Latest news with #BigLaw
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Business
- Boston Globe
A federal judge delivered a beatdown to the Trump administration, in support of WilmerHale. Here's how.
Welch would be pleased to see the beatdown that Judge Richard Leon delivered against the administration last week — and not just because Leon ruled in favor of Welch's old firm. Welch would also appreciate the emphatic tone of Leon's message, with more than 20 exclamation points across a 73-page order. Advertisement It's and its roughly 2,400 employees that hangs in the balance. The fundamentals of the country's entire legal system could be at risk. In recent months, President Trump issued several executive orders threatening prominent law firms because of their work on behalf of immigrants and elections reform, or for hiring a lawyer or two deemed an enemy by the president, among other supposed sins. In Trump's threats Advertisement Nine Big Law firms quickly caved, settling with Trump and agreeing to provide legal services to causes blessed by the president, worth around $1 billion in total. Dozens more have stayed quiet, on the sidelines. But four firms in Trump's crosshairs chose to fight. And it has not gone well for the president. With Leon's vigorous torpedoing of Trump's executive order against WilmerHale on the books, the administration's record is now 0-3 against Big Law in the courts — with the fate of Here are a few things to know about Judge Leon. He often wears a bow tie, a sartorial choice much less common now than in Welch's day. Leon is a Natick native, went to college appointed him to the bench. He has a bit of a reputation for He did not disappoint, on any of these counts, with his May 27 decision. Right at the outset, Leon explained why he was striking down the entirety of Trump's WilmerHale order as unconstitutional. 'The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases,' Leon wrote. 'Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!' Advertisement On the administration's assertion that WilmerHale's financial injuries are speculative in nature, Leon said: 'Please — that dog won't hunt!" On whether Trump's order improperly infringes on WilmerHale's freedom of speech: 'The Order goes on to impose a kitchen sink of severe sanctions on WilmerHale for this protected conduct!' And on whether the order violates the rights of WilmerHale clients to pick their counsel: 'The intended and actual effect of the Order's sanctions is to drive away clients from WilmerHale!' Then there was the tasty footnote on page 14, in which Leon describes Trump's March 27 executive order against WilmerHale as akin to a gumbo, in which all the ingredients should be considered together as one dish. 'As explained in this Memorandum Opinion,' Leon concludes, 'this gumbo gives the court heartburn.' Tell us how you really feel, Judge Leon! Both sides were far more subdued when asked for comment. After all, Leon's decision could still be appealed. WilmerHale offered a brief statement, sans exclamation points, saying the decision 'strongly affirms our foundational constitutional rights and those of our clients. We remain proud to defend our firm, our people, and our clients.' Meanwhile, Trump is a fan of explanation points, judging by his social media posts. But White House spokesman Harrison Fields opted against using one. Instead, he focused on one aspect of the case involving Trump's attempt to revoke WilmerHale's security clearances: 'The decision to grant any individual access to this nation's secrets is a sensitive judgment call entrusted to the President. Weighing these factors and implementing such decisions are core executive powers, and reviewing the President's clearance decisions falls well outside the judiciary's authority.' Advertisement As president of the Mass. Bar Association, Victoria Santoro has been rallying the state's law groups to protest Trump's executive-order barrage. She notes that judges of all political backgrounds and jurisdictions have blocked a wide range of Trump's executive orders, not just those involving the legal profession. To Santoro, the trend speaks to Trump's excessive and unconstitutional use of EOs. But will law firms feel safe from future Trump attacks, free to take on clients and causes unpopular with the president, or a lawyer with ties to his enemies? Maybe not. Boston College law professor Cheryl Bratt calls Leon's decision necessary, but she's not sure if it's sufficient. Translation: It will probably take more than one judge's opinion, or even three, to give law firms the comfort to know they won't end up on Trump's hit list. The reluctance is understandable. The harm is real: Some clients were already starting to reconsider WilmerHale, for example, and two of its lawyers had their security clearances suspended. Bratt incorporated the Trump vs. Big Law saga into her classes this spring; one way to talk about the fundamental rights provided by the Constitution is to show how they can get threatened in real time. As a WilmerHale alum, Bratt paid particular attention. The legacy of Joseph Welch looms large there; she was told about Welch's stand against McCarthyism during her employee orientation, and the firm's website recounts that history with pride. WilmerHale's current fight, led by Advertisement As granddaughter Nancy Welch watches the WilmerHale-Trump fight play out from her Maryland home, she is reminded of a lesson that Welch passed along to her family: He saw the rule of law, delivered fairly and without favor, as the single most powerful antidote to fear. It was a fearful time in the 1950s for the country, she said in an email, like it is right now. It's a safe bet Joseph Welch would be proud to read Leon's decision — and so, one imagines, would the Founding Fathers! Jon Chesto can be reached at
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Judges on Trump's war on Big Law: 5 explosive quotes from recent orders
Trump is on a losing streak in court against law firms challenging his executive orders. Judges cite constitutional violations and lack of national security justification. The Paul Weiss deal has repeatedly come up in rulings striking down executive orders. President Donald Trump's recent string of court losses in his war on Big Law has resulted in sweeping smackdowns from federal judges. The judges, all sitting in the US District Court for Washington, DC, ruled against the Trump administration and blocked executive orders targeting WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie. A decision is still pending in a fourth lawsuit brought by Susman Godfrey over an order targeting the firm. Nine other law firms have struck deals with Trump, promising a collective near-$1 billion in pro bono work toward his political priorities while averting a punitive executive order. But the deal struck with Paul Weiss — the first firm to reach an agreement, resulting in a rolled-back executive order — may have backfired on the Trump administration. In ruling after ruling, judges cite the Paul Weiss affair as an example of how Trump's purported "national security" justifications for his executive orders never made any sense. Here are the five sharpest takedowns from judges in the Big Law fight. Coming out of the gate with the first summary judgment decision, US District Judge Beryl Howell compared Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie to a quote from William Shakespeare's "Henry VI." "In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase 'Let's kill all the lawyers,' EO 14230 takes the approach of 'Let's kill the lawyers I don't like,' sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else," Howell wrote. Trump's executive order, Howell said, was meant to disarm a law firm that might challenge his power. "When Shakespeare's character, a rebel leader intent on becoming king, hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part of his plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding '[a]way with him,' referring to an educated clerk, who 'can make obligations and write court hand,'" Howell wrote. "Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power." In an order protecting Jenner & Block, US District Judge John Bates wrote that Trump's order violated the US Constitution in two ways: It violated the First Amendment by using "the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression," and it sought to undermine the courts. "Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution," Bates wrote. The "more pernicious" message of Trump's order was to prevent lawyers from protecting people against "governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy," according to Bates. "This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn't like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers," he wrote. Like the other judges, Bates pointed to Trump backtracking his executive order targeting Paul Weiss as evidence that his legal justifications for executive orders targeting other law firms were not sincere. In each order, Trump has claimed that "national security" issues — which Justice Department lawyers struggled to explain in court filings and hearings — allowed him to issue orders stripping law firm employees of security clearances and cutting them off from government buildings and employees. Bates wrote that the rollback of the order targeting Paul Weiss demonstrated that it was never the real reason behind Trump's order targeting Jenner & Block. "If any doubt remains as to the sincerity of the invocation of national security, take a look at the Paul Weiss saga," Bates wrote. "Paul Weiss's executive order imposed the same tailored process on its employees' security clearances," he continued. "What it took to escape that process — denouncing a former partner, changing client selection and hiring practices, and pledging pro bono work to the President's liking — had not even a glancing relationship to national security." US District Judge Richard Leon's exclamation point-ridden order knocking down an executive order targeting WilmerHale quotes from Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist papers about the importance of an independent judiciary. He wasn't alone — Howell said in her earlier order that John Adams made the unpopular decision to represent British soldiers accused of murder for their roles in the Boston Massacre. "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting," Leon wrote. "The Founding Fathers knew this!" Trump's executive orders violated those "fundamental rights," he wrote. "I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional," he wrote. "Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!" Leon's gumbo metaphor is, once again, a spicy swipe at Paul Weiss. In arguments leading up to each decision, judges weighed whether to block the entirety of each of Trump's orders or allow some parts to stand. In a footnote, Leon broke down the five different sections of the WilmerHale order and compared them to gumbo ingredients. "The Order is akin to a gumbo. Sections 2 through 5 are the meaty ingredients — e.g., the Andouille, the okra, the tomatoes, the crab, the oysters," the judge wrote. "But it is the roux — here, §1 — which holds everything together." Leon wrote that Trump rescinding Paul Weiss's order "in full" after it struck a deal shows that he intended the orders "to stand or fall as a whole." "A gumbo is served and eaten with all the ingredients together, and so too must the sections of the Order be addressed together," he wrote. The judge also made clear that the gumbo is spicy. "As explained in this Memorandum Opinion, this gumbo gives the Court heartburn," he wrote. Read the original article on Business Insider
Business Insider
6 days ago
- Politics
- Business Insider
Judges on Trump's war on Big Law: 5 explosive quotes from recent orders
President Donald Trump's recent string of court losses in his war on Big Law has resulted in sweeping smackdowns from federal judges. The judges, all sitting in the US District Court for Washington, DC, ruled against the Trump administration and blocked executive orders targeting WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie. A decision is still pending in a fourth lawsuit brought by Susman Godfrey over an order targeting the firm. Nine other law firms have struck deals with Trump, promising a collective near-$1 billion in pro bono work toward his political priorities while averting a punitive executive order. But the deal struck with Paul Weiss — the first firm to reach an agreement, resulting in a rolled-back executive order — may have backfired on the Trump administration. In ruling after ruling, judges cite the Paul Weiss affair as an example of how Trump's purported "national security" justifications for his executive orders never made any sense. Here are the five sharpest takedowns from judges in the Big Law fight. 1. 'Kill all the lawyers' Coming out of the gate with the first summary judgment decision, US District Judge Beryl Howell compared Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie to a quote from William Shakespeare's "Henry VI." "In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase 'Let's kill all the lawyers,' EO 14230 takes the approach of 'Let's kill the lawyers I don't like,' sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else," Howell wrote. Trump's executive order, Howell said, was meant to disarm a law firm that might challenge his power. "When Shakespeare's character, a rebel leader intent on becoming king, hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part of his plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding '[a]way with him,' referring to an educated clerk, who 'can make obligations and write court hand,'" Howell wrote. "Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power." 2. 'Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution' In an order protecting Jenner & Block, US District Judge John Bates wrote that Trump's order violated the US Constitution in two ways: It violated the First Amendment by using "the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression," and it sought to undermine the courts. "Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution," Bates wrote. The "more pernicious" message of Trump's order was to prevent lawyers from protecting people against "governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy," according to Bates. "This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn't like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers," he wrote. 3. "Take a look at the Paul Weiss saga" Like the other judges, Bates pointed to Trump backtracking his executive order targeting Paul Weiss as evidence that his legal justifications for executive orders targeting other law firms were not sincere. In each order, Trump has claimed that "national security" issues — which Justice Department lawyers struggled to explain in court filings and hearings — allowed him to issue orders stripping law firm employees of security clearances and cutting them off from government buildings and employees. Bates wrote that the rollback of the order targeting Paul Weiss demonstrated that it was never the real reason behind Trump's order targeting Jenner & Block. "If any doubt remains as to the sincerity of the invocation of national security, take a look at the Paul Weiss saga," Bates wrote. "Paul Weiss's executive order imposed the same tailored process on its employees' security clearances," he continued. "What it took to escape that process — denouncing a former partner, changing client selection and hiring practices, and pledging pro bono work to the President's liking — had not even a glancing relationship to national security." 4. "The Founding Fathers knew this!" US District Judge Richard Leon's exclamation point-ridden order knocking down an executive order targeting WilmerHale quotes from Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist papers about the importance of an independent judiciary. He wasn't alone — Howell said in her earlier order that John Adams made the unpopular decision to represent British soldiers accused of murder for their roles in the Boston Massacre. "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting," Leon wrote. "The Founding Fathers knew this!" Trump's executive orders violated those "fundamental rights," he wrote. "I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional," he wrote. "Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!" 5. "The Order is akin to a gumbo" Leon's gumbo metaphor is, once again, a spicy swipe at Paul Weiss. In arguments leading up to each decision, judges weighed whether to block the entirety of each of Trump's orders or allow some parts to stand. In a footnote, Leon broke down the five different sections of the WilmerHale order and compared them to gumbo ingredients. "The Order is akin to a gumbo. Sections 2 through 5 are the meaty ingredients — e.g., the Andouille, the okra, the tomatoes, the crab, the oysters," the judge wrote. "But it is the roux — here, §1 — which holds everything together." Leon wrote that Trump rescinding Paul Weiss's order "in full" after it struck a deal shows that he intended the orders "to stand or fall as a whole." "A gumbo is served and eaten with all the ingredients together, and so too must the sections of the Order be addressed together," he wrote. The judge also made clear that the gumbo is spicy. "As explained in this Memorandum Opinion, this gumbo gives the Court heartburn," he wrote.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge Uses 26 Exclamation Points to Express How Bad Trump Order Is
The president's attack on Big Law is so outrageous that it's made at least one judge raise his voice, even on paper. U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia Richard Leon struck down Donald Trump's executive order targeting law firm WilmerHale Tuesday, describing the entire directive as 'unconstitutional.' In a 73-page opinion, Leon took the time to explain the principles of democracy to the president, illustrating how his political retribution campaign is quintessentially antithetical to the foundational principles of the U.S. government. 'The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this!' Leon wrote. 'Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence. Little wonder that in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no Executive Order has been issued challenging these fundamental rights.' 'Now, however, several Executive Orders have been issued directly challenging these rights and that independence,' Leon continued. 'One of these Orders is the subject of this case. For the reasons set forth below, I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional. Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!' It's highly unusual for judges to use even one exclamation point in their rulings. Leon used a total of 26. The decision blocks Trump's March 27 order, which instructed federal agencies to throw out WilmerHale's government contracts and nix the firm's federal building access along with their security clearances. It was just one of many law firms targeted by the Trump administration for representing individuals that Trump has categorized as his political enemies, or for refusing to represent him during his monumental legal struggles last year. WilmerHale's supposed crime—per the White House—was the fact that they 'rewarded' Robert Mueller by keeping him on payroll after he investigated Trump's ties to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. But not every law firm was willing to ride out the wave of Trump's encroaching federal directives. Several major law firms had caved to Trump by April, committing to provide the convicted felon with up to $600 million in 'pro bono' legal services. But the original deal, as written, may not shake out for the famed dealmaker the way he'd hoped: earlier this month, several firms argued that the capitulation had only stipulated 'specified areas' that they needed to provide legal services for, effectively giving them free range to pick their own clients.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
4 top partners quit Paul Weiss, Big Law firm that cut deal with Trump
Four top Paul Weiss partners announced Friday that they've resigned to start their own firm. Paul Weiss is one of the firms that made a deal with Trump to reverse an EO against the firm. The Big Law firms that have negotiated with Trump have faced criticism from others in the profession. Four partners at Paul Weiss announced Friday that they are leaving the white-shoe firm, which two months ago struck a deal with the Trump administration. Karen Dunn, a star litigator who has helped Democratic candidates prepare for presidential debates, her longtime partners Bill Isaacson and Jessica Phillips, and the former prosecutor Jeannie Rhee said in an email addressed to "partners and friends" that they are starting their own firm. The high-profile departures underscore the ongoing turmoil at Big Law firms surrounding the firms' handling of punitive executive actions from President Donald Trump's administration. The departing lawyers did not give a reason for leaving in their statement. Several major firms — including Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block — chose to challenge the legality of the orders in court, and have so far been successful after two judges declared two different orders unconstitutional. Other firms, including Paul Weiss, chose to make deals with the administration, prompting concern among associates and partners over their willingness to cooperate rather than fight. The new firm's name isn't clear. Since April, several domain names containing Dunn's name and those of other lawyers have been registered anonymously. None of the websites contains any details, and it's not clear who registered them. The lawyers have represented prominent clients like Google, Amazon, and Apple over the years. Isaacson is one of the country's top antitrust litigators. Antitrust issues have been a focus for both former President Joe Biden and Trump, who have criticized the power of large tech companies. Rhee managed the firm's Washington, DC, office, and Dunn co-chaired its litigation department. "It has been an honor to work alongside such talented lawyers and to call so many of you our friends," their departing email said. "We hope to continue to collaborate with all of you in the years to come and are incredibly grateful for your warm and generous partnership." Paul Weiss's chair, Brad Karp, said in a statement, "We are grateful to Bill, Jeannie, Jessica, and Karen for their many contributions to the firm. We wish them well in their future endeavors." The departures come several months after the Trump administration began targeting Big Law firms with punitive executive actions. Among them was Paul Weiss, which faced an executive order that revoked the security clearances of the firm's attorneys and ordered a review of its government contracts. On March 20, Trump announced on Truth Social that he would drop the executive order against Paul Weiss after negotiating a deal that would require the firm to end any diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in its hiring practices and contribute $40 million of pro bono legal services to causes aligned with the administration's priorities, such as veterans affairs issues and the administration's antisemitism task force. Business Insider previously reported that the copy of the deal shared internally among Paul Weiss partners omitted language regarding DEI that was present in the president's announcement. Other firms that chose to negotiate with Trump also saw high-profile departures from partners and associates concerned with their firms' decisions not to challenge the administration. Wilkie Farr lost its longest-serving lawyer in April after Joseph Baio, a partner who'd worked there for 47 years, resigned over the firm's preemptive deal with Trump, The New York Times reported. Another firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, made a preemptive deal with the Trump administration in late March to avoid a similar executive order against it. The decision led to a series of public resignations from several Skadden associates, including Rachel Cohen and Brenna Frey. Cohen told Business Insider she had not been in touch with the attorneys who had resigned from Paul Weiss on Friday. Read the original article on Business Insider
