Paul Weiss, The Progressive Fight, And The Firm's Deal With The Devil
In 2018, Brad Karp, chairman of the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, and Gary Wingens, chairman of Lowenstein Sandler, denounced President Donald Trump's immigration policies of family separation and detention as 'unlawful and immoral' in a New York Times op-ed. That policy of Trump's first term, Karp and Wingens promised, would be countered by an 'army of lawyers,' led by their firms, fighting on behalf of 'the poor and the vulnerable against targeted governmental abuses.'
'The world is watching, and the private bar is mobilizing to serve the thousands who have been imperiled by the Trump administration — and to ensure that the rule of law is protected as well,' Karp wrote.
For his and his firm's efforts fighting for immigrant rights, reproductive rights and gun control, Karp was named attorney of the year by New York Law Journal in 2018. As of March 2024, however, the press release touting this achievement is now nowhere to be found on Paul Weiss' website. The same goes for a press release promoting a New York Times article from 2018 about Paul Weiss' work fighting the first Trump administration's immigration policy.
These are just two examples of dozens of press releases and pages touting the firm's pro bono work on immigration, reproductive rights, countering right-wing extremists and voting rights that have disappeared from the firm's web site in the weeks since Trump first issued an executive order seeking to destroy the nearly 150-year old firm.
Paul Weiss learned that the legal community would not circle the wagons to protect their own. Instead of joining together in support, other big law firms circled like vultures, trying to poach the firm's clients and lawyers. So, Paul Weiss decided to strike a deal.
On March 21, Trump rescinded the executive order after the firm committed to aligning its diversity policies with the administration and providing $40 million in pro bono services to the 'mutually agreed upon' priorities with the administration.
The deal sent shockwaves through the legal community, including among ex-Paul Weiss lawyers and staff. It appeared as though the firm, long known for its commitment to diversity and progressive causes, had bent the knee. The decision to capitulate now both undermines the firm's ability to counter the administration's excess and potentially takes away a large group of skilled lawyers from the pro bono work that smaller nonprofits rely on to fight back against government abuses of rights.
'It's really gutting and it goes to the core of what we thought this firm was,' said Elizabeth Grossman, a former Paul Weiss associate who now serves as president of the Illinois chapter of watchdog group Common Cause.
In response to the firm's deal with Trump, Grossman led a public letter to Karp from more than 140 former Paul Weiss associates and staffers decrying the deal. That letter called the deal 'a permanent stain on the face of a great firm that sought to gain a profit by forfeiting its soul.' Paul Weiss did not respond to a request for comment.
'It really sent a shockwave down my spine to know that an entity that had the power to stand up to the executive and for the rule of law simply declined to do so,' said Nora Ahmed, a letter signatory who worked as a litigation attorney at Paul Weiss from 2012-2014 and 2015-2020 and is now legal director for the Louisiana chapter of the ACLU.
The firm's 'soul,' according to these former Paul Weiss lawyers, resides in its pro bono work in support of progressive causes, exemplified by its opposition to the first Trump administration's policies. The deal 'will have no effect on our work and our shared culture and values' and the firm will continue its pro bono work, Karp insisted in an internal email to staff. But, former firm lawyers believe that you can't have it both ways.
'You'd have to be kidding yourself to think the firm can take an openly hostile position to a government overreach in the way that they did during the first administration,' said Erin Elmouji, a former Paul Weiss lawyer from 2012-2018 who signed the letter to Karp. 'This has signaled that they will capitulate again. They will appease the government if they need to.'
It's an existential question not just for the firm itself, but for all the nonprofits that rely on their pro bono services in challenging administration policies.
'Having Paul Weiss bend the knee like this is going to create a ripple effect, and more and more firms, if they follow suit, then these nonprofits that are the last defense against government overreach have fewer and fewer private-sector firms to call on to help marshal this big impact litigation,' Elmouji said.
Paul Weiss isn't alone among law firms targeted by Trump for punishment. Other Trump executive orders targeted Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie and, on Tuesday, Jenner & Block. But how the firms have responded have varied. So far, only Perkins Coie has challenged these orders in court, winning a temporary restraining order from a federal district court judge who said the order 'sent chills down my spine.' Neither Covington & Burling nor Jenner & Block have indicated yet whether they will join Perkins Coie's lawsuit.
Even beyond a willingness by some firms to capitulate, the lack of unified opposition in the white-shoe legal community is likely to have a significant impact on how the nonprofits that want to bring legal challenges are able to operate.
'A lot of these organizations are going to want to partner with other law firms,' Grossman said. 'Even if Paul Weiss was able to work with them, they're going to say, 'I can't work with a firm with these kind of compromised values.''
As part of its pro bono work, Paul Weiss has worked alongside such big nonprofit advocacy groups as Planned Parenthood, ACLU, Center for Reproductive Rights, Common Cause, Brennan Center for Justice, Lawyers' Committee on Civil Rights and Center for Constitutional Rights as well as smaller immigrant rights groups like Make the Road NY, Kids in Need of Defense, Women's Refugee Commission, The Door and Justice in Motion, among many others.
In a sign of how fraught the current situation is, just two of these dozen groups responded to a request for comment on whether they have concerns about the deal Paul Weiss made with the Trump administration. The Center for Reproductive Rights declined to comment, but did provide the organization's statement opposing Trump's attacks on the legal profession. Common Cause was the only one to provide a statement specifically addressing Paul Weiss.
'We hope that Paul Weiss will recommit to supporting organizations like ours but it is hard to trust that they wouldn't walk away from us if the President didn't like what they were doing,' Common Cause President Virginia Kase Solomón said in a statement. 'There are many talented attorneys at Paul Weiss who want to do this work and the better question we believe is do they want to work for a firm that will acquiesce to an authoritarian.'
So far, Paul Weiss lawyers remain involved in the pro bono work they were previously working on. Ahmed was joined by a Paul Weiss attorney when she attended Supreme Court arguments on Monday in the racial discrimination redistricting case of Louisiana v. Callais.
'The party line is largely that nothing has changed in terms of the ability to work with them going forward,' Ahmed said.
The biggest problem, however, according to former Paul Weiss lawyers, is that even though Karp said in his internal email to staff that the firm had put the threat from the administration behind it, Trump can always change the terms of any deal if he thinks the other party isn't living up to his expectations.
'They're somewhat hostage now or there's an appearance of being a hostage,' said Jonathan Siegfried, who was a lawyer at Paul Weiss from 1975-1981 and signed Grossman's letter.
Any future break with the administration could lead Trump to reimpose what Karp called 'a crisis' and threaten the firm again.
That is evidenced by the deletions across the firm's website. In addition to the removal of dozens of press releases touting the firm's work on immigration, voting rights and other issues, the firm's pro bono landing page no longer lists its areas of work, including those previously titled Protecting Immigrants & Families, Reproductive Justice and Supporting Families, LGBTQ+, Defending the Right to Vote and Combatting Hate. The website for the firm's Center to Combat Hate, which was only launched in March 2024 and litigated cases against the Proud Boys and white supremacists, no longer exists. Links to it on the firm's website have disappeared.
The firm may well still take on pro bono cases in support of immigrant rights or other issues, Siegfried said, but, 'there's a difference between doing them proudly because they're the right thing to do and being very quiet and silent about them.'
'Calling out injustice out loud is different than whispering it behind closed doors,' Elmouji added.
The website deletions spoke directly to the biggest shock and disappointment that the former Paul Weiss lawyers felt when they heard the news about the deal.
'We would have thought that Paul Weiss would have been in the forefront of not pulling those pages down and instead speaking out and rallying firms to provide this representation that's needed now more than ever,' Siegfried said.
The failure to do so promotes what Elmouji calls 'trickle-down cowardice.' Paul Weiss had the reputation and money to stand up to the administration where smaller firms and the nonprofits who hire their lawyers for pro bono work do not. By bowing to Trump and by censoring their website, the firm has set an example and a precedent that trickles down to those less able to fight back.
'We're already seeing a lot of nonprofits and organizations taking these steps to scrub their websites while still professing to do the work, but we're just going to hide it or we're going to take the words down,' Elmouji said. 'I think it's wrong when anybody does it, but I think it's particularly wrong when lawyers do it.'
Siegfried wondered what Ted Sorensen, the former Paul Weiss lawyer, aide to John F. Kennedy and ghostwriter of Kennedy's famous Profiles in Courage who died in 2010, would think about the firm's shocking 'surrender,' as Siegfried called it, if he were around.
'Standing up when the stakes are very high — when the stakes are personally high. That's what a profile in courage is,' Siegfried said. 'And that is what, to me, remains the great disappointment.'
For Ahmed, the pain she feels from Paul Weiss' capitulation is deeply personal.
'The thing that makes me so sad is Paul Weiss made me the lawyer that I am today,' Ahmed said. 'The sadness comes from the fact that I know there are incredible people at that firm who I imagine still today believe so strongly in the civil rights and civil liberties of the people in our nation, including immigrants, and I don't want that to get lost.'
A 150-Year-Old Law Firm Chooses Cowardice In Confrontation With Trump
Trump And A Powerhouse Law Firm Are Telling Different Stories About Their Shocking Agreement
Prominent Law Firm Escapes Trump's Ire After Folding To His Demands
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
11 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers
President Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food assistance for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food assistance program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come from shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come from expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. The House resolution containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts passed last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food assistance and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it. Lieb writes for the Associated Press.
CNN
14 minutes ago
- CNN
Israel, Iran trade attacks after Israel targets nuclear sites
Retired Adm. James Stavridis and New York Times National Security Correspondent David Sanger weigh in on the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
More Americans support than oppose Trump's Army celebration parade: Poll
As President Donald Trump hosts events on Saturday to celebrate the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary, a new national poll indicates more Americans are likely to approve than disapprove of the president's decision to hold a military parade. But six in 10 Americans are concerned about the cost of the parade, saying it's "not a good use" of government money, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey. Trump, who is marking his 79th birthday on Saturday, is scheduled to give a speech during the parade, which will take place Saturday evening along the National Mall in Washington D.C. Defense officials say roughly 6,600 soldiers will march in the parade, with some 50 military aircraft and 150 vehicles, including tanks, rocket launchers, and missiles. The Army says it's spending $25-$45 million to pay for the parade, which includes fixing D.C. streets damaged by the tanks. Trump Warns Any Protesters At His Military Parade Will Be 'Met With Very Big Force' Trump has defended the cost of the parade, saying last month in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" that it would be "peanuts compared to the value of doing it." Read On The Fox News App "We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it," the president said. Trump To Host Military Parade To Celebrate Army's 250Th Birthday But some in Congress are criticizing the parade, saying the money could be better spent. "If it was really about celebrating military families, we could put $30 million toward helping them offset the cost of their child care, food assistance and tuition," Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a military veteran who lost both of her legs in combat while piloting an Army Black Hawk helicopter during the Iraq War, said in a social media post. "But it isn't. Trump is throwing himself a $30 million birthday parade just to stroke his own ego," Duckworth argued. According to the poll, 40% of adults nationwide approved of the military parade, with 29% disapproving, and three in 10 neither approving nor disapproving. There was an expected partisan divide, with two-thirds of Republicans approving of the president's move to hold the parade, and half of Democrats disapproving. But in a separate question, 60% of those surveyed said holding the parade was not a good use of government funds, with 38% disagreeing. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans said holding the parade was a good use of government funds, while eight in 10 Democrats disagreed. The White House, in a statement, said that the parade "will be a unifying celebration for not only the thousands in attendance, but Americans across the country who can participate in honoring our active-duty servicemembers, Veterans, and fallen heroes." Pro-democracy, progressive, and labor activists are planning protests in all 50 states on Saturday that will coincide with Trump's military parade. Many are part of a series of "No Kings" protests across the country, with more than 1,500 rallies scheduled for this weekend. But organizers decided against holding a major protest in the nation's capital and instead will hold their main event in Philadelphia. The poll, which was conducted June 5-9, also indicates that 39% of those questioned approve of the job Trump's doing in the White House, with six in ten giving the president a thumbs down. The survey had an overall margin of error of plus or minus four percentage article source: More Americans support than oppose Trump's Army celebration parade: Poll
