There's Only One Real Way to Reverse Big Law's Capitulation to Trump
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
Shortly after taking office, President Donald Trump began issuing a series of executive orders targeting law firms, penalizing firms that employ—or previously employed—attorneys who have challenged him in court. The orders are plainly retaliatory and amount to state-imposed punishment for speech on matters of public concern—violating the First Amendment's protections for free speech and free association. And they're having their intended effect: People and businesses with possible legal claims against the administration are increasingly unable to find representation, as are pro bono clients the president disfavors. Although several firms have resisted the orders and multiple lawsuits are ongoing, other firms continue to concede.
A new approach is needed. We are both former attorneys of the law firm Skadden, Arps. One of us recently resigned her position specifically over Skadden's capitulation to a threatened executive order; the other of us is now a law professor. Our recent experiences show that law students and junior lawyers have the power to counteract and end the crisis—but only if they act collectively.
One might expect the most powerful law firms in the world to be both well-equipped and deeply motivated to resist such attacks on their independence. And indeed, some firms have mounted legal challenges, prevailing at the initial stages. But others, including Paul, Weiss; Skadden; and Kirkland & Ellis have quickly acquiesced, cutting widely reported-on 'settlements' with the administration—not necessarily because the law required it, but because resistance apparently seemed too costly.
Commentators across the political spectrum have criticized the deal-cutters, some calling them 'cowards' or 'craven.' Former federal appellate judge J. Michael Luttig, a noted conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, lambasted Paul, Weiss for choosing to 'cower before the powerful and sell out its firm and the nation's legal profession to the President.'
Such critiques on principle are well-intentioned, and possibly justified. But if firms see their primary duty as serving their clients and preserving their business—rather than safeguarding legal institutions and constitutional norms—shaming won't ultimately change behavior. Thus far, it seems that most firms take the former view. Moral appeals, without more, therefore won't change their incentives. What we're witnessing is a textbook coordination failure—a form of what political economists call a prisoner's dilemma. Firms that push back against the administration risk losing clients, lawyers, and revenue to those that don't. As Paul, Weiss chair Brad Karp put it, the executive order represented 'an unprecedented threat' that 'could have destroyed [the] firm' had it refused to comply. At first blush, it's difficult to see how the administration's unlawful threats could cripple a firm with $7.5 million in profit per equity partner. But in light of reports that peer firms Kirkland & Ellis and Sullivan & Cromwell promptly began pursuing Paul, Weiss' clients and rainmaker partners, its concerns may seem more understandable.
The threat of an executive order is powerful—but it works only because firms act alone and even in conflict. A failure of collective action makes things worse for everyone. Consider that weeks after trying to poach Paul, Weiss clients, Kirkland & Ellis in turn found itself in the president's crosshairs. If no firm had conceded, and all had refused to poach Paul, Weiss' departing lawyers or clients under these conditions, much of the harm might have been avoided. Firms choosing to fight the administration have quickly secured court orders halting enforcement of their executive orders; Paul, Weiss could have done the same. But by defecting individually, Paul, Weiss and others showed the administration that its tactics were working and that more bullying would be fruitful, painting a bigger target on other firms, and soon producing further demands on the settling firms themselves.. And it ensured a collective outcome that's leaving nearly all worse off than if all had acted together.
There are possible solutions, but they require not just rhetoric, but changing the material consequences of capitulation through collective action. One option would be for firms to legally commit—via binding contract or pledge, with heavy penalties for defection—to resist the executive orders together, to challenge them in court collectively (as with a recent amicus brief joined by 500 firms), and to decline to accept other firms' departing clients. Such a pact would blunt the effectiveness of coercive pressure by depriving the administration of any leverage over individual firms. But that kind of coordination carries potential legal risks, including antitrust concerns, and it could falter if even a few firms decline to participate.
The more promising strategy may lie with the next generation of lawyers. Law students and junior attorneys can exert real pressure by refusing to work for firms that give in—declining interviews, turning down offers, and encouraging law-school career offices to do the same. Such a move would not be unprecedented; in the 1990s, the Judge Advocate General Corps' prohibition on openly gay service members led many law schools to formally ban it from campus recruiting. Indeed, law students at Georgetown, Columbia, and elsewhere have already mobilized in recent weeks to refuse contact with certain capitulating firms.
To be sure, such choices carry some short-term costs, and it may seem unfair to ask people just starting their careers to bear this burden. Indeed, in a just world, the most powerful actors would bear the most responsibility for setting things right. Yet throughout history, young people have often been the first—and the most willing—to risk their own privileged status in the name of principle. And importantly, none of the actions above require anyone to quit a current job; they simply require top law students to leave certain firms off of their interview 'dance card,' opting for the many comparable firms that haven't capitulated. And there are even ways that students not interested in big law firms can take action.
If enough do so, these small, individual decisions can be collectively game-changing. Indeed, we're already seeing many top applicants deliberately prioritizing firms that have stood up to the president over those that have submitted, and additional resignations by existing associates. As these trends grow and firms incur reputational and recruitment losses, the resulting drop-off in top new legal talent and prestige may push firms to reevaluate the long-term costs of short-term concessions. Yet, ironically, the boycott would serve, not harm, firms' long-term interests. In fact, if conscientious junior lawyers successfully help nudge the legal profession toward collective resistance—instead of fragmented retreat—we all benefit: the firms themselves, clients who need representation, and a constitutional system that depends on an independent bar.
Some have argued that firms that would so quickly shrink from the profession's core principles are less likely to provide environments conducive to the honorable and ethical practice of law. Perhaps so. Regardless, the measures above can be taken even by those who disagree—who view the firms largely as victims caught in a difficult position. By threatening their independence and viability, it is the president who has unjustly put his thumb on the scale. Junior members of the profession are surely justified in rebalancing it on behalf of the rule of law.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Newsom Rallies Californians to Stand Up Against Trump's ‘Assault on Democracy'
Newsom Rallies Californians to Stand Up Against Trump's 'Assault on Democracy' originally appeared on L.A. Mag. Governor Gavin Newsom gave his first address on Tuesday night following five days of ongoing protests against ICE raids in Los Angeles, where he accused President Donald Trump of 'fanning the flames' of the protests by sending in the National Guard, turning the protest violent by nightfall.'He again chose escalation. He chose more force. He chose theatrics over public safety,' said Newsom. 'He federalized another 2,000 guard members. He deployed more than 700 active US Marines.'Newsom said that the initial protests were standard, as Angelenos exercised their right to free speech and assembly to protest, and police were sent out to maintain the peace. It wasn't until the president deployed 2,000 of California's National Guard soldiers to the streets of Los Angeles 'illegally and for no reason.' 'What then ensued was a use of tear gas, flashbang grenades, rubber bullets, federal agents detaining people and undermining their due process rights,' said Newsom. 'This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation, putting our people, our officers and even our National Guard at risk.'The governor's address went further than what's going on in Los Angeles. He warned people that this will not end with California, he said that this is an attack on democracy, the way 'authoritarian regimes begin.''This moment we have feared has arrived. He's taking a wrecking ball to our Founding Fathers' historic project,' said Newsom. 'The most important office is the office of the citizen. At this moment, we all need to stand up and be held to a higher level of accountability.'White House assistant to the president and director of communications Steven Cheung responded to Newsom's address with a post on X, saying that the governor should have used his time to do his job instead of preparing for a 'webinar.' He also compared the faulty audio quality to the quality of Newsom's leadership. The governor's office has not responded to this statement from ended his address advising Californians, if they do exercise their First Amendment right, to do so peacefully.'I know many of you are feeling deep anxiety, stress and fear. But I want you to know that you are the antidote to that fear and that anxiety,' said Newsom. This story was originally reported by L.A. Mag on Jun 11, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge sides with anti-Israel ringleader Mahmoud Khalil, halts Trump administration's deportation bid
A federal judge sided with Mahmoud Khalil, an anti-Israel ringleader detained by the Trump administration, blocking the government from continuing to hold him on "foreign policy" grounds. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz on Wednesday granted a preliminary injunction preventing the government from detaining or removing Khalil, 30, based on a memorandum issued by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The memo asserted that Khalil's presence "compromises a compelling foreign policy interest." "The government cannot claim an interest in enforcing what appears to be an unconstitutional law," Farbiarz wrote, adding that the threat to free speech raised serious First Amendment concerns. The ruling is a significant legal setback for the administration's efforts to deport Khalil, who has been held at a detention facility in Louisiana following his involvement in anti-Israel demonstrations at Columbia University. Federal Judge Says Attempted Deportation Of Anti-israel Ringleader Mahmoud Khalil May Be Unconstitutional While the ruling grants a preliminary injunction against Khalil's removal, it stops short of ordering his release. Read On The Fox News App The court's decision will remain on hold until Friday morning, giving the government time to appeal. READ THE RULING – APP USERS, Click Here Anti-israel Ringleader Mahmoud Khalil's Free Speech Lawsuit Against Us Government Must Be Heard: Judge Khalil, a green card holder, was arrested after leading student protests on the Ivy League campus. He has argued that his free speech rights were being "eroded" by the Trump administration. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attorneys have argued that Khalil's free speech claims were a "red herring," saying that the 30-year-old lied on his visa applications. Khalil, they said, willfully failed to disclose his employment with the Syrian office in the British Embassy in Beirut when he applied for permanent U.S. residency. The agency also accused Khalil of failing to disclose his work with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees and membership in Columbia University Apartheid Divest. Rubio has cited a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to justify Khalil's removal from the U.S. The provision allows the secretary of state to deport noncitizens if the secretary determines their presence in the U.S. "would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences." Rubio accused Khalil of participating in "antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which foster a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States." "Condoning antisemitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States would severely undermine that significant foreign policy objective," Rubio wrote. Khalil has Algerian citizenship through his mother, but was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria. As of Wednesday evening, no further hearings are scheduled in Khalil's immigration case. "We're just waiting for the judge to issue her ruling," Johnny Sinodis, a partner at Van Der Hout LLP who is representing Mahmoud Khalil in immigration proceedings, said during a press conference following the hearing. Meanwhile, the federal court's preliminary injunction will prevent Khalil's removal until at least article source: Federal judge sides with anti-Israel ringleader Mahmoud Khalil, halts Trump administration's deportation bid
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Paul H. Kim Named COO of CJ 4DPLEX, Americas
HOLLYWOOD, Calif., June 11, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- CJ 4DPLEX, the world's leading producer of premium film formats and cinema technologies, today announced the appointment of Paul H. Kim as Chief Operating Officer of CJ 4DPLEX Americas. Kim, a seasoned entertainment executive experienced in content strategy, production and business operations, will oversee daily operations and drive strategic growth for the company's premium cinema formats, SCREENX and 4DX. As COO, Kim will continue to manage and build CJ 4DPLEX's relationships with Hollywood studios, filmmakers and talent while strengthening operational efficiency, and expanding CJ 4DPLEX's footprint in the global entertainment industry. Prior to his appointment as COO, Kim served as Senior Vice President of Content & Production, where under his leadership, SCREENX grew from an emerging format to showcasing a full slate of over 26 Hollywood releases annually. He has negotiated long-term studio agreements that ensured direct investment in the format and spearheaded efforts to introduce the first animated SCREENX films in partnership with Illumination and DreamWorks. Kim has also played a key role in growing the company's in-house VFX capabilities. "Paul's deep understanding of production, technology and operations, along with his long-standing commitment to CJ 4DPLEX, uniquely qualifies him for this position," said Don Savant, CEO of CJ 4DPLEX America. "Throughout his extensive tenure with the company, Paul has been vital in shaping our premium formats and enhancing our presence and relationships in Hollywood. His dedication and leadership will be essential as we continue to grow and innovate in the cinematic space." "I am honored to take on this new role at CJ 4DPLEX, Americas and continue driving the company's vision of redefining the cinematic experience," said Kim. "With the growing demand for premium formats, I look forward to working more closely with our studio partners, creative teams, and exhibitors to bring audiences even more unforgettable moviegoing experiences." In 2011, Kim began his career at CJ4DPLEX's parent company CJ Group, which also includes entertainment powerhouses CJ CGV, the fifth largest theater chain in the world, and CJ ENM (CJ Entertainment & Media), who produced the Academy Award®-winning film, "Parasite." Kim played a foundational role in the development of SCREENX in 2012, helping take the format from an early concept to full commercialization. SCREENX, which showcases a 270-degree panoramic viewing experience, is now featured in over 425 locations worldwide. Kim's move to Los Angeles in 2015 marked a pivotal shift in expanding CJ 4DPLEX's presence in Hollywood, helping strengthen its relationships with major studios and secure the company's position in the industry. Kim's promotion marks a new chapter for CJ 4DPLEX as the company continues to push the boundaries of cinematic storytelling. With a focus on innovation and strategic expansion, CJ 4DPLEX is poised for continued growth in the global entertainment landscape. About CJ 4DPLEXCJ 4DPLEX is a leading, next-generation cinema technology company, headquartered in Seoul with international offices in Los Angeles, Beijing, and London. The company has created innovative film technologies for theaters worldwide that include 'SCREENX', '4DX', and 'Ultra 4DX' for consumers to experience films in ways that were never before possible. CJ 4DPLEX is a part of the CJ Group conglomerate that also includes entertainment powerhouses CJ CGV, the fifth largest theater chain in the world, and CJ ENM (CJ Entertainment & Media), who produced the Academy Award®, Golden Globe® and SAG Awards winning film, "Parasite". SCREENX is the world's first multi-projection cinema with an immersive 270 degree field of view. By expanding the image beyond the frame and onto the walls of the theater, SCREENX places the audience directly at the center of the story, creating a visually immersive viewing experience unlike any other. To date, there are over 435 SCREENX auditoriums around the world in 40 countries. 4DX provides moviegoers with a multi-sensory cinema-going experience, allowing audiences to connect with movies through motion, vibration, water, wind, snow, lightning, scents, and other special effects that enhance the visuals on-screen. Each 4DX auditorium incorporates motion-based seating synchronized with more than 21 different effects and optimized by a team of skilled editors. To date, there are over 775 4DX auditoriums around the world, spanning over 70 countries. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE CJ 4DPLEX Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data