Latest news with #PerkinsCoie
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
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
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.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
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.'
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Judges on Trump's war on Big Law: 5 explosive quotes from recent orders
Trump is on a losing streak in court against law firms challenging his executive orders. Judges cite constitutional violations and lack of national security justification. The Paul Weiss deal has repeatedly come up in rulings striking down executive orders. President Donald Trump's recent string of court losses in his war on Big Law has resulted in sweeping smackdowns from federal judges. The judges, all sitting in the US District Court for Washington, DC, ruled against the Trump administration and blocked executive orders targeting WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie. A decision is still pending in a fourth lawsuit brought by Susman Godfrey over an order targeting the firm. Nine other law firms have struck deals with Trump, promising a collective near-$1 billion in pro bono work toward his political priorities while averting a punitive executive order. But the deal struck with Paul Weiss — the first firm to reach an agreement, resulting in a rolled-back executive order — may have backfired on the Trump administration. In ruling after ruling, judges cite the Paul Weiss affair as an example of how Trump's purported "national security" justifications for his executive orders never made any sense. Here are the five sharpest takedowns from judges in the Big Law fight. Coming out of the gate with the first summary judgment decision, US District Judge Beryl Howell compared Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie to a quote from William Shakespeare's "Henry VI." "In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase 'Let's kill all the lawyers,' EO 14230 takes the approach of 'Let's kill the lawyers I don't like,' sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else," Howell wrote. Trump's executive order, Howell said, was meant to disarm a law firm that might challenge his power. "When Shakespeare's character, a rebel leader intent on becoming king, hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part of his plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding '[a]way with him,' referring to an educated clerk, who 'can make obligations and write court hand,'" Howell wrote. "Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power." In an order protecting Jenner & Block, US District Judge John Bates wrote that Trump's order violated the US Constitution in two ways: It violated the First Amendment by using "the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression," and it sought to undermine the courts. "Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution," Bates wrote. The "more pernicious" message of Trump's order was to prevent lawyers from protecting people against "governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy," according to Bates. "This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn't like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers," he wrote. Like the other judges, Bates pointed to Trump backtracking his executive order targeting Paul Weiss as evidence that his legal justifications for executive orders targeting other law firms were not sincere. In each order, Trump has claimed that "national security" issues — which Justice Department lawyers struggled to explain in court filings and hearings — allowed him to issue orders stripping law firm employees of security clearances and cutting them off from government buildings and employees. Bates wrote that the rollback of the order targeting Paul Weiss demonstrated that it was never the real reason behind Trump's order targeting Jenner & Block. "If any doubt remains as to the sincerity of the invocation of national security, take a look at the Paul Weiss saga," Bates wrote. "Paul Weiss's executive order imposed the same tailored process on its employees' security clearances," he continued. "What it took to escape that process — denouncing a former partner, changing client selection and hiring practices, and pledging pro bono work to the President's liking — had not even a glancing relationship to national security." US District Judge Richard Leon's exclamation point-ridden order knocking down an executive order targeting WilmerHale quotes from Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist papers about the importance of an independent judiciary. He wasn't alone — Howell said in her earlier order that John Adams made the unpopular decision to represent British soldiers accused of murder for their roles in the Boston Massacre. "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting," Leon wrote. "The Founding Fathers knew this!" Trump's executive orders violated those "fundamental rights," he wrote. "I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional," he wrote. "Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!" Leon's gumbo metaphor is, once again, a spicy swipe at Paul Weiss. In arguments leading up to each decision, judges weighed whether to block the entirety of each of Trump's orders or allow some parts to stand. In a footnote, Leon broke down the five different sections of the WilmerHale order and compared them to gumbo ingredients. "The Order is akin to a gumbo. Sections 2 through 5 are the meaty ingredients — e.g., the Andouille, the okra, the tomatoes, the crab, the oysters," the judge wrote. "But it is the roux — here, §1 — which holds everything together." Leon wrote that Trump rescinding Paul Weiss's order "in full" after it struck a deal shows that he intended the orders "to stand or fall as a whole." "A gumbo is served and eaten with all the ingredients together, and so too must the sections of the Order be addressed together," he wrote. The judge also made clear that the gumbo is spicy. "As explained in this Memorandum Opinion, this gumbo gives the Court heartburn," he wrote. Read the original article on Business Insider
