Latest news with #probono
New York Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Big Law Firms Bowed to Trump. A Corps of ‘Little Guys' Jumped in to Fight Him.
President Trump's executive orders seeking to punish big law firms have led some of them to acquiesce to him and left others reluctant to take on pro bono cases that could put them at odds with the administration. But as opponents of the White House's policies organized to fight Mr. Trump in court on a vast range of actions and policies, they quickly found that they did not need to rely on Big Law. Instead, an army of solo practitioners, former government litigators and small law firms stepped up to volunteer their time to challenge the administration's agenda. 'I don't know if the administration knew how many little guys are out there,' said Michael H. Ansell, a solo practitioner in Morristown, N.J., who earlier this year joined the Pro Bono Litigation Corps, newly launched by Lawyers for Good Government, a legal nonprofit. He answered the nonprofit's plea for lawyers willing to give at least 20 hours a week to an upcoming case. More than 80 volunteered. Earlier this year, Mr. Trump issued a flurry of executive orders and implicit threats targeting major law firms whose past work or clients he did not like. While some of the firms chose to fight the orders and have so far prevailed in court, others hastened to settle, agreeing in the process to steer about $1 billion in pro bono work toward the administration's favored causes. Even some of those who stood up to Mr. Trump have been leery of further provoking his ire by taking on cases opposing the administration. But lawyers like Mr. Ansell have been eager to jump in. He helped interview plaintiffs for a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia late last month against the Environmental Protection Agency. About 20 community, environmental and tribal groups, as well as the cities of Springfield, Mass., San Francisco and Sacramento are suing to restore money they were awarded but lost after the E.P.A. terminated its Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants program. Mr. Ansell typically handles small business disputes, 'so I don't have to worry about losing any big-time government contractor clients,' he said. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
10-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Law Firms' Deals With Trump Are Looking Worse and Worse
The Trump administration is on an unbroken losing streak in the courts — 0 for 4 — in its effort to defend President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting large law firms. And things could get worse — for Trump, and for the law firms that capitulated to him. It has been several months since the first major law firm brokered a deal with Trump to get out from under an executive order penalizing the firm for conducting work or hiring lawyers that the White House disfavors. Eight firms followed that precedent in order to avoid becoming targeted themselves, ultimately committing a combined total of nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services to largely unspecified initiatives supported by the Trump administration. Four firms refused to buckle and successfully challenged the orders targeting them in federal district court in Washington, D.C. Trump's executive orders and the deals struck by the settling firms have not aged well. The firms that threw in the towel appear to have misjudged the fallout — financial, reputational, political and legal. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has gotten hammered by the judges presiding over the cases challenging the White House, and it's far from clear the government's appeal will get a better reception in the higher courts, including the Supreme Court, if it gets there. Furthermore, the deals with the settling firms have so far produced scant results for the Trump administration in concrete terms. Trump may see the episode as a political win, at least in the short term. He has publicly boasted about the deals for months and repeatedly said that he will put the settling firms to work for the administration. But there is no publicly available evidence that this has actually happened. Privately, representatives for three of the settling firms (who were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters) told me that they have not received any instructions or input from the White House on pro bono matters to take on. The Justice Department declined to comment in response to a question about whether the department reached out to any of the settling firms to do pro bono work on behalf of the government. The White House also declined to comment. That does not mean the firms who made deals with Trump are in the clear. The Trump administration could always change course. On top of that, if Democrats retake the House or Senate next year, the firms could find themselves in the crosshairs of lawmakers who have already posed sharp questions directly to the firms about the legality of their deals and the circumstances that led to them. A few subpoenas could divulge even more sensitive and embarrassing details for the firms. It's hard to predict exactly how this surprising subplot in Trump's second term ultimately ends, except that it is only likely to get messier, particularly if — or perhaps when — Trump decides to put the firms to work. When the White House struck its first deal, Brad Karp — the chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison — defended it by claiming that the firm had no choice because the order posed an 'existential' threat to the firm and 'could easily have destroyed' it. This did not make much sense at the time given the fact that Paul, Weiss is one of the most profitable law firms in the world, but the defense now appears to have been rendered practically nonsensical by the fact that the four firms that challenged the Trump administration have not remotely gone out of business. As a lawyer at one of those firms, who was granted anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak to the press, put it to me recently, 'I'm pleased to confirm that [our firm] continues to exist — and flourish!' The backlash to the deals in the legal profession has also been real. Some in-house client lawyers who are unhappy with the deals have reportedly been moving work away from the settling firms to the firms that went to court. Some students at the nation's top law schools are steering clear of the settling firms, an embarrassment for firms that like to claim that they have the highest professional standards and best lawyers in the business. Senior lawyers have also felt compelled to leave several of the settling firms. At Paul, Weiss, at least 10 litigation partners have departed, including Karen Dunn, a prominent Democratic lawyer who oversaw Kamala Harris' debate prep last year. Dunn had been in the running to succeed Karp as chair of the firm — a job likely worth tens of millions of dollars a year — and she reportedly supported the deal with the Trump White House and helped whip up support among other attorneys. Her decision to leave despite all that is further evidence that the decision to cut a deal had become professionally and politically toxic in a way that many did not anticipate — particularly for a firm that has long held itself out as an institution committed to liberal values. (As a former attorney at Paul, Weiss, I can attest that this commitment is very dubious indeed.) If you want to be a White House counsel or a lawyer with a major position in a future Democratic administration, having Paul, Weiss on your resume may now be a liability for the foreseeable future. Case in point: Neera Tanden, one of the Democratic Party's most prominent officials, said in a social media post in May that 'Paul Weiss' actions will live in infamy.' The settling firms have even appeared to incur blowback from the judiciary. When Beryl Howell, the judge presiding over the challenge from the law firm Perkins Coie, ruled against the Trump administration, she dropped a footnote dripping with contempt that quickly made the rounds among legal observers. 'If the founding history of this country is any guide,' Howell wrote, 'those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written.' For his part, Karp — who once positioned himself as a legal power broker within the Democratic Party but is now blamed for creating a template for surrender that other firms followed — risks becoming the Baghdad Bob of Big Law in his efforts to defend the deal. In addition to the over-the-top claim that the firm's deal with the White House was an 'existential' necessity, he recently told a gathering of the firm's lawyers that it 'has never been healthier' and that the first wave of departing lawyers was no big deal because the lawyers constituted a 'siloed unit' at Paul, Weiss, a highly questionable claim. In any event, prominent lawyers across the litigation department have continued to leave the firm as recently as this week. In fact, Paul, Weiss and the other settling firms may also have long-term legal exposure under federal law and professional rules of conduct, at least in theory. The deal that Paul, Weiss struck appears to implicate a variety of federal and state public corruption statutes, including federal bribery and extortion charges. That is what happens when you agree to give a public official tens of millions of dollars in value in exchange for official actions that benefit you — in this case, an executive order that rescinds a prior executive order and the restoration of federal security clearances, among other accommodations. (The legal situation is plausibly different for the firms that entered into follow-on settlements, who have a stronger claim to having been the victims of an extortion effort.) And while Trump is immune from criminal conduct stemming from official actions, that does not extend to the firms themselves. It's true that a subsequent Democratic administration will probably not investigate or prosecute any of the firms or the lawyers involved. But that assessment primarily reflects political considerations — as well as the recent history of a party populated by lawyers with demonstrably poor judgment in the area of legal accountability — not the law. Setting aside the headlines and Trump's public gloating, it's hard to see what exactly the White House has gotten out of all this so far — at least in tangible terms. The settling firms have insisted that they retain control over their pro bono work, and thus far, there has been no public indication that the White House has directed them even informally to take on any particular engagements. Some of the firms do appear to be making subtle changes to their pro bono portfolios without hearing from the Trump administration. Not surprisingly, firms appear to be pulling back on pro bono immigration work. I also have heard that some conservative legal advocacy groups have fielded calls from lawyers at the settling firms about finding pro bono cases to partner on. At this point, the risk of being put to work by the administration is the most potent near-term threat to the settling firms. That shoe may or may not drop, but if the White House insists that they take on a case on behalf of the administration or its political agenda, the firms will be faced with the choice of caving (again) and incurring further political and reputational harms, or antagonizing the White House to the point that the administration goes back to issuing executive orders and sanctions targeting them. This might be less dramatic than it sounds. If any of the deals were to fall apart in that way, the settling firms would — ironically perhaps — end up benefitting from the firms that refused to give in to the Trump administration. That's because if they ultimately needed to mount their own challenges to the administration, they would likely point directly to the four decisions already rendered against the administration to back them up. Those decisions have been swift and unsparing. The principal evidence against the administration has been its own words — the executive orders and accompanying 'fact sheets' released by the White House to justify them. Those documents have asserted a variety of grievances against the firms, from employing lawyers who criminally investigated Trump to implementing diversity, equity and inclusion programs. As one district judge — a George W. Bush appointee — put it in a case involving WilmerHale, the executive order targeting the firm 'is, on its face, retaliation for the firm's protected speech.' Suboptimal lawyering has been a recurring theme of the second Trump administration. Some experienced lawyers, for instance, believe that Emil Bove — the principal associate deputy attorney general and now a nominee to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — could have dismissed the criminal case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams without creating a weeks-long public spectacle. You could make the same argument about Trump's legal broadsides against Big Law. Trump and the administration could have put themselves on stronger legal footing — or at least delayed the swift procession of adverse rulings — if they had said much less and opted for vaguer language in their public statements. Instead, they said the quiet parts out loud, and the judges have been throwing that language right back at them. As a result, the government's odds in an appeal before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals are not particularly good. And if the administration loses there, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court would take the case or side with Trump on the merits. After all, the justices are all lawyers who should presumably be attuned to the serious professional concerns raised by Trump's orders. (For what it's worth, Chief Justice John Roberts' wife happens to be a prominent law firm recruiter.) There is a sense among some of the lawyers at the settling firms that this will all blow over. Trump and his administration got the political scalp they wanted, the thinking goes, but they are not particularly good at executing complex policy initiatives — like completing 90 trade deals in 90 days or finding a buyer for TikTok that will actually comply with the law that Trump decided to ignore after reentering office. Democrats in Congress may confound that expectation if they win back power and opt for a fulsome investigation into the deals, potentially with subpoenas. 'The American people and the Congress deserve complete transparency into Trump's assault on free speech, the right to counsel, due process and access to courts,' said House Judiciary ranking member Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who is already conducting an investigation into the deals along with Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. 'We also should know who stood up and who capitulated to Trump's gangster moves to crush his opposition, co-opt all the lawyers and neutralize the courts. We'll keep demanding answers until the truth is known.' Still, Trump has not gone away empty-handed, even now. For years, some prominent Big Law lawyers have tried to soften the industry's image by positioning themselves as reliable allies of progressive initiatives like DEI policies and as principled litigators willing to oppose their own government. This has in large part been a marketing exercise — large law firms make their money by serving wealthy and powerful private interests and, to take just one example, racial and ethnic diversity among law firm equity partners remains truly abysmal — but Trump managed to blow up that image with the literal stroke of his pen. The deals, in that sense, are just as important for their symbolism as their practical impact. One of Trump's skills in politics is his occasional ability to demonstrate the hollowness of his opponents' stated convictions. He appears to have pulled that off yet again.
Zawya
02-07-2025
- Business
- Zawya
ADGM Courts enhance access to justice with Pro Bono Mediation scheme
Abu Dhabi, UAE: ADGM Courts announced today the launch of its Pro Bono Mediators Panel, marking a significant step in expanding access to justice and further strengthening its Court-Annexed Mediation Scheme, which was established in 2019, as a first for the region. The new Panel will comprise internationally accredited mediators who wish to contribute their expertise on a Pro Bono basis, while gaining valuable experience through court-annexed mediations. This initiative supports parties seeking early resolution of disputes within ADGM Courts' jurisdiction who may benefit from mediation and foster the next generation of global mediation talent. The first cohort of pro-bono mediators is now in place, with further application rounds to be announced. Mediation offers parties a confidential forum to negotiate the resolution of their dispute via a process during which they retain full control. In the context of court-annexed mediation, a written settlement agreement signed by all parties becomes legally binding. If proceedings have commenced, the Court will issue an order giving effect to the settlement agreement, which may be enforced at a party's request. With the objective of promoting and fostering mediation as an effective, efficient and viable method of dispute resolution, the Pro Bono Mediators Panel offer access to internationally accredited mediators from diverse jurisdictions and sectors who possess high standards of skill, knowledge and expertise, while also supporting emerging talent. Linda Fitz-Alan, Registrar and Chief Executive of ADGM Courts, stated, 'Since its inception in 2019, the Court-Annexed Mediation Scheme has demonstrated substantial impact, achieving a settlement rate of around 80% year on year. The establishment of the Pro Bono Mediators Panel marks an important next step in the evolution of the Scheme and reflects ADGM Courts' long-standing commitment to promoting mediation as an outstanding method of dispute resolution, especially for the new wave of disputes in technology and climate. Whilst strengthening the support available to parties seeking early settlement of disputes, I am delighted that we can now offer emerging mediators a valuable opportunity to practise within a leading international commercial framework.' Court-annexed mediation offered by ADGM Courts will be conducted by court officers or independent pro bono mediators appointed by the Registrar. For more information, visit the Court-Annexed Mediation Scheme here or email mediation@ About ADGM ADGM is the international financial centre ('IFC') of the capital city of the United Arab Emirates, which opened for business on 21 October 2015. ADGM augments Abu Dhabi's position as a leading financial centre and a business hub serving as a strategic link between the growing economies of the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, and the rest of the world. Operating within an international regulatory framework based on the direct application of English Common Law, ADGM governs the entirety of Al Maryah Island and Al Reem Island, collectively designated as the financial free zone of Abu Dhabi. ADGM is ranked as one of the most preferred and top-ranking IFCs in the Middle East and Africa region. Its progressive and inclusive business ecosystem fosters growth, resilience, and optimism for global financial and non-financial institutions. Growing synergies between ADGM and multiple jurisdictions have positioned the centre as one of the world's most advanced, diverse, and progressively governed financial hubs. For more details on ADGM, please visit or follow us on LinkedIn and Instagram: @ADGM X: @adglobalmarket For media queries, please contact: E: media@
Reuters
17-06-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Cadwalader partner leaves to join Roberta Kaplan's law firm
June 17 (Reuters) - A litigation partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft who also chaired the law firm's pro bono committee has left for a smaller firm led by Roberta Kaplan, marking the latest departure from firms that struck deals with U.S. President Donald Trump to avert a White House crackdown. Ellen Holloman is joining Kaplan Martin, the litigation firm said on Tuesday, touting her experience representing major financial institutions and companies, and her pro bono work on behalf of "veterans, asylum seekers, and members of the LGBTQ community." Cadwalader in April pledged to provide at least $100 million in free legal work to causes Trump supports, one of nine firms to reach similar deals with the White House to avoid executive orders targeting their businesses. Holloman opposed Cadwalader's deal with Trump, according to a person familiar with her departure from the firm. A Cadwalader spokesperson thanked Holloman for her contributions to the firm and noted she has worked with Kaplan in the past. "We wish them continued success," the spokesperson said. Kaplan, who represented writer E. Jean Carroll in defamation lawsuits against Trump, formed Kaplan Martin last year with Tim Martin, Steven Cohen and Mitra Hormozi. The firm is representing the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in litigation to block the Trump administration's efforts to end Manhattan's congestion pricing program. Other firms that made deals with the Trump administration have also lost U.S. partners in recent months. Since the end of May, nine partners have left Paul Weiss to join a new firm, Dunn Isaacson Rhee, co-founded by former Paul Weiss partner Karen Dunn. Litigation partners Martha Goodman and Amy Mauser were the latest to announce their moves in LinkedIn posts this week. Goodman and Mauser did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Paul Weiss in a statement thanked the lawyers for their contributions. On Friday a group of seven partners left Willkie Farr & Gallagher to join Cooley, which is representing Jenner & Block in its lawsuit fighting a Trump executive order against it. Willkie also added a partner from another firm this week.
CNN
16-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
American Bar Association sues over Trump administration's attacks on law firms
The American Bar Association sued the Trump administration Monday, saying the president's aggressive crackdown on large law firms aligned against him has chilled lawyers' ability to litigate cases, especially pro bono legal work on hot-button issues like immigration. The lawsuit, filed in Washington, DC, by the ABA, which has members who are attorneys in firms that cut a deal with the Trump administration, asks a judge to declare that several of the provisions in Trump's executive orders targeting major law firms are unconstitutional. Those sections include things like terminating attorneys' security clearances or access to federal buildings. The lawsuit says the Trump administration's moves toward law firms have 'cast a deep chill' over the entire profession, unfairly and unconstitutionally. 'Many attorneys are no longer willing to take on representations that would require suing the federal government,' the lawsuit states. 'Others have dropped ongoing representations; ended their participation in contemplated cases; or declined representations – even of clients with whom they had longstanding prior attorney-client relationships – not because the merits of the case were weak or the attorney had some substantive objection to taking the case, but because the representation was deemed too likely to result in severe retaliation from the President pursuant to the Intimidation Policy.' The lawsuit appears to build upon the strained and hostile politics between large swaths of the American legal community and the Trump administration. The Justice Department has repeatedly refuted the ABA since Trump took office. DOJ attorneys are no longer allowed to participate in the legal association's events, which had been standard for years, and the Department revoked the ABA's access to nonpublic information on judicial nominees. Attorney General Pam Bondi said at the time the ABA had 'lost its way, and we do not believe it serves as a fair arbiter of judicial nominees.' CNN has reached out to the Justice Department for comment. As part of the lawsuit, the ABA pointed to specific examples of legal efforts already being hampered by the administration. One organization said it 'had to forgo litigation against the Administration' because lawyers dropped out in the wake of Trump's executive orders. And law firm partners who are ABA members, report their firms are unwilling to take on cases, especially pro bono, that they might otherwise have because of the current state of fear. At least one firm is preparing for the possibility of retaliation from the Trump administration. 'The President's attacks on law firms through the Law Firm Orders are thus not isolated events, but one component of a broader, deliberate policy designed to intimidate and coerce law firms and lawyers to refrain from challenging the President or his Administration in court,' the ABA argues. Some attorneys who wanted to share their experiences as part of the suit were instructed by their respective firms not to do so, the lawsuit says. The law firms that are under heavily restrictive executive orders from the Trump White House each have sued, and have been winning their cases against the administration.
