Latest news with #Jenner&Block
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Top U.S. companies ditch law firms that aligned with Trump amid backlash and reputation risk concerns
Live Events FAQ (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Some big U.S. companies are stopping work with law firms that made deals with the Trump administration. At a fancy lawyer lunch in Manhattan, Brooke Cucinella from hedge fund Citadel said they prefer lawyers who don't back down from a fight. Firms that fought back against Trump's orders are now getting more clients, while firms that cooperated are losing clients, as per Feb 2025, President Trump signed executive orders that told government agencies to take away security clearances from certain law firms and remove their clients from important federal contracts. He said these law firms either represented political enemies or had practices the White House didn't like, as per the Wall Street Journal big firms, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie WilmerHale , and Susman Godfrey , challenged Trump's orders in court. Some other firms made deals with the Trump administration to avoid trouble. These deals included doing pro-bono work, like defending police officers accused of misconduct, as per least 11 major companies have moved legal work away from firms that made deals with Trump. Companies that took action include, oracle, Morgan Stanley, an unnamed airline, a pharma company, and McDonald's. These companies didn't like how the law firms handled Trump's also raised concerns about Latham & Watkins, saying there might be a conflict of interest. Microsoft removed them from the preferred list but later reinstated them after discussions, as stated in the Wall Street Journal firms are facing loss of clients, internal protests, and even resignations. Partners and associates at firms like Paul Weiss, Kirkland & Ellis, Skadden, Simpson Thacher, etc., are angry at what they see as a betrayal of independence. At Paul Weiss, four top partners quit and started their own firm after the firm settled with four firms that sued Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, saw a rise in business. Big companies wanted to reward them for standing up to Trump, as per the have blocked or canceled Trump's orders against WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie, calling them unconstitutional. Judge John Bates said Trump's orders were a form of retaliation and the goal was to scare lawyers away from taking certain clients. This violated the Constitution. He said Jenner & Block was targeted because of the causes they support, clients they represent, and even a former employee, as stated in the court cases are still going on, but so far the judges are supporting the law firms that fought back. More companies are expected to choose firms that stayed independent and resisted political worry about reputation damage and don't want to be tied to firms seen as giving in to political that challenged Trump's orders in court, like Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie, are getting more corporate business.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Editorial: Standing by the rule of law: Fighting back against Trump's attack
In a lengthy ruling last week, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon of D.C. knocked down President Donald Trump's efforts to punish the law firm WilmerHale by stripping its lawyers of security clearances and attempting to prevent government contractors from working with it, part of a broader strategy to target the legal sector. Leon channeled the feelings of all those who care about American political liberty and democracy in sounding bewildered and exasperated by the government's actions, writing that Trump's 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!' using one of my many exclamation marks in his judgement. His overall position was simple and straightforward: to punish law firms for work that the executive considered politically disfavored would in effect be to end the justice system as we know it, and certainly to take it from a flawed but necessary arbiter of the law to yet another tool in the president's arsenal. On this basic premise he agreed with two fellow federal judges that have already ruled against similar efforts targeting Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block. As the firms and the judges pointed out, the president's actions had immediate impact on their business, causing both existing and prospective clients to flock away. Still, it seems now that these consequences aren't going to be as acute as they are for some of their competitors, who instead went the route of negotiating with and attempting to appease Trump. Most infamously, Paul Weiss was the first to strike a deal that had it pledging $40 million in free legal services to advance the president's agenda, in addition to all manner of other concessions. There have already been numerous reports that high-level clients have dropped the law firms that bent the knee, including Microsoft switching from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett to Jenner & Block. Multiple high-level partners have recently left Paul Weiss. To that we say: good. It should be made clear to powerful law firms, which have the resources and connections to effectively fight back if they want to, that capitulation is the wrong strategy not only morally but financially and reputationally. After all, who is going to vest their trust in $1,000-an-hour lawyers that won't go so far as to defend themselves against an aggressive federal government? These reputations, built over decades – or, in the case of certain universities, centuries — cannot be easily recovered. Trump will not succeed in his project of knocking down the foundations of the American experiment, but everyone will remember the institutions that, for the sake of expediency, ease and next quarter's profits, decided they could stomach turning their backs on the principles that they once claimed to hold dear. These fights in these judgments have a higher order effect too. They are clear indications that the administration's efforts to appear all-powerful and unstoppable are a veneer. As much as they have tested our democratic system, they have not won a total victory, and are losing steam. Every single crack in the wall makes it harder for the administration to keep up the myth that it is unbeatable and can subjugate its enemies with ease. The firms fighting back will reap the rewards. ___
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Editorial: Standing by the rule of law: Fighting back against Trump's attack
In a lengthy ruling last week, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon of D.C. knocked down President Donald Trump's efforts to punish the law firm WilmerHale by stripping its lawyers of security clearances and attempting to prevent government contractors from working with it, part of a broader strategy to target the legal sector. Leon channeled the feelings of all those who care about American political liberty and democracy in sounding bewildered and exasperated by the government's actions, writing that Trump's 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!' using one of my many exclamation marks in his judgement. His overall position was simple and straightforward: to punish law firms for work that the executive considered politically disfavored would in effect be to end the justice system as we know it, and certainly to take it from a flawed but necessary arbiter of the law to yet another tool in the president's arsenal. On this basic premise he agreed with two fellow federal judges that have already ruled against similar efforts targeting Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block. As the firms and the judges pointed out, the president's actions had immediate impact on their business, causing both existing and prospective clients to flock away. Still, it seems now that these consequences aren't going to be as acute as they are for some of their competitors, who instead went the route of negotiating with and attempting to appease Trump. Most infamously, Paul Weiss was the first to strike a deal that had it pledging $40 million in free legal services to advance the president's agenda, in addition to all manner of other concessions. There have already been numerous reports that high-level clients have dropped the law firms that bent the knee, including Microsoft switching from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett to Jenner & Block. Multiple high-level partners have recently left Paul Weiss. To that we say: good. It should be made clear to powerful law firms, which have the resources and connections to effectively fight back if they want to, that capitulation is the wrong strategy not only morally but financially and reputationally. After all, who is going to vest their trust in $1,000-an-hour lawyers that won't go so far as to defend themselves against an aggressive federal government? These reputations, built over decades – or, in the case of certain universities, centuries — cannot be easily recovered. Trump will not succeed in his project of knocking down the foundations of the American experiment, but everyone will remember the institutions that, for the sake of expediency, ease and next quarter's profits, decided they could stomach turning their backs on the principles that they once claimed to hold dear. These fights in these judgments have a higher order effect too. They are clear indications that the administration's efforts to appear all-powerful and unstoppable are a veneer. As much as they have tested our democratic system, they have not won a total victory, and are losing steam. Every single crack in the wall makes it harder for the administration to keep up the myth that it is unbeatable and can subjugate its enemies with ease. The firms fighting back will reap the rewards. ___
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Law firms that appeased Trump confront the consequences of their misjudgment
When Donald Trump launched an unprecedented offensive against prominent law firms, the businesses faced a difficult decision: appease the president or fight back against the Republican's authoritarian-style assault. To date, four firms — Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, Susman Godfrey and WilmerHale — chose the latter course, and at least so far, they're undefeated in court. As The New York Times noted after WilmerHale's latest victory, 'The ruling seemed to validate the strategy, embraced by a minority of firms, of fighting the administration instead of caving to a pressure campaign and making deals with Mr. Trump to avoid persecution.' Those in the appeasement camp have had far less to celebrate. The Wall Street Journal reported: Support for the law firms that didn't make deals has been growing inside the offices of corporate executives. At least 11 big companies are moving work away from law firms that settled with the administration or are giving — or intend to give — more business to firms that have been targeted but refused to strike deals, according to general counsels at those companies and other people familiar with those decisions. ... In interviews, general counsels expressed concern about whether they could trust law firms that struck deals to fight for them in court and in negotiating big deals if they weren't willing to stand up for themselves against Trump. The Journal's report, which has not been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News, added that the firms that cooperated with the White House's offensive are confronting the awkward realization that their strategy backfired: 'The agreements were supposed to buy peace and allow the firms to move on, but in the weeks since they have caused rifts between partners, alienated some younger associates and created problems with some longtime clients.' The same article noted that one of the big firms lost an associate who wrote in his departure email that he refused to 'sleepwalk toward authoritarianism.' This coincided with a recent New York Times report on four of the top partners at Paul Weiss — one of the legal giants that gave in to the White House — announcing that they are leaving to create their own law firm. Let's also not forget that some of these same firms are also starting to realize that their deals with the president are worse than they first realized. I'm not privy to the internal deliberations at any of the firms that chose appeasement, but common sense suggests that many, if not all, of the firms that linked arms with Team Trump have second-guessed that decision. With this in mind, NBC News reported about a month ago that a progressive group has launched a media campaign targeting the same firms that reached deals with the president. 'Big law, stop bending the knee,' reads a poster from the 'Big Law Cowards' campaign by the liberal nonprofit group Demand Justice. The group says the ads will be wheatpasted strategically around Washington on Thursday near the locations of the firms that have reached deals with the administration. The group will also have a mobile billboard circulating with ads criticizing the firms, along with a broader digital campaign. In case this isn't obvious, the underlying point of these efforts isn't to chastise the firms for making the wrong decision; it's to remind those firms that it's not too late to reverse course and join the ranks of the firms resisting Trump's gambit. Will any of the firms abandon their existing deals? If one firm does it, will others follow? Watch this space. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
The Hill
3 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
Law firms targeted by Trump are on a winning streak against him
Federal courts have handed a series of resounding victories to the law firms fighting back against President Trump's targeted executive orders, a sharp rebuke of his retribution campaign against them. Three judges, appointed by presidents of both political parties, forcefully struck down orders this month aimed at limiting government contracts and access for Big Law firms Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block. The early wins underscore the legal system's ability to withstand the Trump administration's pressure test, and have led some in the legal community to take shots at other elite firms that struck deals with Trump to avoid punishments. 'This is a moment for courage, not capitulation,' said Harold Hongju Koh, a Yale Law School professor who authored papers calling Trump's orders retaliatory and the law firm deals unenforceable. 'The firms that showed courage are being vindicated, and the ones who have capitulated have another chance to show courage,' he continued. 'So, what are they going to do?' The judges ruling in favor of the law firms all deemed the administration's actions as illegal. Still, that might not make firms that chose to strike deals with Trump regret their actions. Those firms likely anticipated they could win in court, but decided it was in their better business interests to settle with Trump, said Rachel Cohen, a lawyer who made waves after she offered a conditional resignation from Skadden contingent on whether leadership came up with 'a satisfactory response to the current moment.' Skadden ended up reaching a deal with the Trump administration, and Cohen no longer works there. Cohen argued Trump has effectively won in getting a number of law firms to offer it concessions even though the administration had a weak case in court. 'The very fact that we're saying, 'What does it mean that the Trump administration has lost all of these legal battles' shows that they kind of won, right?' Cohen told The Hill. The three firms that won in court all have ties to people who are political opponents of Trump or who are otherwise seen as the president as enemies. Perkins Coie had long drawn Trump's ire for advising Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential campaign and working with an opposition research firm tied to the discredited Steele dossier. WilmerHale had employed special counsel Robert Mueller before and after his stint investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, while Jenner & Block previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a prominent Trump critic and legal pundit who worked on Mueller's probe. A fourth firm fighting back, Susman Godfrey, is awaiting a ruling on a Trump executive order targeting it for punishment. The firm helped Dominion Voting Systems secure a multimillion-dollar settlement against Fox News after the 2020 election. The Trump administration has argued that it's within the president's discretion to decide who to trust with the nation's secrets, a reference to its decision to revoke the security clearances of the firms' employees. The orders were designed to assuage Trump's concerns about the law firms, the government has said. But judges haven't bought it. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said Tuesday in his ruling for WilmerHale that the president's orders against several of the nation's top law firms constituted a direct challenge to the independent judiciary and bar that are the 'cornerstone' of America's justice system. To let the orders stand would be 'unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers,' the judge wrote in a 73-page opinion spattered with exclamation points. Before that, U.S. District Judge John Bates, another Bush appointee, slammed Trump's order against Jenner & Block as an effort to 'chill legal representation the administration doesn't like,' while U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, appointed by former President Obama, said Trump's order against Perkins Coie 'draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.'' Trump's deal with Paul, Weiss was an earthquake in the legal world, and signaled that a number of powerful firms would be willing to do deals with Trump out of economic prudence. Trump revoked the executive order targeting Paul, Weiss after it agreed to provide $40 million in free legal services to support administration initiatives and other perks. 'As soon as Paul, Weiss made their deal, it was very clear to me that the industry wasn't going to act collectively and that they were going to splinter,' Cohen said. Soon after, Skadden struck its own deal with the president, agreeing to provide at least $100 million in pro bono legal services 'during the Trump administration and beyond.' Trump had not signed an order aimed at Skadden, though the administration signaled that additional law firms could come under fire. At least seven other firms entered agreements with Trump to provide tens of millions of dollars in pro bono work, despite no executive orders issued against them. 'There is a different motivation beyond 'Would I be able to win in court?' that is behind why these deals were entered into in the first place,' said Cohen. But Koh, the law professor, argued that it's not too late for the other firms to change course. In his essay in the law and policy journal Just Security, he contended that the agreements are unenforceable contracts. He offered a hypothetical: If you enter a contract to give someone a million dollars because they put a gun to your head, but then a court says it was illegal to put a gun to your head, would you still pay the million dollars? 'Right now, they are prisoners of handcuffs of their own making,' Koh said of the law firms. 'It's all in their mind — that's what these cases tell you. 'Whatever was their explanation for why they caved the first time, those justifications are gone,' he continued. 'They should start doing the right thing now; they have a second chance to do the right thing, and they should take it.'
