Latest news with #Covington&Burling
New York Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
There's a Darker Reason Trump Is Going After Those Law Firms
Every year, The American Lawyer publishes a scorecard ranking big law firms by the amount of pro bono service they provide. In 2024 the top firms on the list were Jenner & Block, Covington & Burling and WilmerHale, whose lawyers collectively donated over 400,000 hours to cases advancing the rights of L.G.B.T.Q. people, helping immigrants gain asylum and fighting voter disenfranchisement, among other causes. These firms now top a different list: law firms targeted by the Trump administration's executive orders. This is no accident. These orders use the pretense of punishing Mr. Trump's perceived enemies to pursue the far more comprehensive goal of controlling pro bono work, the lifeblood of legal aid and public-interest law organizations, which depend on pro bono support to promote access to justice and defend the values of liberal democracy. This targeting replaces the ideal of pro bono publico, literally 'for the public good,' with pro bono Trump. I've studied pro bono work around the world, and the American model — in which prominent firms devote enormous amounts of lawyer time, which would otherwise be billed at rates surpassing $1,000 per hour, to litigate cases against the government — is unique. It's also powerful. That model is behind some of the most consequential Supreme Court cases of the past quarter-century. Perkins Coie worked pro bono for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver, helping win a 2006 ruling that military commissions at Guantánamo Bay violated federal and international law. WilmerHale and Covington & Burling contributed tens of thousands of hours to petitioners in Boumediene v. Bush, holding that Guantánamo detainees were entitled to habeas corpus. The 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges, which established the right of same-sex couples to marry, was argued by a lawyer at Ropes & Gray and was supported by an amicus brief filed by Munger, Tolles & Olson. During President Trump's first term, prestigious firms helped immigrants targeted by the Muslim travel ban and filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court case challenging it. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Overall, American lawyers contribute over 35 million hours of free counsel annually to clients in need, representing them in cases involving domestic violence, illegal evictions, family separation and more. These efforts are led by lawyers in the nation's largest firms, with members of the top American Lawyer firms donating over five million hours last year. Why do big law firms do it? It's not just charity. While firm leaders care deeply about professional service and make sacrifices to do it well, they also follow what is referred to as the business case for pro bono. Firms use unpaid work in part to burnish their prestige and to buoy their positions in the influential American Lawyer rankings. That helps them to attract and retain the best lawyers — and the biggest corporate clients, which often select firms whose pro bono advances the clients' corporate social responsibilities. But the logic of the business case also imposes constraints. It means that firms generally avoid pro bono matters that even appear to conflict with the interests of clients — and decline pro bono litigation in areas like employment and environmental law on the purely financial grounds that paying clients can walk away if their firms take legal positions viewed as limiting corporate rights. It's that pain point that the Trump administration has used to exert control, by making the case that the old model of pro bono is no longer good for law firms' business. Targeting pro bono work, a longtime goal of the conservative legal movement, has already paid handsome dividends. Nine of the nation's premier law firms — including the mergers and acquisitions heavy hitters Skadden, Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins — signed agreements to provide a collective $940 million in free work. As Mr. Trump summarized the Skadden deal, 'Pro bono Legal Services' are to be provided 'during the Trump administration and beyond, to causes that the President' and the firm 'both support.' Precisely what this free work will look like is an open question. Firm leaders have claimed ultimate authority to, as W. Neil Eggleston of Kirkland put it, 'determine which matters we take on — both pro bono and otherwise.' Mr. Trump has asserted a contrary view, declaring that the agreements effectively create a pro bono war chest to conduct government business, such as negotiating trade deals and supporting the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. The recent executive order called Strengthening and Unleashing America's Law Enforcement pointed to another potential repository of pro-Trump work by instructing the attorney general to promote 'the use of private-sector pro bono assistance' for police officers accused of violating civil rights. These proposals turn the meaning of pro bono on its head by mobilizing free lawyers on behalf of government officials accused of engaging in abuse, rather than vulnerable members of the community who suffer at the government's hand. The law firm agreements harm legitimate pro bono causes in several ways. First, they will absorb firms' capacity for unpaid work, leaving less for people in need. Second, they could introduce significant conflicts of interest between government-sanctioned clients and pro bono matters against the government. Even in the absence of conflicts, it seems safe to assume that the administration will not stand by if firms seek to defend individuals from illegal government action — particularly immigrants detained and deported without due process. This much the president made clear in his call to punish 'the immigration bar and powerful Big Law pro bono practices' accused of vague 'abuses of the legal system' in 'litigating against the federal government.' The president could tie firms up in ancillary disputes, a stalling strategy he successfully deployed in criminal cases against him, or threaten new orders. This threat has a deliberately powerful chilling effect. Already, many firms are declining to take on cases that challenge the administration's policies. That's not a side effect of the crackdown. It was the purpose all along.
Indian Express
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
The Indus Waters Treaty: Back to the drawing board
In the early hours of May 7, India carried out strikes inside Pakistan, which, as the Indian Ministry of Defence press release said, 'have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature'. The strikes, carried out in Bahawalpur, Muzaffarabad, Kotli, Muridke, Sialkot, and Shakargarh, were anticipated after the barbaric terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, in which 26 tourists were killed on April 22. In the aftermath of the terrorist attack, India decided to hold the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance. The IWT was signed in 1960, under which waters from the eastern rivers — Sutlej, Ravi and Beas — were given to India. The treaty also allocates waters from the western rivers — Jhelum, Indus and Chenab — to Pakistan with limited use for India. Around 39 per cent of the Indus Basin lies in India, 47 per cent in Pakistan, and the remaining in Afghanistan and Tibet (China). When the IWT was negotiated in the 1950s, India and Pakistan were not friends but had normal ties. The then-Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani Military Chief Field Marshal Ayub Khan were in complete command of political affairs in their respective countries. Nehru was a towering leader of the postcolonial world. His idealism, mixed with tenets of realism and pragmatism, convinced him to sign the water deal. Nehru thought that the water treaty would extend cooperation between India and Pakistan to other bilateral matters. For instance, in Karachi, Nehru and Ayub Khan discussed issues like evacuee property, Kashmir, etc. After it was signed, the IWT faced criticism in both India and Pakistan. India accepted the World Bank's mediation after it proposed that it would make distinctions between 'political' and 'functional' aspects of the water disputes. John Laylin of the law firm Covington & Burling, representing Pakistan in the US, reacted favourably to the World Bank's proposal, convincing Pakistani leadership to accept the mediation. Furthermore, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the US, Canada and Germany agreed to contribute to the Indus Development Fund set up under the IWT. As India strongly advocates for a rules-based international order, New Delhi may not want to entirely stop the flow of water to Pakistan, which could be seen as violating the lower riparian country's legal right to shared rivers. The Helsinki Rules and Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1997, call for reasonable and equitable water use in an international river basin, rejecting absolute sovereignty over transboundary water resources. When the Convention was put to vote in 1997, China voted against it, India and Pakistan abstained, and Nepal and Bangladesh voted for it but have not ratified it. The Berlin Rules on Water Resources of 2004 reiterate the principle of reasonable and equitable use of water, prioritise human needs, and have a chapter with provisions on protecting waters and water installations during war or armed conflict. India, nevertheless, can strategically use the situation to make the required modifications in the IWT. In the last few years, India has, unsuccessfully, written letters to Pakistan calling for an amendment in the treaty under Article XII (3) of the IWT, which says that its provisions 'may from time to time be modified by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments'. In January 2023, India issued a notice to Pakistan seeking modifications in the IWT. Between then and September 2024, India sent four letters to Pakistan to initiate talks to revise and modify the treaty. India argues that there is a 'change in circumstances' in the Indus River Basin region due to the increasing population and the accelerating impact of climate change that requires modifications to the IWT. Taking advantage of the current status of the IWT, as some media reports say, India has carried out 'reservoir flushing' on the Salal and Baglihar dams without informing Pakistan. Keeping the IWT in abeyance may advance the date of completion and speed up works on long-pending Indian water projects like the Tulbul/Wular Barrage with a storage capacity of 0.3 million acre-feet of water involving the river Jhelum, the Bursar project on Marusudar River (a tributary of Chenab), and Jispa Dam on Bhaga River (a tributary of the Chenab). In a changed political environment, where there is an increasing demand to abrogate the treaty, India may modify some of its terms, renegotiate a part or the entirety of it or even consider offering a new water-sharing treaty to Pakistan. However, such decisions would be politically difficult. To negotiate a treaty peacefully, one needs a conducive political environment. In some cases, a powerful country imposes a treaty on a relatively weak country. Even international organisations have played a role in brokering a deal between hostile countries. Unlike the 1950s, India-Pakistan ties have touched a new low following the terror attack in Pahalgam. Moreover, India is less likely to accept the World Bank or any other international organisation/foreign country to act as a mediator. In the current situation, the fate of the IWT largely hinges on intersecting factors such as political leadership, the level and cost of escalation and de-escalation in bilateral tensions, and effective bilateral and international diplomacy. The writer is a researchfellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies, NUS, Singapore
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
30-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Here's where all the firms in the Trump-Big Law fight stand
President Donald Trump has issued a wave of executive orders targeting high-profile law firms. Trump has restricted clearances — ultimately limiting the way they do business — for firms that have clashed with his administration. While some firms have agreed to Trump's demands, others have sued the administration. President Donald Trump has taken a swing at major law firms over the past month, ordering reviews of government contracts and canceling security clearances for some firm employees. Some have made deals with the president, while others are refusing to throw in the towel. Trump has accused the Big Law firms — including Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and Covington & Burling, among others — of weaponizing the judicial system. His orders have, in turn, made it harder for the firms to continue conducting business as usual. Several have alleged in lawsuits that the executive orders intended to chill free speech and deter clients from doing business with the firms. He has called out a string of law firms that he believes have wronged him in some capacity, have worked with his political opponents, or have had diversity initiatives that are counter to his anti-DEI efforts. What's more, Trump instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to identify firms with "frivolous" cases against the administration so that they could be targeted for further executive action. Whether they're on the ropes or down for the count, here's the top firms Trump is taking on, as well as a look at where the legal process stands. Earlier in March, Trump issued an executive order directed at the prominent New York City-based law firm Paul Weiss, where he railed against the attorney Mark Pomerantz and decried what he said was "unlawful discrimination" from diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at the firm. Pomerantz previously left Paul Weiss to aid the Manhattan District Attorney's office as it probed Trump's finances. When Pomerantz resigned as special district attorney in February 2022, he wrote in a departing letter that he believed Trump was "guilty of numerous felony violations." In the order, Trump sought to revoke security clearances and bar access to government buildings for attorneys of the firm. Such a sweeping directive could also include federal courthouses, a scenario that would be detrimental to the firm's work. However, Trump just days later rescinded the executive order and announced an agreement with Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp. Trump said the firm would provide $40 million in pro bono work for causes that the administration supports and end its DEI policies. Karp received a heap of criticism, with many questioning why Paul Weiss didn't challenge Trump's order. In an email to the firm's attorneys, he said there was a desire from the outset to challenge the directive. In the same email, though, Karp argued that even if Paul Weiss won in court, it would become "persona non grata" with the Trump White House, which could prompt a wave of clients to switch to other firms and subsequently threaten the viability of the firm. "It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the administration," Karp wrote in the email. In early March, Trump targeted the law firm Perkins Coie, issuing an executive order to suspend the security clearances of the firm's attorneys and criticizing its diversity and inclusion policies. In the order, Trump called out what he said was the firm's "dishonest and dangerous activity." The president, in his order, noted the firm's representation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — his rival in the 2016 presidential election — during that year's tumultuous campaign. However, Perkins Coie struck back, filing a lawsuit against the administration for actions that it said "violates core constitutional rights, including the rights to free speech and due process." "At the heart of the order is an unlawful attack on the freedom of all Americans to select counsel of their choice without fear of retribution or punishment from the government," Perkins Coie managing director Bill Malley said in a statement in March. "We were compelled to take this action to protect our firm and our clients." The day after Perkins Coie filed its suit, a federal judge agreed to temporarily block part of the president's executive order. Perkins Coie, in a statement, said the ruling was "an important first step in ensuring this unconstitutional Executive Order is never enforced." Trump in late February signed a memorandum to evaluate federal contracts and direct the suspension of security clearances for some employees at Covington & Burling, a DC-based law firm known for its antitrust work. The president in the memo said he was suspending the clearances of individuals who advised former special counsel Jack Smith. Smith brought two federal cases against Trump — one for election interference in the 2020 presidential election and the other for retaining classified documents — but both were dropped after the president won reelection to a second term in November 2024. In the memo, Trump went after individuals whom he said were "involved in the weaponization of government" and named Peter Koski, a lawyer at Covington representing Smith. A Covington spokesperson earlier in March said it was representing Smith in an "individual" capacity. "We recently agreed to represent Jack Smith when it became apparent that he would become a subject of a government investigation," the spokesperson said in a statement. "We look forward to defending Mr. Smith's interests and appreciate the trust he has placed in us to do so." Skadden made a deal with Trump, acting before it was singled out in any executive orders. The firm promised to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services "to causes that the President and Skadden both support," Trump announced on Friday. Skadden also affirmed its commitment to merit-based hiring and employee retention, Trump said. The firm also agreed that it would refrain from engaging in "illegal DEI discrimination," according to a copy of the agreement that Trump shared on Truth Social. In a statement, Jeremy London, Skadden's executive partner, said the firm "engaged proactively" with the administration to reach the agreement. "We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our Firm," London said. Speaking from the White House, Trump referred to the deal as "essentially a settlement." Within the firm, some associates and employees expressed frustration about the deal, calling it the beginning of the end for Skadden. In the weeks leading up to the agreement, Skadden associate Rachel Cohen publicly resigned and circulated an open letter among associates at top firms calling out their employers for what she has described as inaction in the face of the administration's attacks. After the deal was announced, another employee, Brenna Frey, also resigned publicly in an announcement on LinkedIn. The chair of Elias Law Group took a different approach after it was targeted by the administration. Trump named the Elias Law Group in his "frivolous" lawsuits memo, formally titled "Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court." It claimed that the law firm was "deeply involved in the creation of a false 'dossier' by a foreign national designed to provide a fraudulent basis for Federal law enforcement to investigate a Presidential candidate in order to alter the outcome of the Presidential election." The memo went on to say that the firm "intentionally sought to conceal the role of his client — failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — in the dossier." Marc Elias, the Democratic election lawyer who founded and chairs the group, released a statement swinging back at Trump, whose actions target "every attorney and law firm who dares to challenge his assault on the rule of law," he said. "President Trump's goal is clear," Elias said in the statement. "He wants lawyers and law firms to capitulate and cower until there is no one left to oppose his Administration in court." Adding that American democracy is in a state of "peril," Elias said his law firm would not cower. "Elias Law Group will not be deterred from fighting for democracy in court," he said. "There will be no negotiation with this White House about the clients we represent or the lawsuits we bring on their behalf." Trump signed an order naming Jenner & Block on Tuesday that revoked security clearances from the firm's attorneys and ordered a review of the firm's contracts with the federal government. Trump's order singled out Andrew Weissmann, a former Jenner attorney who Trump accused of building his career around "weaponized government and abuse of power." Weissmann was a lead prosecutor in Robert Mueller's Special Counsel's Office, which investigated Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and its ties to Russia. Jenner issued a statement calling the order an "unconstitutional executive order that has already been declared unlawful by a federal court." "We remain focused on serving and safeguarding our clients' interests with the dedication, integrity, and expertise that has defined our firm for more than one hundred years and will pursue all appropriate remedies," the statement from Jenner said. Jenner also fought back with a lawsuit filed on Friday. The firm is represented by Cooley LLP, a liberal-leaning firm that has hired lawyers from Democratic administrations. On Friday, Judge John D. Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order that keeps the Trump administration from taking action against Jenner. Following the ruling, Jenner said in a statement that the order holds "no legal weight." "We will continue to do what we have always done, our job as lawyers and fearless advocates for our clients," the firm said. The Trump administration has also targeted WilmerHale, which employed Mueller and other lawyers who worked with the Justice Department to investigate ties between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign. On Thursday, Trump signed an executive order that suspended security clearances for WilmerHale employees and limited their access to federal buildings. The order also revoked WilmerHale's government contracts for engaging in "partisan representations to achieve political ends" and "efforts to discriminate on the basis of race." In contrast with other firms that have inked deals with the president, WilmerHale filed a lawsuit. The firm hired Paul Clement, the conservative legal superstar of the firm Clement & Murphy, to fight back against the Trump administration. "This lawsuit is absolutely critical to vindicating the First Amendment, our adversarial system of justice, and the rule of law," Clement told Business Insider in a statement. On Friday afternoon, Judge Richard J. Leon of the US District Court for the District of Columbia approved a motion for a temporary restraining order to halt executive actions against WilmerHale. "There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm," Leon wrote. A spokesperson for WilmerHale called the executive order unconstitutional and praised the court's "swift action." Read the original article on Business Insider
Telegraph
28-03-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Junior lawyers revolt after bosses bow to Trump ‘intimidation'
Junior lawyers are in open revolt against their employers after accusing bosses of failing to stand up to Donald Trump. More than 1,600 associates have signed an open letter to condemn the world's biggest law firms, which they claim have not done enough to combat the US president's 'bullying'. The protest is gaining momentum after Mr Trump signed a string of executive orders targeting American law firms over their work for political opponents and their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. The orders have effectively banned the firms from carrying out government work as their lawyers are not allowed to enter federal buildings. The open letter says: 'Over the past several weeks, the Executive Branch has launched an all-out attack aimed at dismantling rule-of-law norms, including by censuring individual law firms by name because of past representation.' Signatories to the letter include hundreds of lawyers from some of the firms affected, including Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss and Wilmer Hale. The letter says: 'Our system is predicated on the idea that everyone is entitled to zealous representation. Our duty as lawyers to conscientiously pursue our clients' interests, regardless of whether we personally agree with those interests, is a bedrock principle within the legal profession. 'When we are united, we cannot be intimidated. These tactics only work if the majority does not speak up. Our hope was that our employers, some of the most profitable law firms in the world, would lead the way. That has not yet been the case.' Despite Mr Trump's attack on the legal industry, the vast majority of firms have chosen to stay silent. This has prompted some industry experts to warn of a 'chilling effect'. Criticism has also intensified after Paul Weiss agreed to carry out $40m (£31m) worth of pro bono work for the Trump administration in exchange for the president's executive order being overturned. Brad Karp, Paul Weiss's chairman, later accused rival firms of 'seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys'. Details of the open letter have emerged after Mr Trump signed an executive order against WilmerHale on Thursday, as he claimed the firm is 'bent on employing lawyers who weaponise' the law. The executive order cited WilmerHale's decision to hire Robert Mueller, who previously led an investigation into claims Russia interfered in the 2016 election. As for the other firms targeted, Mr Trump signed an order against Covington & Burling over work its lawyers carried out on regarding the Jan 6 2021 riots at the Capitol.
