Latest news with #MungerTolles
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's deal with Paul Weiss is throwing a wrench into his war on Big Law
President Donald Trump's deal with Paul Weiss marked a turning point in his war on Big Law. But the firms fighting Trump's orders have used the deal as evidence that they're legally flimsy. A lawyer for Susman Godfrey argued that it proves the orders were never about national security. President Donald Trump's deal with Paul Weiss was his first big win in his war against Big Law. In court, it's coming back to haunt him. For the law firms choosing to fight Trump's executive orders targeting them, rather than striking deals with the president, the Paul Weiss deal has turned into a potent weapon. They have cited Trump's quick revocation of the order — just six days after it was initially issued — to argue that they never had any legitimacy in the first place. The order, had it been carried out, would have revoked the security clearances of Paul Weiss lawyers out of "the national interest" and barred them from entering government-owned buildings, potentially including even courthouses and post offices. The argument emerged again in a Washington, DC, federal courtroom on Thursday afternoon as a lawyer representing the firm Susman Godfrey told a federal judge that Trump's turnabout on the Paul Weiss order was evidence that the White House never really believed the law firms posed a national security risk. "There was no change in circumstances with respect to the trustworthiness of Paul Weiss between the issuing of that executive order and its rescission a few days later," said Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., a lawyer at Munger Tolles representing Susman Godfrey. "And I think in some ways that tells you all you need to know about whether there's anything legitimate about the suspension." After Paul Weiss agreed to a deal with Trump, in March, its chairman, Brad Karp, told lawyers at the firm that the agreement resolved an "existential crisis" that "could easily have destroyed our firm." The decision divided the legal profession. Critics said that by choosing to reach an agreement with Trump instead of fight in court — as Perkins Coie had at the time — Paul Weiss empowered Trump to go after more Big Law firms. Eight more Big Law firms made deals with Trump, averting altogether possible executive orders targeting them, and pledging a total of nearly $1 billion in pro bono hours toward Trump's political priorities. For the four law firms fighting executive orders — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — the Paul Weiss deal had the opposite effect. It was a clear indication, they have all argued, that the legal justifications for Trump's orders were baloney. Under legal precedents, government agencies are required to conduct an "individualized review" to issue and revoke security clearances, judges have ruled in the cases. Reversing the Paul Weiss order in under a week was clearly too short a time to individually weigh whether each person working at the firm posed an actual national security threat, the four law firms have each argued. Thursday's court hearing, overseen by US District Judge Loren AliKhan, was over whether the judge should permanently block the order targeting Susman Godfrey, a law firm that represents The New York Times in a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, and has represented Dominion Voting Systems in its lawsuit against Fox News. Richard Lawson — who has been left as the sole Justice Department lawyer defending the government in these cases — said in the hearing that the executive branch has "inherent discretion on security clearances." He has also argued that because each of Trump's executive orders says security clearances should be reviewed "consistent with applicable law," they could not possibly be illegal. The four judges, overseeing the lawsuits, including AliKhan, have not been persuaded. Each swiftly issued a temporary restraining order blocking the implementation of the executive orders. On Friday, US District Judge Beryl Howell issued the first order permanently blocking one of the executive orders against Perkins Coie. She wrote in her 102-page opinion that Trump's actions and public statements indicated his executive orders had nothing to do with national security, but were instead motivated by his dislike of specific people working at particular law firms and because he wanted "big numbers" in pro bono pledges from each firm. "None of these agreed-upon policy or practice changes appear to explain or address how any national security concerns sufficient to warrant the Paul, Weiss EO could have changed so rapidly," Howell wrote of the announced deal between Trump and Paul Weiss. "The speed of the reversal and the rationale provided in the Paul, Weiss Revocation Order, which focused only on agreements to advance policy initiatives of the Trump Administration, further support the conclusion that national security considerations are not a plausible explanation." Howell also addressed the circumstances of Trump's executive order targeting Susman Godfrey. After signing the order, Trump announced, "We're just starting the process with this one." It was an indication, Howell wrote, that Trump may view the orders as leverage for a negotiation rather than trying to legitimately address national security issues. "Whether President Trump's focus on 'the process' refers to enforcement of the Susman EO or that this Order was the opening gambit — akin to the Paul, Weiss EO followed by the Paul, Weiss Revocation Order — for deal negotiations, is unclear," Howell wrote. On Thursday, AliKhan, asked Lawson if he wanted to share a view on how Howell's order might affect the Susman Godfrey case. Lawson stumbled through a response. "No, I don't. There's nothing in there that, I mean, obviously we have a big issue with the finding," Lawson said, laughing. "But I don't think there's anything urgent I need to bring to the court's attention." Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
DWP hires law firm, at up to $1,975 an hour, to defend against Palisades fire lawsuits
Faced with a deluge of litigation from the Palisades fire, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power approved a three-year, $10-million contract with a top law firm to defend the utility. The Board of Water and Power, which is made up of mayoral appointees, voted Tuesday to retain the L.A. firm Munger, Tolles & Olson to investigate anticipated claims related to the fire and respond to lawsuits from residents whose homes were destroyed or damaged. Under the deal, partners at the firm will charge the city up to $1,975 per hour for their legal work. Associates will bill from $745 to $1,180 per hour. A spokesperson for L.A. City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto said this "discounted rate structure" was among the factors that led to the selection of the firm. The agreement was formally approved this week, but Munger, Tolles & Olson began representing the city on Jan. 12, five days after the Palisades fire broke out, destroying nearly 7,000 homes and other structures and killing at least 12. The swift hiring of the law firm contrasts sharply with DWP's pace in finding a contractor to repair the Santa Ynez Reservoir, a 117-million-gallon water storage complex in the Palisades that was empty during the Palisades fire. Utility workers found a tear in the reservoir's floating cover in January 2024 and emptied it a few months later in preparation for repairs. Why the reservoir was taken offline, and why it has remained out of service for so long, is likely to be a major part of Munger Tolles' work. DWP has pointed to the competitive bidding process for the repairs as among the reasons for the delay. The law firm is also expected to defend against claims about DWP's fire hydrants running dry. Karen Richardson, another spokesperson for Feldstein Soto, said in an email that the law firm was retained for several reasons, including its specialized expertise and the DWP's "pressing need" for representation during an emergency. The city interviewed three law firms before selecting Munger Tolles, Richardson said. In a memo discussing the firm's scope of work, DWP Chief Executive Janisse Quiñones and general counsel Benjamin Chapman noted that Munger, Tolles & Olson lawyers have handled lawsuits related to several large wildfires. As part of the massive litigation from the 2023 fires in Maui, about 75 Munger Tolles staffers and lawyers helped represent Hawaiian Electric Industries and Hawaiian Electric Co., according to the law firm's website. Those lawsuits were ultimately settled for more than $4 billion, although the payouts have been held up after insurance companies opposed the deal. Munger Tolles also represented Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in connection with the 2018 Camp fire, which destroyed the town of Paradise and left 84 people dead. PG&E ultimately pleaded guilty to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter. Munger Tolles also represented the utility in regulatory matters and litigation arising from the fire. In their memo, the DWP officials wrote that wildfires involving utilities "require aggressive and thorough investigation and defense on multiple fronts," with numerous claims brought by individuals and insurance companies. Seeking out significant prior experience, they wrote, was "proper and prudent." Munger Tolles was also chosen because of its presence in L.A., Feldstein Soto spokesperson Ivor Pine said. A spokesperson for the law firm, which also represents Southern California Edison, declined to comment, referring The Times to the city attorney's office. Munger Tolles partner Daniel Levin will serve as the point person for day-to-day work on the DWP cases. He was part of the team defending the city of L.A. in a lawsuit that accused the city of creating affordable housing that was not accessible to people with disabilities. That long-running suit was settled in August, with the city agreeing to pay $40 million. For that case, Munger Tolles partners billed $1,045 to $1,245 per hour, according to a 2024 rate sheet reviewed by The Times. The city is expected to face hundreds, and potentially thousands, of claims from homeowners, businesses and insurance companies over the Palisades fire. So far, at least five lawsuits with more than three dozen plaintiffs, including reality TV stars Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt, have been filed against the city in L.A. County Superior Court. The lawsuits are alleging "inverse condemnation," which allows landowners to pursue compensation when damage to their property is caused by public use. In these cases, the homeowners are tracing the fire damage to DWP. Those who lost homes or businesses in the Eaton fire are suing Southern California Edison under the same concept. Plaintiffs have accused Southern California Edison of sparking the Eaton fire with its equipment, but the DWP's electrical equipment has not been implicated in the Palisades fire. The suits against DWP generally allege that "improper design, installation, construction, ownership, operation" or maintenance of the water system in the Palisades caused or worsened the damage from the fire. They also focus on the fact that scores of hydrants went dry as firefighters battled the Palisades fire. The DWP has maintained that its water system was built according to city standards and that only one-fifth of hydrants in the Palisades, largely in higher-elevation areas, lost water pressure. DWP officials said that they were required to empty the reservoir to comply with water quality regulations — and that the repair process was prolonged by the city's competitive bidding process and the availability of the contractor who was eventually retained to carry out the work. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
