Latest news with #Meagher&Flom
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.
Newsweek
24-04-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Democrats Demand Law Firms Turn Over Details on Deals With Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. More than a dozen Democratic members of Congress have sent letters to nine major law firms who struck deals with the Trump administration, demanding further details on their agreements. The lawmakers want more answers, as they say the deals, "pose a serious threat to the integrity and independence of our judicial system and the administration of justice," according to a statement from the office of Democratic U.S. Representative April McClain Delaney of Maryland. Newsweek has reached out to the White House and the nine law firms for comment via email on Thursday. The Context Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has targeted several of the nation's most high-profile firms after they worked with his perceived political enemies or had been adversarial to him or his campaign. Many of those hit with the executive orders, blocking attorney's security clearances and canceling government contracts, had connections to the Robert Mueller or Jack Smith investigations into Trump. While some firms have filed lawsuits to block the orders, others have worked out deals with the White House to either reverse or prevent them. Paul Weiss became the first firm to do so, agreeing to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services aligned with administration priorities and to halt all DEI practices. Other major firms followed suit including Milbank and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. President Donald Trump walks out to greet Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, not pictured, upon his arrival at the White House on Thursday in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump walks out to greet Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, not pictured, upon his arrival at the White House on Thursday in Washington, D.C. Alex Brandon/AP What To Know The joint open letters on Thursday were sent by 14 members of Congress, including U.S. Representatives McClain Delaney, Dave Min of California and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. They request information on the enforceability of the law firms' deals with the Trump administration, what promises were made and explanations on whether they could put the law firms at risk of violating several laws, including those involving federal bribery and anti-fraud statutes. The lawmakers also asked the firms if, as part of the deals, they had agreed to cease representation of clients "who might have claims against the government or whose interests are adverse to the President's?" They point out that the settlements "may raise numerous issues under binding state bar professional codes of conduct rules for lawyers." The nine law firms that have received the letters are: Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Latham & Watkins LLP; Allen Overy Shearman Sterling LLP; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP; and Milbank LLP. What People Are Saying Democratic lawmakers, including Tlaib, McClain Delaney and Min, wrote in their joint open letter to the law firms, "We urge you to reconsider your decision–one which we can sympathize with but which we think is a clear mistake–to seemingly capitulate to clear abuse of the law by the Trump administration. Agreements of this kind also signal acquiescence to an abuse of federal power, raising serious questions about how or whether your firm would represent clients or take on matters that might be seen as antagonistic to President Trump or his agenda" George Conway, lawyer and vocal Trump critic, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, last month: "This Paul Weiss capitulation is the most disgraceful action by a major law firm in my lifetime, so appalling that I couldn't believe it at first." Legal analyst Aron Solomon told Newsweek, "President Donald Trump has never been shy about picking fights, but his latest battle, against Big Law, is one that is aimed at striking the very foundation of the American legal system.... Trump is doing more than just flexing his political muscle—he's actively undermining the independence of the legal profession." White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields previously told Newsweek: "Democrats and their law firms weaponized the legal process to try to punish and jail their political opponents. The President's executive orders are lawful directives to ensure that the President's agenda is implemented and that law firms comply with the law." What Happens Next More than 500 firms and legal offices filed a legal challenge to Trump's executive orders targeting them last month. The legal cases are set to continue in the coming months.
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.
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 Retail 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.
New York Times
10-04-2025
- Business
- New York Times
When His Law Firm Caved to Trump, He Quit
Over the past few weeks, President Trump has used executive orders to wage war on law firms, specifically targeting those whose lawyers have investigated or sued him, or have represented his enemies in court. Rather than fighting back, many of these elite law firms — including Paul Weiss and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — have struck deals with the Trump administration to avert the order, and top partners have closed ranks in support of the agreements. This has led to discontent, particularly among young lawyers, who feel that these deals have betrayed the principles of their firms. Earlier this week, 'The Daily' podcast spoke to one associate who resigned: Thomas Sipp. A Columbia Law School graduate, Mr. Sipp, 27, opened up about why he chose to become a lawyer, and why he decided to quit the law firm after less than two years. Below is an edited transcript between Michael Barbaro, host of 'The Daily," and Mr. Sipp. Thomas, welcome to 'The Daily.' Thanks for having me. I'm getting the small sense that this is a nerve-racking experience for you even before it started. I'm just seeing it on your face. Yeah, it definitely is. We have been trying here at 'The Daily' for a few weeks to understand what it's like to work at one of the law firms that's now at the center of President Trump's campaign of retribution. And to have watched from within those firms as one by one by one, these very big and powerful firms have capitulated to the president's pretty unusual demands. And it may not shock you to learn this, but attorneys at these firms are pretty reluctant to talk about that. And you are the rare exception. So thank you for being the exception. I really appreciate it. I want to start by asking you to explain, Thomas, how it is that you came to be a lawyer in the first place and ended up at this very prestigious firm, where you worked until just a few days ago, Skadden Arps. What's that story? So going all the way to the start, I was born in Japan to an American father and a Japanese mother, and my family moved to the United States when I was 10. My parents separated shortly after. And so I was learning English in middle school and also learning about what it means to be an American, because before that, I was really just like a native Japanese kid. And it was through that experience, including of suddenly becoming this sort of racial minority because I'm mixed race, and coming to understand the social fabric that's kind of unique to the United States, especially compared to a relatively homogeneous country like Japan. Right. And growing up with my single mom, who doesn't speak fluent English, and getting all those sort of experiences, I think, started to put me on the path that I'm on now. Can you just explain that? Yeah. I mean, there were difficult days for sure. I think, even though this week has been very difficult for me, I still look back and think of some of the days that I experienced as a kid in middle school, whether it's not being able to make friends, being made fun of for my accent, and stuff like that, that really, I think started to form that sense of injustice that I think fuels me sometimes. What was the first real injustice you can remember as an immigrant not really knowing English, navigating this new world? I think there was a time when I was in math class — and math is the same. So I could answer the questions, and I think one of the answers was 33. And you could probably tell that I paused even before I said it. And it's because back then, I would have pronounced it differently because I couldn't pronounce 'th.' And the whole class laughed, even though, it's the right answer. But then I would go home, and I would close my door, put my book bag down, and just practice words that I couldn't pronounce, like 33. I would just say it over and over and over again, other words like world, these basic words that come up in everyday dialogue. And that was part of my experience, but at the same time, I moved to the United States, in 2008 and during that election, and there's all this conversation in America about hopefulness and about this being a country where there's a place for anyone. And so I was also absorbing that as well. So at the precise moment that you are struggling with your identity and recognizing that you are different from other people — and it sounds like feeling at times a lot of shame around that — you're seeing the United States elect Barack Obama, like you, the product of a biracial marriage, and somebody who, in that campaign you're describing, invites the whole country to have this really honest conversation about identity and about race. And he talks about — and this is from his 2004 D.N.C. speech, but it's one of my favorites. And he talks about being like a skinny kid with a funny name. I remember other parts of the speech, too, because it just sticks with you. In high school, I joined a debate team to practice public speaking, try to get over that fear. That was part of also, I think, my path to being a lawyer. And in college, I was studying political science at the University of Texas, and I had this wonderful opportunity to be an intern at the United States Senate. Wow. This was probably basically like a decade after I moved to the United States. And suddenly, I'm walking through the halls of Congress with my little yellow Senate intern badge and running into senators and congressmen, getting to sit in on important hearings. And it was during that time that I really decided I want to be a part of this project here in the United States. And when you say this project, what do you mean? It's a march toward justice, the betterment of everyone, I think. There are these core principles that are unique to the United States in many ways. If it's not unique, then it's something that the United States really has the potential maybe more than any other country on Earth to embody, which is that this is a place where anyone can come, work hard, and be an American. Yeah. I'm getting from you a real sense of idealism and a real, pure admiration for what the United States represents. Yeah. I'm not blind to the errors in the past, and I know that the United States has not been and still is not a perfect country. But I really still believe that when the United States is doing the right things, the whole world is a better place because of it. So talk about how this all translates into your decision to become a lawyer, to enter this industry. Well, so picking back up where I was just a Senate intern in D.C. And I'm looking around, I'm seeing that a lot of the people with the cool jobs in D.C. tend to have law degrees or they're actively practicing the law. So I figured it was the next best step afterward. And so I go to law school straight out of college. I get into a lot of law schools, and I'm balancing offers. The exercise a lot of incoming law students have to do when they're admitted is balance the prestige of the law school versus how much money they're offering you. And I chose Columbia Law School because they gave me a pretty good balance. And like many other law students, I cover the balance with student loans. And that starts — take us to the next steps. As a 22-year-old trying to pay off a six-figure debt, I was drawn toward a higher salary, among other things. All the law firms, the big law firms, almost by definition, pay the same scale salary. So the way that these law firms distinguish themselves from each other oftentimes is in things like how their pro-bono program operates, how their billable hours requirement operates, how invested they are into diversity initiatives, and how actively their affinity groups recruit on law schools. And I chose Skadden because it had the prestige. I'm just going to explain to people — Yes. — by Skadden you mean Skadden Arps? Skadden Arps, yes. Big, big law firm, has an office here in New York, has offices, I think, all over the world. It's one of the firms that we think of when we think of this concept of big law, law firms that do a huge amount of work in corporate America. That's right. And Skadden really advertised two things: its pro bono program and its diversity initiatives. With regard to the pro bono programs, Skadden had a rule basically that said that you can count on unlimited number of your pro bono hours toward your billable hours requirement. And billable hours kind of represents two things. If you meet the requirement, you get a bonus at the end of the year. So that's more money. And then you're also in good standing. You're doing enough work. You're meeting your hours. And it was a big deal that Skadden does that because not many other firms do. Right. And if I know my law firm culture well, what that means is that charitable legal work that this firm does counts against you being a successful lawyer there, which probably means to a young, idealistic lawyer like you, it means that, yes, while you're going to work at a big, hard-charging corporate law firm, that law firm is putting pro bono work, work for people who can't afford lawyers at the center of its culture? Yeah. Exactly. And I worked on — I'm just going to speak broadly on this, but matters related to unhoused people, immigration and police misconduct. Did you win any of those cases? Did you win all of those cases? I can't say. But the smile on your face makes me think that you might have prevailed on behalf of some of those clients. When we were texting today, because I needed you to get here on time, you mentioned that you live essentially next door to the law firm, and that doesn't seem like an accident. Yeah, that's right. I decided to pay a little bit more in rent for a slightly worse apartment just so I can be close to the office. How close? I'm talking like a five-minute walk. So you could just be there all the time? Yeah. Obviously, at a big law firm like this, it's challenging work. It's long hours, high-pressure environment. You're closely scrutinizing the grammar in all of your sentences that you write, even in internal emails and all that stuff because it can affect your reputation and your credibility, but at the same time, in those long hours and in this high-pressure environment, you make friends really quickly. And there are great mentors out there too, who I learned from. So actually, I liked going into work every day. If you ask people who I worked with, I'm sure they'd tell you I was often there very early and late. But that's partly because I just want to say good morning and good night to everyone in my hallway. So when did you start to understand, Thomas, over the past many weeks that Skadden had entered the president's cross hairs? So on March 17, when the E.E.O.C., which stands for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, basically published this letter listing 20 law firms, including my own, saying that these law firms were essentially under investigation for their practices related to diversity. Right. I believe the claim was that these law firms may have practiced discrimination through the application of diversity, equity and inclusion practices. Right. And I think it was the following weekend, on that Sunday in the afternoon, one of my friends from the firm sends me this tweet. Basically, it's a thread posted by Dinesh D'Souza — The right-wing activist. The right-wing activist — basically discussing how Skadden is representing a client against him related to this widely debunked conspiracy theory documentary about the 2020 election. Right. That D'Souza had made. Yes. And Elon Musk tweets on that thread saying something along the lines of, Skadden just needs to stop. So there's a letter, and then there's this tweet. And while all this is happening, there are other law firms that are dealing with similar things, including Perkins Coie, who was hit with an executive order earlier in the month. Right. And these executive orders, I think it's worth reminding listeners, they can feel to the law firms that are being hit with them like death sentences, because they explicitly prevent these firms, like Perkins Coie, from interacting with the federal government. And so — and we talked about this on the show — if these firms represent any corporation or entity that needs the federal government, and many big companies do, suddenly, they can't really effectively represent them. And in that sense, the people who work at these firms fear that they may go out of business. Right. Yeah. And Thursday comes around, my friend again sends me an article that The New York Times published, basically stating that Skadden was in talks with the administration to avert an executive order. And this was after Paul Weiss, which is essentially a P.R. firm, made a deal, including for $40 million pro bono commitment, to causes that the president agrees with. So what are you and the people you work with thinking as you're watching this happen? We're not necessarily surprised, but we're still shocked. And during that preceding week, there had been pockets of the law firm trying to organize some sort of request for a response. Nothing publicly, but at least internally, seeking clarity and hoping to provide at least some input into what the attorneys who actually work there feel about what's going on and how so many of us believe that it's unconstitutional. The executive orders? Right. And — You want to communicate that to your bosses? Yes. During this month, there are law firms that are fighting back. There are law firms that take on representation of the law firms being targeted, which puts them at risk, but they're willing to say, Hey, we know what's right. And we see that that's being celebrated within the legal community. Like this is not a difficult legal question. There's no legal basis for what the president is doing. It's a complete abuse of power. And so we want our firm to stand up for that. And a lot of associates, I think even partners, would feel betrayed by an agreement. So that's what we're trying to express, where we're feeling like things are moving really fast, and we feel we felt voiceless. So what happens next? So then it's Friday. There was this email thread that got around to parts of the firm, and the discussion is basically: Should attorneys still have access to the firm-wide distribution lists, which is basically these mailing lists that allow attorneys to ask questions broadly to the rest of the firm or communicate broadly? And so when I see that, I realized at that point, that's pretty likely that there's going to be a deal and that it's going to be one that the attorneys don't like. And within hours, I think, we again, find out from the news and from President Trump's, I think, it's Truth Social — Truth Social. — that there is this agreement. And then we hear from the firm. They have done a deal? Yeah. I just want to summarize what is in this deal that Skadden reached with President Trump. It promises to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services, from Skadden, to causes that both President Trump and the law firm both support. It calls for hiring what are known as Skadden fellows. Those fellows are — at least some of them are supposed to be focused on Trump-friendly issues, and some of them have to be conservative in their ideological outlook. And then there's a part of the agreement that vows that Skadden will not engage in, quote unquote, 'illegal' D.E.I. hiring practices. Broadly, this is the deal that every major law firm that has come to an agreement has reached with the president. So what is your reaction to this deal when you finally digest it? Personally, I felt ashamed to work at Skadden, and that was such a new experience because of how prestigious the law firm is. And then, suddenly, in the blink of an eye and just a few days, hours even, like my whole view of the firm has been completely tainted. Can you explain why? I mean, is it the fact that the firm agreed to this? Is it the specifics around pro bono work, which I know is so important to you? But what precisely is making you feel the shame? It's a mix of things. This is giving the president a P.R. win after being bullied. So it seems like I'm working at a firm that isn't as high caliber as it said it was. But more importantly than that, so many lawyers agree that what the president is doing is wrong, trying to punish his enemies and then coerce any law firm who he perceives as an enemy to either himself or to his circle, from being able to represent clients who might be against them. And this is happening in a much bigger political climate, where there's fear spreading. When a judge makes a decision that goes against the president, there shouldn't be politicians calling for their impeachment. Right. But that's what's happening right now. That's what's happening. This is a threat to our constitutional fabric, to our democracy, to our civil liberties. People should be able to be represented by their lawyers freely. Judges should be able to make decisions even if it goes against the president. And to see Skadden be complicit to aid this attack, I was so ashamed to work there. So what did you do? So on Sunday night, I start actually just writing down notes and really my questions. Some of them are practical, like: How is this going to be enforced? What will it actually look like? You're kind of writing to your bosses? Right. What do these words mean? And a lot of the questions, I started thinking about it and finding answers, and so the questions became statements. And then I realized what I had written was a draft of a resignation letter. So that's something. Not necessarily what you set out to do? No. And Monday comes around, and I have some conversations in the office with other attorneys and my friends and trusted mentors and colleagues. I just wanted to hear what people had to say and think, and everyone's distraught. Can I ask you to read from parts of the letter? Yeah, of course. 'Dear colleagues and friends, I'm writing to let that I am leaving this firm. There was a time when my employment here was so unlikely. For much of my early childhood, I was not a good student. I struggled to focus in class and take anything seriously, but even then, there was one subject I loved, history. I thought it was so wonderful to learn about all that came before me, about the triumphs and tragedies, about the moments of individual bravery and collective complacency. I would often imagine myself faced with the same dilemmas. What would I do if I was there? Would I do the right thing? It always felt like there was no way to know. I believe, as I know many of you do, that what the current presidential administration is doing is wrong, that we are sliding into an autocracy where those in power are above the rule of law. Skadden's agreement with the Trump administration sent our country deeper down this descent.' And then I finish. 'Skadden is on the wrong side of history. I could no longer stay knowing that someday I would have to explain why I stayed.' What did it feel like to hit send on — I mean, listening to your breathing right now, it's like you're reliving it. What was it like to send that email? If you heard my breath, it felt like that. Maybe 100 times more, though, because I knew that was a pivotal moment in my life, maybe just as pivotal as coming to the United States in the first place. If I might add, I grew up with two sisters, a twin sister and a younger sister. And my parents asked us back in Japan, whether we wanted to move to the United States so that we could learn English. Actually, that was the reason we moved. And I remember just thinking like — I was scared. I don't speak English. But I was the one who said, I think we should. And my parents let us choose. And it felt like that, too. Like I knew that I was closing some doors and a place like Skadden — like for that 10-year-old kid, he had no idea where he might end up. And I'm grateful for that experience. I think is only possible in a country like the United States. And I really, really believe in it. I know not everyone can make this decision, including even those in my law firm. There are people who have families who depend on their income, who can't just quit on a dime like I did without a job lined up. There are people who are here at the law firm on work visas because they're not United States citizens. And like, those people can't really speak out because of this climate of intimidation. Everyone has their own reasons, I think. And I just want to say thank you to all the people who read my resignation letter. There have been — I mean, you didn't, we should say, mean for this letter to become — As public as it did. It kind of just happened. Right. Well — and I knew that in putting it in writing, there was a risk. But I sent it to my immediate colleagues, and then it was posted online the following day. I'm sure you're aware that many people who have spoken out against President Trump and his policies have experienced, at times, ferocious blowback. It can be a life-altering event. Is that something you're worried about now? Yeah. And I was finally able to talk to my mother after resigning, telling her that I quit because I hadn't talked to her about my thoughts, since it all happened so fast. And she's back in Japan with the rest of my family. And I told her I quit, and she was like, Do you have another job? And I was like, No, Mom, you don't understand. This is in the news. And I quit because of what's going on in America right now. That's the question my mother would ask me. And she sort of didn't process it at first, and then she started to cry when she realized what's happening. And she asked me to come back to Japan. And I said, No, I can't, and I won't. I made this decision because I believe that there's still hope. And I owe it to America, I think, to stay here and speak out on this issue. Many of your colleagues are not leaving their jobs, and there's a spectrum of reasons that you've started to hint at about why they're not leaving. They may feel the way you feel and have two kids they have to put through college. They might not feel the way you feel. I'm thinking about reporting my colleagues did inside the upper echelons of Paul Weiss when that law firm did a deal with Trump. And it became clear that the majority of the people who run the firm, lots of them, felt that the best thing to do was to make a deal. And the reason that they articulated they felt that way is that, in their minds, they had to protect the thousands of people who work at these firms. They may have hated the deal. Some of them no doubt hate the deal, but they felt their job was to make sure that these firms survive, lives through this period of time. And that at the end of the day, what they're giving up is small compared to that survival. And the bosses at all these firms that end up capitulating to Trump say some version of, We are the same law firm after we did these deals as we were before. In fact, in a companywide email, your former boss says just that, quote, 'This agreement does not change who we are.' What do you make of that? I just don't think that's true. These law firms are agreeing to these deals when they know that there's no legal basis for any threatened executive order. And to the extent that these firms feel an existential threat to the firm itself, by capitulating, they're aiding this existential threat against the profession, the independence of the judiciary, and our democracy and everyone who depends on it. It does change who the firm is? Yes. In short? Yes. I think all of these firms that are making these deals and defecting, they're worried about losing clients to a peer firm that's connected to the administration already. And these firms are betting on the president to succeed from a P.R. perspective because they can say, Look, it was a smart deal, but the smart deal is with this president who is trying to actively undermine our profession and our democracy. And for the firm to say, Hey, it doesn't change who we are, I think it fundamentally does. You very clearly have a lot of faith in the U.S. That's just been evident throughout this entire conversation. And your decision to quit seems to be grounded in a sense of what is — the best version of what the U.S. can be, in your mind. But at this point, how confident are you, given everything you've just been through, that the version of the United States that seems to be at the center of everything you've done here is now the version of the United States? Confident because of what so many people, strangers, reaching out to me, have said to me, which is that they're also scared. Everyone is scared, but if everyone could stand up and speak up about this, then we can turn this back. I think we can save it still. But are you a little bit worried that you're making the wrong bet, and that maybe the law firms, as much as it might pain you to think about it this way, are making the sound bet in this moment? Well, of course, I'm worried, I guess. I'm putting my career on the line for this, and I knew that going into this. I have student loans. I have a single mom, who — And you just publicly picked a little bit of a fight with the president? That's right. I wonder if this experience made you question going into law. I mean, law is one thing in theory, and then it's another thing in practice, especially at these big law firms. These are not nonprofits. Right. And that's part of the decision I made when I was in law school, finding a job, my first job. And to answer your ultimate question, no, I don't regret becoming a lawyer and going to law school. It's a wonderful education. Even my time at Skadden, I learned so much. And it's equipping me with skills, I think, to advocate for what I believe in and for others as well. And that's what lawyers do. Well, Thomas, thank you for coming in here and for telling us the story. We really appreciate it. Thank you.
