We sat with 350 lawyers as they strategized fighting Trump. Big Law was absent — but Smaller Law is itching to fight.
We sat with 350 attorneys for the NYC Bar Association's "Defending Justice" program.
There was great alarm over Trump's Big Law executive orders and attacks on the judiciary.
"What we are witnessing today is not normal, and it must not be normalized," the bar's president said.
It's a staid and stately room, the New York City Bar Association meeting hall in Midtown Manhattan. The century-old walls are trimmed with red velvet and high Corinthian columns, and famous alumni, including Thurgood Marshall and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, look down from their oil portraits.
The hall was far from staid on Monday night, though, as Business Insider sat with 350 New York City lawyers for a program called "Defending Justice."
Instead, there were calls for protests, op-ed writing, and lawsuits.
"We should bring as many lawsuits as we possibly can to stop the administration from doing what it can," urged civil rights lawyer Ilann Maazel, a panelist.
At least two lawyers used the decidedly extra-legal term "five-alarm fire." Some spoke of their plans to attend a May 1 protest and their concerns over having their phones searched at the US border. "If you can go on Signal, I recommend you do," one lawyer told another over a post-panel buffet table.
The unrest in the room had two main causes. The first concerned attacks on judges, including recent threats to their safety and the Department of Justice's flirting with the outright defiance of a court's order.
The second concern was President Trump's executive orders targeting Big Law firms.
The White House has cited national security risks and claims of racism concerning DEI efforts when it imposed penalties on Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and others. Paul Weiss and eight other firms struck a deal, while Perkins and three other firms, all hit with similar orders, have sued and won temporary court orders blocking Trump's EOs from going into effect.
The legal profession is duty-bound to speak out against Trump's attacks on the judiciary and his EOs, the bar's president, Muhammad U. Faridi, told the group.
"Lawyers do not serve the executive — they serve the law," Faridi said, kicking off the evening's program.
"What we are witnessing today is not normal," he added. "And it must not be normalized."
Monday's program was subtitled "Mobilizing the Legal Profession to Stand Up for the Rule of Law." So we were not surprised when much of the four-hour program focused on resistance.
Throughout the night, the call to resist came with words of anger.
An audience member demanded that the group "expel from this membership all the partners of Paul Weiss." This was gently shot down from the dias by Maazel, who called instead for urging Big Law's capitulators to reconsider.
"It's not too late to change your mind," Maazel said to a round of applause.
Maazel, a partner at the law firm Emery Celli, said the big firms that cut deals with the Trump administration could still push back if Trump tries to move the goalposts. And he urged lawyers in the room, including retired lawyers, to step up and help anyone targeted by the administration.
"There is an inexhaustible need for lawyers right now," he said. "Our phones are ringing off the hook."
Sometimes the call to resist came with an invocation of history.
Vince Warren, executive director for the Center for Constitutional Rights, helps defend Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate student arrested by federal immigration authorities for his role in pro-Palestine demonstrations on campus.
As a panelist on Monday night, he drew parallels between the US and authoritarian tendencies of India and Hungary, where lawyers or their clients can be "disappeared."
"We have to envision ourselves as fighting for our own lives," he said.
Some said the obstacles to resisting Trump were significant. A lawyer who retired after a career in banking worried he may have to buy his own legal malpractice insurance policy if he wanted to volunteer. For his whole career, he said, his employers had always dealt with that.
Another raised a similar issue: He no longer had access to pricey legal research tools like Westlaw or Lexis.
Christopher Pioch, a business litigator who moderated one of the panels, said that Big Law firms don't incentivize their younger lawyers to be civically involved. Most have policies that encourage pro bono, but the focus is generally on billable work.
"Because of how we've quantified everything, you really miss out on participating in organizations like the bar association because there's no benefit to doing so," said Pioch.
The evening's conversation also touched on the red-hot divide between those Big Law firms that have cut deals with Trump and those that are fighting back.
A few firms — including Paul Weiss, Milbank and A&O Shearman — have agreed to collectively devote $940 million in pro bono time to priorities that dovetail with Trump's interests. Meanwhile, firms that have resisted Trump's demands, including Jenner & Block, Covington & Burling, and WilmerHale, stand head and shoulders above other firms when it comes to volunteering for pro bono projects, one speaker noted.
Panelist Shira A. Scheindlin, a retired US district court judge, earned the biggest applause of the evening by wishing aloud that the law firms that capitulated had not.
"If the law firms had all acted collectively and resisted those clearly unconstitutional orders, I think those orders would've quickly disappeared," the retired judge said of the Big Law divide.
(Scheindlin noted that only Justices Alito and Thomas dissented from the Court's order blocking Venezuelan deportations — and got the night's biggest laugh by urging, "Pray for the good health of the remaining seven justices.")
Other lawyers noted that the rules of ethics can be barriers to collective action. When one lawyer suggested that large law firms agree not to poach clients from competitors who've been singled out by Trump, one member from the audience muttered to her seat-mate, "A client can choose whoever they want."
Many in the room described fear around taking action.
Scheindlin said some judges have had pizzas sent to their homes by people using the name of Judge Esther Salas's son. Salas is a federal judge whose son and husband were shot dead by a disgruntled litigant who showed up on her doorstep.
Many described a fear among lawyers of losing one's job solely for speaking out.
One participant described a recent protest at Bryant Park where a small group of lawyers wore masks out of concern for appearing in an online photo seen by their bosses.
Lawyers who worked for nonprofits mused about the possibility of their organization's tax-deductible status being subject to an audit. Another said his nonprofit moved its archives to a secure location offsite and encouraged other lawyers to think about what would happen if their offices were raided by the FBI.
Still, among the rows and rows of lawyers, some hope broke through the anger and frustration.
There was a good deal of gratitude directed towards the judiciary.
"The attitude in which we're living now is one of fear and intimidation," and yet many judges have been "very brave, very courageous," said Scheindlin, the retired judge.
"Can you imagine if we did not have a judiciary right now?" she asked from the dais. "Every one of these executive orders would be carried out."
Maazel noted three reasons there is "room for hope." One was Harvard University's decision to sue the Trump administration. The second was the Supreme Court's late-night order over the weekend barring further deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
The third reason for hope? A recent town hall held by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley in Fort Madison, Iowa.
"So all these folks in Iowa — these are not, you know, Manhattan liberals — they were very upset, not with tariffs, not with inflation, but with a man who was sent to El Salvador without any kind of due process," Maazel said, referring to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadorean national who was deported despite a court order that allowed him to seek legal protection in the US. "And that just gave me the illuminance of hope."
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Diplomatic win for UK hosting US-China trade talks
Sky News understands that the Trump administration approached the UK government to ask if it would host round two of the US-China trade talks. This is a useful 'diplo-win' for the UK. The first round was held in Geneva last month. News of that happening came as a surprise. The Chinese and the Americans were in the midst of a Trump-instigated trade war. President Trump was en route to Saudi Arabia and suddenly we got word of talks in Switzerland. They went surprisingly well. US treasury secretary Scott Bessent and his Chinese counterpart He Lifeng, met face-to-face and agreed to suspend most tariffs for 90 days. But two weeks later, the Trump administration accused Beijing of breaking the agreements reached in Geneva. Beijing threw the blame back at Washington. On Wednesday, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping spoke by phone. The Chinese claimed this call was at the Americans' request. Either way, the consequence was that the talks were back on track. "I just concluded a very good phone call with President Xi of China, discussing some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, trade deal," President Trump said this week. From that call came the impetus for a second round of talks. A venue was needed. In stepped the UK at short notice. Beyond being geographically convenient, UK government sources suggest that Britain is geopolitically in the right place right now to act as this bridge and facilitator. The UK-China relationship is in the process of a "reset". Other locations, like Brussels or other EU capitals, would have been less workable. Crucially too, for the UK, this is also potentially advantageous as it seeks to get its own UK-US trade agreement, to eliminate or massively reduce tariffs, over the line. Talks on reaching the "implementation phase" have been near-continuous since the announcement last month, but having the American principals in London is a plus. Sideline talks are possible, but even the presence of the US team in the UK is helpful. Read more from Sky News:Man wrongly deported from US to El Salvador has been returned to face criminal chargesMore than 40 'narco-boat' drug smugglers arrested in major police sting For all the chaos that President Trump is causing with his tariffs, he has instigated face-to-face conversations as he seeks resets. Key players are sitting down around tables - yes, to untangle the trade knots which Trump tied, but this whole episode has pulled foes together around the same table; it has forced relationships and maybe mutual understanding. That's useful. And for this next round, between superpowers, the UK is the host. Also useful.
Boston Globe
20 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Healey touts state tuition savings, criticizes federal cuts to Pell Grants
Overall, MASSGrant Plus Expansion program saved more than 34,000 Massachusetts students an estimated $110 million in the 2023-2024 academic year, the statement said. More than 7,730 middle income students saved an average of $3,856 each, according to data from the state Department of Higher Education, the statement said. Advertisement In the same statement, Healey urged the US Senate to reject Pell Grant cuts included in the federal budget reconciliation bill recently passed by Republicans in the U.S. House and supported by President Trump. The proposed cuts and eligibility restrictions would results in 42,000 Massachusetts students at public institutions losing $57 million in funding each year, according to Healey's statement said. 'Massachusetts is home to the best schools in the country, but we need to make sure that they are affordable for all of our students,' Healey's statement said. 'That's why I took action to increase financial aid at our public colleges and universities, which has already lowered costs for tens of thousands of students.' The drastic cuts proposed to the Pell Grant program would 'roll back the progress we have made and increase costs,' Healey said. Advertisement 'This is bad for our students and bad for our economy, as it would hold back our next generation of workers from being able to afford to go to school,' she said. Healey announced $62 million in new state funding to expand the MASSGrant program during a ceremony at Salem State University in November 2023. The new funding covered the full costs of tuition and mandatory instructional fees for Pell Grant-eligible students, and as much as half for middle-income students. Middle-income students are those whose families earn between $73,000 and $100,000 annually in adjusted gross income. The program was retroactive to the start of the fall 2023 semester for Massachusetts students at the states public institutions, including its 15 community colleges, nine state universities, and four University of Massachusetts undergraduate campuses. Funding for the expansion of the program also drew on $84 million Healey and the legislature had set earmarked for financial aid expansion in the FY24 budget, Healey's office said at the time. 'The dramatic enrollment increases our community colleges have seen over the last two years make it clear that free community college and expanded financial aid is a game changer for students in Massachusetts,' Luis Pedraja, chair of the Community College Council of Presidents, and president of Quinsigamond Community College said in the statement. 'The proposed Pell eligibility changes would be devastating to our students' ability to afford higher education and the community college presidents in Massachusetts urge the Senate to reject this ill-advised change,' Pedraja said. Education Secretary Patrick Tutwiler said he feared the impacts proposed cuts could have on students who struggle to afford college. Advertisement 'Low-income students deserve to go to college just as much as their higher income peers, and these changes are going to take us backwards – increasing dropout rates and leaving students saddled with more debt and no degree," Tutwiler said in the statement. Tonya Alanez can be reached at
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is a $5,000 DOGE stimulus check a real thing? What we know
In February, President Donald Trump said he was considering a plan to pay out $5,000 stimulus checks to American taxpayers from the savings identified by billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Are they happening? No official plan or schedule for such a payout has been released, and a decision on the checks would have to come from Congress, which has so far been cool to the idea. And there have been questions as to how much DOGE has actually saved. The idea was floated by Azoria investment firm CEO James Fishback, who suggested on Musk's social media platform X that Trump and Musk should "should announce a 'DOGE Dividend'" from the money saved from reductions in government waste and workforce since it was American taxpayer money in the first place. He even submitted a proposal for how it would work, with a timeline for after the expiration of DOGE in July 2026. "At $2 trillion in DOGE savings and 78 million tax-paying households, this is a $5,000 refund per household, with the remaining used to pay down the national debt," he said in a separate post. Musk replied, "Will check with the President." "We're considering giving 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% to paying down the debt," Trump said in a during the Saudi-sponsored FII PRIORITY Summit in Miami Beach the same month. DOGE has dismantled entire federal agencies, wiped out government contracts and led the firings of tens of thousands of federal workers, leaving many agencies struggling to continue operations. DOGE checks? Elon Musk dodges DOGE stimulus check question during Wisconsin rally: Here's what he said. Fishbeck suggested that the potential refund go only to households that are net-income taxpayers, or households that pay more in taxes than they get back. The Pew Research Center said that most Americans with an adjusted gross income of under $40,000 effectively pay no federal income tax. They would not be eligible. If DOGE achieves Musk's initial goal of stripping $2 trillion from U.S. government spending by 2026, Fishback's plan was for $5,000 per household, or 20% of the savings divided by the number of eligible households. If DOGE doesn't hit the goal, Fishback said the amount should be adjusted accordingly. 'So again, if the savings are only $1 trillion, which I think is awfully low, the check goes from $5,000 to $2,500,' Fishback said during a podcast appearance. 'If the savings are only $500 billion, which, again, is really, really low, then the [checks] are only $1,250.' However, while Musk talked about saving $2 trillion in federal spending during Trump's campaign, he lowered the goal to $1 trillion after Trump assumed office and said in March he was on pace to hit that goal by the end of May. At a Cabinet meeting in April, Musk lowered the projected savings further to $150 billion in fiscal year 2026. Musk left the White House at the end of May when his designation as a "special government employee" ended. DOGE, the advisory group he created, is expected to continue without him. That depends on who you ask. On its website, DOGE claims to have saved an estimated $175 billion as of May 30, "a combination of asset sales, contract and lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletions, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions." The site says that works out to $1,086.96 saved per taxpayer. However, many of DOGE's claims have been exaggerated and several of the initiatives to slash agency workforces have been challenged in court. DOGE has been accused of taking credit for contracts that were canceled before DOGE was created, failing to factor in funds the government is required to pay even if a contract is canceled, and tallying every contract by the most that could possibly be spent on it even when nothing near that amount had been obligated. The website list has been changed as the media pointed out errors, such as a claim that an $8 million savings was actually $8 billion. On May 30, CNN reported that one of its reporters found that less than half the $175 billion figure was backed up with even basic documentation, making verification difficult if not impossible. Some of the changes may also end up costing taxpayers more, such as proposed slashes to the Internal Revenue Service that experts say would mean less tax revenue generated, resulting in a net cost of about $6.8 billion. Over the next 10 years, if IRS staffing stays low, the cumulative cost in uncollected taxes would hit $159 billion, according to the nonpartisan Budget Lab at Yale University. The per-taxpayer claim on the website is also inflated, CNN said, as it's based on '161 million individual federal taxpayers' and doesn't seem to include married people filing jointly. This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: DOGE dividends: Will American taxpayers get a $5,000 check?
