Latest news with #Arps
CBS News
02-05-2025
- Business
- CBS News
High-profile attorney Abbe Lowell launches new firm to push back on Trump's attacks on legal system
Washington — Abbe Lowell, a criminal defense attorney who has represented a number of high-profile political clients, is launching a new law firm to push back on President Trump's crusade against several major practices. Lowell & Associates has hired multiple attorneys who left firms that cut deals with the Trump administration as the president sought to punish prominent practices to settle his long-held grievances against his political opponents. Mr. Trump has issued executive orders targeting major law firms that represented his political opponents, were involved in legal challenges against him or hired attorneys connected to the investigations into him. Lowell's previous clients include Mr. Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, former President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and former Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey. New York Attorney General Letitia James, former Trump administration official Miles Taylor and whistleblower lawyer Mark Zaid are among the firm's first clients. In an announcement, the firm said it represents "individuals, including current and former state and federal officials who have been unlawfully and inappropriately targeted by this Administration," as well as "entities and organizations involved in litigation over the improper revocation of grant funding by the Department of Government Efficiency and the federal government." "We are not here to make statements, we are here to litigate, win, and help reinforce the legal guardrails that hold our democracy together," said Brenna Trout Frey, who resigned from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, after the law practice committed to providing $100 million in pro bono work for Mr. Trump's interests. Several firms — Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Paul, Weiss and Milbank — also pledged millions of dollars in free legal work for the administration in response to the executive orders, while others — Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Perkins Coie — are fighting them in court. Mr. Trump's executive orders require government contractors to disclose any business they have with the legal practices. They direct agencies to cancel contracts with the orders' targets and also reassess contracts with the firms or companies that do business with them to ensure funding decisions align "with the interests of the citizens of the United States" and the Trump administration's priorities.
Business Insider
29-04-2025
- Lifestyle
- Business Insider
12 tips for finding your signature scent, according to professional perfumers
Last year, fragrance was among the fastest-growing sectors of the beauty industry, despite being one of the smallest. There are many online recommendations and tempting new launches out there, but it can be difficult to decide which fragrance to purchase and really make your own. So, Business Insider asked fragrance brand founders and developers for their best advice on finding your perfect signature scent. Train your nose Before entering any fragrance shop, it's important to train your nose and determine what scents you naturally gravitate toward, Brianna Arps, founder, CEO, and designer at Moodeaux, told BI. Note the fragrance categories you enjoy — like gourmands, florals, or citrus — then narrow it down to specific notes, like line items in a recipe, Arps said. "As you become more familiar with what certain things smell like, you're able to quickly weed out things that wouldn't work for you," she added. Understand the feeling and intention behind your scent Scent tells stories through layers of notes, Carlos Huber, a fragrance developer and founder of Arquiste Parfumeur, told BI. He said it's important that people ask themselves how a scent makes them feel and where it takes them. For example, certain notes can make you feel energized or relaxed when wearing them. "We associate our life experiences with the stuff we put on us, whether it's fashion or a perfume. Figure out your intention for that," Huber said. Try to test fragrances on both paper and skin Romano Ricci, founder and artistic director of Juliette Has a Gun, advised testing fragrances on both paper and skin when shopping around. Paper can offer a more neutral palette, but since everyone's bodies react differently to scents, it's important to test a fragrance on your skin to see how it will really sit. Beware of olfactory fatigue Olfactory fatigue can make it harder to describe a scent's notes, Ricci said. To avoid this, he suggested limiting your testing to three to four scents and spreading your sniffs out by about 10 minutes. That way, their middle notes (also known as heart notes) have time to come out. Some fragrance shops also have cups of coffee beans for customers to smell between perfumes to "reset" the olfactory sense, but Arps said this might do more harm than good by clouding your nose's judgment. Instead, she recommended smelling clean skin on the inside of your arm or the back of your hand between fragrances. Give your test fragrance time to settle Whether you spray a fragrance on paper or your skin, Arps recommended letting it settle to draw out the complexities of the top, middle, and bottom notes. For example, some scents that you may initially adore could unfurl into something you don't actually enjoy. "You're gonna live with it, and it's gonna live with you for a little bit. You may like something immediately, but then if you don't like it within an hour, then it's not meant to be your signature scent," Huber told BI. Take note of positive or negative feedback you get while wearing a new fragrance Sometimes, testing a fragrance once is enough, especially if you receive positive feedback. While wearing a fragrance, see if anyone offers a compliment or reaction to the scent, like how someone would mention a flattering new lip color or hairstyle. "It's the same way as your makeup or your outfit. It's a way of expression," Ricci said. Look into a fragrance discovery kit before purchasing a full-sized bottle Before you dive into a full-size, or even travel-size, bottle of fragrance, Arps suggested trying a discovery kit of multiple scents in even smaller quantities. Ricci recommended using a platform like Nose, which uses your past fragrance preferences to build a kit of new scents you might like. Keep a log of fragrances you try Arps also recommended keeping a list of the scents you try as a concrete way to analyze common scent notes that you're drawn to. This can help point you in the right direction for a fragrance you'll love. Consider alternative methods for finding a new fragrance Although your first thought when looking for a new signature scent may be to run to a department store, Arps told BI that swap meets are becoming more popular among fragrance fans. While there, people swap perfumes (including partially used ones) with one another. "It's another way to help find a scent that you truly love, because just as a fragrance evolves, we as people evolve," she said. "These types of events allow people to honor growth and find things that speak to them now." Determine the kind of longevity you want to have A fragrance's longevity depends on its oil concentration: the lower the concentration, the less time the scent will last. A pure parfum, for example, should last the longest — up to eight hours — because it has an oil concentration between 20 and 30%. After parfum comes an eau de parfum, followed by an eau de toilette, an eau de cologne, and an eau fraiche, which has the lowest oil concentration. However, don't worry if you fall in love with a scent that doesn't last. Longevity can be a little overrated, Huber said, as you can always re-apply a fragrance. Remember to keep your budget in mind The price of a fragrance can depend on various factors, from scent longevity and ingredients to brand name. The popular fragrance brand Le Labo, for example, has bottles that retail for up to $1,095. Although it's probably the least fun part of finding a signature scent, Arps recommended keeping a realistic budget in mind when deciding which fragrances to add to your collection. Have fun searching for your signature scent There's no right or wrong way to find your signature scent or "olfactory personality," Ricci said. His best advice: Visualize your fragrance as an "invisible dress and not as a composition of ingredients," and reflect on what you want to express through your scent.
Boston Globe
23-04-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Law firms fighting Trump to ask judges to permanently block executive orders
Advertisement 'Although Perkins Coie did not bring this suit lightly, it was compelled to do so to preserve its ability to continue representing the best interests of its clients,' lawyers for Perkins Coie wrote in a filing ahead of the hearing. 'The Constitution does not permit our elected leaders, from any party, to punish lawyers by fiat for representing clients who oppose their political agendas. It would set a grave precedent for our Republic if the Order were allowed to stand.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The executive orders taking aim at some of the country's most elite and prominent law firms are part of a wide-ranging retribution campaign by Trump designed to reshape civil society and extract concessions from perceived adversaries. The actions have forced targeted entities, whether law firms or universities, to decide whether to push back and risk further incurring the administration's ire or to agree to concessions in hopes of averting sanctions. Some firms have challenged the orders in court, but others have proactively reached settlements. Advertisement The orders have generally imposed the same consequences, including directing the suspension of attorney security clearances, restricting lawyers' access to federal buildings and terminating federal contracts. The first law firm action took place in February when Trump signed a memo suspending the security clearances of attorneys at Covington & Burling who have provided legal services to special counsel Jack Smith, who investigated the president between his first and second terms and secured two indictments that have since been abandoned. The executive order targeting Perkins Coie singled out the firm's representation of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race, and the one against WilmerHale cited the fact that special counsel Robert Mueller — who investigated Trump during his first term over potential ties between Russia and his 2016 campaign — was for years a partner at the firm. Last month, the firm Paul Weiss cut a deal with the Trump administration that resulted in an executive order against it being rescinded. Since then, more than a half-dozen other firms have reached agreements with the White House that require them, among other things, to dedicate free legal services to causes the Trump administration says it champions. They include Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Milbank; Willkie, Farr & Gallagher; Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins LLP; Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; and Cadwalader, Taft & Wickersham.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
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.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom leads M&A legal advisory in South & Central America for Q1 2025
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom has led the mergers and acquisitions (M&A) legal adviser rankings in the South and Central America region for the first quarter of 2025, based on both value and volume metrics, according to the latest financial advisers league table published by data and analytics firm GlobalData. An examination of GlobalData's Deals Database indicates that Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom led the charts by advising on two transactions valued at a total of $1.7bn. GlobalData lead analyst Aurojyoti Bose said: 'Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom recorded notable growth in both the volume and value of deals in Q1 2025 compared to the same period in 2024, leading to a significant improvement in its rankings. 'The firm jumped from 13th place by deal volume in Q1 2024 to claim the top position in Q1 2025. Similarly, its ranking by deal value also rose from seventh to first place over the same period.' Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton secured the second position in terms of value, having provided counsel on deals amounting to $1.2bn. Following closely was Squire Patton Boggs, which advised on transactions worth $950m. Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs, Guerrero Olivos, and Valdes y Cia shared the fourth position, each advising on deals valued at $240m. In terms of deal volume, Perez Alati, Grondona, Benites, Arntsen & Martinez de Hoz and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati jointly held the second position, with both firms advising on two transactions. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and Squire Patton Boggs advised on one deal each. GlobalData's league tables are based on the real-time tracking of thousands of company websites, advisory firm websites and other reliable sources available on the secondary domain. A dedicated team of analysts monitors all these sources to gather in-depth details for each deal, including adviser names. To ensure further robustness to the data, the company also seeks submissions of deals from leading advisers. "Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom leads M&A legal advisory in South & Central America for Q1 2025" was originally created and published by Private Banker International, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
