Latest news with #JennerBlock
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Building a colour-blind society: Trump has a lesson for Starmer
While our intelligence services have been hitting the headlines this week for reopening a summer internship scheme which is only offered to young people from a 'Black, Asian, mixed heritage or ethnic minority background and from a socially or economically disadvantaged background', our cousins across the pond have also been re-evaluating their DEI policies. The tone, however, has been rather different there. In a memorandum issued by United States Attorney General Pam Bondi, federal agencies were reminded that 'all Americans must be treated equally'. It is worth quoting the guidance in some detail. 'Entities receiving federal funds, like all other entities subject to federal antidiscrimination laws, must ensure that their programs and activities comply with federal law and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or other protected characteristics-no matter the program's labels, objectives, or intentions.' Race-based programmes and scholarships; preferential hiring or promotion practices for 'underrepresented groups'; and restricting access to facilities or resources based on race or ethnicity by designating 'safe spaces' all feature on 'a non-exhaustive list of unlawful practices that could result in revocation of grant funding'. According to Lucy Blake, a Partner at law firm Jenner & Block, the ever-increasing divergence between diversity policies in the UK and in the US poses a headache for global companies 'with government contracts, whose failure to comply with one set of obligations or the other may risk exclusion from public tender processes, and a subsequent loss of business. 'This divergence between obligations in different jurisdictions gives rise to difficult legal, commercial, reputational, and political predicaments.' Ever the optimist, I can see this catalogue of predicaments providing Sir Kier Starmer — who has proven to be a terminal follower in his premiership — with the cover to do the right thing. He could follow Donald Trump's lead and finally ease the burden of ever rising DEI costs, both financial and social, across our private and the public sectors. Businesses and taxpayers — who are forced to pick up the bill of the Government's expensive virtue signalling — would heave a sigh of relief. Who knows, Sir Keir might even find himself becoming as popular as Donald Trump currently is in Britain.
Reuters
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Trump administration files appeal to revive executive order against law firm Jenner
July 21 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration on Monday appealed a ruling that struck down an executive order targeting law firm Jenner & Block over its past employment of a prosecutor involved in a special counsel investigation of Trump's 2016 campaign. The U.S. Justice Department's notice, opens new tab in the federal court in Washington, D.C. did not detail its legal arguments in the appeal. The case will now move to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The appeal was the second by the Justice Department in four lawsuits from firms that challenged the White House's executive orders against them. The administration in June appealed a judge's order that permanently blocked an executive order against law firm Perkins Coie. The administration has not yet appealed court rulings that blocked executive orders against law firms WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Jenner in a statement on Monday said "the district court correctly declared that Jenner's clients have a right to independent counsel and that the firm's right to represent clients vigorously and without compromise is sacred." Trump in March and April issued a series of executive orders against prominent firms that represented his political adversaries or employed lawyers who investigated him in the past. The orders sought to suspend security clearances for lawyers at the firms and restricted their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting work. Four judges appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents struck down the orders, finding they violated free-speech protections and rights in the U.S. Constitution. Trump's order targeting Jenner cited the firm's past employment of Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor involved in former U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation that detailed Russian contacts with Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. In May, U.S. District Judge John Bates struck down the order and said it "casts a chill over the whole of the legal profession." The White House has defended the executive orders, which accused firms of "weaponizing" the legal system, as lawful under the president's broad executive powers. Nine law firms, including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Milbank and Latham, settled with the White House to avoid being targeted by the administration. Those firms as part of their deals pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal services to causes the White House supports and made other concessions. The firms have been criticized by some lawyers, firms and others over the accords, but have defended them as necessary and consistent with their principles. Read more: What Republican, Democratic judges said about Trump's law firm orders Trump administration appeals blocking of executive order against law firm Perkins Coie Trump executive order seeks law firms to defend police officers for free Why target these law firms? For Trump, it's personal
New York Times
16-06-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Trump's Strategy in Law Firm Cases: Lose, Don't Appeal, Yet Prevail
The Trump administration is ordinarily quick to appeal its losses. When courts in recent weeks blocked President Trump's tariff plans and his takeover of National Guard troops in California, government lawyers filed appeals within hours. The administration has also filed 19 emergency applications with the Supreme Court since the president took office. But administration lawyers have done nothing to challenge a series of stinging rulings rejecting Mr. Trump's efforts to punish prominent law firms for what he called 'conduct detrimental to critical American interests' by representing clients and causes not to his liking. The administration's unconventional litigation strategy is telling, said W. Bradley Wendel, a law professor at Cornell who is an authority on legal ethics. 'They knew that these were losing positions from the beginning and were not actually hoping to win in court, but rather to intimidate firms into settling, as many firms did,' he said. 'Now that they have racked up the four losses in district courts, it is not surprising that they are not appealing, because I don't think they ever thought these were serious positions.' Three rulings permanently blocked Mr. Trump's executive orders in cases brought by law firms that chose to fight: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. A judge has temporarily blocked a fourth executive order, against Susman Godfrey, and will almost certainly strike it down. But many more firms chose to capitulate to Mr. Trump's demands in the face of threats to lift security clearances, cancel contracts and bar entry to government buildings. Among the firms that promised to provide a cumulative total of many hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono representation to causes favored by the administration were Paul Weiss, Skadden and Latham & Watkins. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Fast Company
13-06-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
Law firms have a new way to attract clients and talent: Stand up to Trump
Branded is a weekly column devoted to the intersection of marketing, business, design, and culture. Elite law firms like Paul Weiss and Jenner & Block may not advertise in traditional ways, or for a mainstream audience. But they and a handful of other prominent white-shoe firms are in the middle of an unprecedented brand test right now. At issue is how best to respond to pressure from the Trump administration and how that response affects their reputation. That has turned into a branding moment for these firms—whether they like it or not. The full verdict isn't in yet. But those who have chosen to fight executive orders designed to punish firms that President Trump apparently dislikes seem to be faring better, scoring early legal victories and burnishing an image of bravely standing up for principle. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that those who have cut deals with the administration (promising a collective $940 million in pro bono work) are, reputationally and perhaps substantively, faring worse: losing partners, angering some clients, and even being labeled ' The Yellow-Bellied Nine ' by critical peers. The test began back in March, when Trump signed a series of executive orders restricting security clearances for lawyers and employees of various firms that had represented his perceived enemies or political opponents—a move that would severely cut into their business. The prominent firm Perkins Coie, which among other things had represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, responded by suing the administration. The order was swiftly blocked by a judge who called it ' chilling.' Other targeted firms, including Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, have won similar blocks. Paul Weiss, one of the most storied and powerful law firms in the world, was among the first to take a different path: In exchange for the administration agreeing to lift an executive order targeting the firm, it agreed to perform $40 million in unpaid legal work for mutually agreed-upon causes and matters. The deal startled (and was immediately criticized by) many legal observers. (In a firm-wide memo, its executive chairman defended the settlement: 'The resolution we reached with the Administration will have no effect on our work and our shared culture and values.') Lately, Paul Weiss has made headlines for losing several high-profile attorneys, including the cochair of its litigation group, who left with three other partners to form their own firm, and a former U.S. attorney who went to Jenner & Block, which has sued the administration. Eight more major firms—including Skadden, Kirkland & Ellis, Simpson Thacher, and Latham & Watkins—cut similar deals. Many others have remained above the fray, declining, for example, to join an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie or others fighting the administration in court. Law firms are often paid to help mitigate risk, but in this case some may have underestimated the risk of brand damage. In the latest sign of tangible reputational fallout, The Wall Street Journal recently reported that 'at least 11' major companies, including Oracle and Morgan Stanley, are withdrawing business from firms that cut deals to get executive orders lifted or that are otherwise supporting the government in what some view as an effort to warp the legal system. As one client cited by The Journal put it: We prefer to work with law firms willing to fight. More broadly, the divergent response to the executive orders continues to draw scrutiny and controversy within the profession, with the potential to affect both recruiting and retention. Above the Law, a snarky but serious online publication popular with younger lawyers, coined the 'Yellow-Bellied Nine' moniker, and has introduced a ' Spine Index ' that rates major firms' responses to the executive orders (and notes, in addition, those that have scrapped DEI efforts). A survey of its readers found that a vast majority supported firms fighting the orders, and felt that 'law firms who make agreements with the administration are giving in to extortion, which sends a bad message to the entire profession.' Still, while the firms fighting back have been winning new clients and winning in the courts (so far), it's hard to gauge how that will ultimately affect their business: Clients who would rather steer clear of potential trouble with Trump aren't likely to be very public about distancing themselves from the conflict. Meanwhile, as Above the Law has noted, neither the administration nor the firms that agreed to deals involving pro bono promises have offered up much detail or any sense of timing about those commitments. For Trump, that may be a matter of biding time; for the firms, it may be in hopes that the matter will fade from the court of public opinion.
Bloomberg
06-06-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Paul Weiss Loses Ex-US Attorney Damian Williams After Trump Deal
A former federal prosecutor who joined Paul Weiss in the month leading up to President Trump's second term left for Jenner & Block. New York-based partner Damian Williams will co-chair Jenner's litigation department and investigations, compliance and defense practice, according to the firm's announcement on Friday. He leaves a firm that struck a controversial deal with the Trump administration to avoid punitive sanctions to a firm that sued Trump to block a similar attack.
