on the independence of Congress and the courts, stifled institutions of higher learning, fired inspectors general and others inside the federal government who could hold him accountable, and even targeted law firms that represent clients he dislikes. These abuses of power trample the values of our democracy and violate the rights of everyday Americans. When a president threatens law firms for retribution, it's an attack on the constitutional rights of all Americans to access legal counsel, voice dissent and make clear what we expect from our leaders. As attorney general of Minnesota, I know lawyers are not just spectators to the Constitution — we are its agents. We defend laws that protect people from harm. We hold bad actors accountable. We take a solemn oath to respect the courts. And when the executive branch oversteps the bounds of its authority, state attorneys general check the federal government to protect our residents' rights. Above all, we stand for the rule of law. But attacks on the rule of law have become a hallmark of the new administration. President Trump has disparaged federal judges as 'lunatics' and called for their impeachment, earning the reprimand of Chief Justice John Roberts. He has ignored court orders after illegally deporting a lawful U.S. resident without due process, treading close to charges of contempt. He has signed executive orders to punish some of the largest law firms in the country because they dared to go against him in court or take on clients he viewed as political enemies. When 'Meet the Press' recently asked the president if his job is to uphold the Constitution, he said, 'I don't know.' But that is absolutely his job: The president took an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,' and we all watched him do it. To disregard this duty is unacceptable and alarming. These escalating attacks on courts, judges, lawyers and the rule of law are a blatant attempt to avoid accountability and to intimidate the people whose job it is to uphold the Constitution. Fortunately, our legal system is showing its resilience in the face of these attacks. A federal judge made it abundantly clear last week that the president's retaliation campaign against law firms is unconstitutional. In a powerful 102-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell called the president's executive order against Perkins Coie — a law firm that has represented Trump's opponents — an 'unprecedented attack' on our foundational principles. She issued a warning that we should all take heed of: 'Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.' The ruling is a heartening decision for the rule of law. But we must stay vigilant: Trump has a boundless appetite for retaliation against anyone who sides with the truth over his lies. In addition to his attacks on Perkins Coie and other firms, last month, the president called on the Department of Justice to investigate and sanction officials from his prior administration because they had the audacity to defy him. In one executive order, Trump called Christopher Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, 'abusive' because he said the 2020 election was secure and accurate. We have seen what happens when the president's allies side with Trump instead of the truth and the rule of law. Even when Trump manages to escape accountability, those around him often do not. The failed campaign to overturn the accurate results of the 2020 election led to the punishment of several unethical attorneys behind it, such as John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis. They were held accountable by state and federal justice departments, as well as several state bar authorities, for failing to uphold their oaths as attorneys committed to the rule of law. In this challenging time, when Americans' right to choose their counsel and defend their constitutional rights is under attack, lawyers who serve the public have a critical role to play. But those who want to honor their oaths to the American public are in a difficult position — we've already seen government lawyers who stand up to the administration dismissed from their positions. We should all be ready to support them for honoring their values, and for sharing the truth of the administration's willingness to abandon the rule of law. And they should know that attorneys general across the states are standing with them, working to ensure the law applies equally to everyone. As attorneys and public servants, our loyalty must be to faithfully execute and defend the law, not bow to the bully in the White House. Keith Ellison is attorney general of Minnesota.
