Latest news with #SusmanGodfrey
Time of India
5 days 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
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge strikes down Trump order against WilmerHale
A federal judge on Tuesday struck down President Trump's executive order targeting the law firm WilmerHale, the third such ruling deeming the president's pointed attacks against Big Law firms he perceives to be his enemies unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, appointed by George W. Bush, called an independent judiciary and bar willing to tackle unpopular cases the 'cornerstone' of America's justice system. Trump's executive orders challenged the fundamental rights established to protect that independence, he said. 'This Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional,' Leon wrote in a 73-page opinion. 'Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!' The judge barred federal agencies from enforcing Trump's order, which sought to limit the firm's government contracts and its employees' security clearances and access to government buildings. He issued the order on March 27, and WilmerHale sued the following day. The law firm had employed special counsel Robert Mueller before and after his stint investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which Trump referenced in the order. WilmerHale is one of several law firms targeted by Trump over their apparent ties to those he perceives to be his enemies. WilmerHale said in a statement that it remains proud to defend the firm and its clients. 'The Court's decision to permanently block the unlawful executive order in its entirety strongly affirms our foundational constitutional rights and those of our clients,' the statement read. The president named six firms in executive orders, but only four have filed legal action challenging the directives: WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey. Judges struck down the orders targeting Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie, while Susman Godfrey's legal challenge remains pending. U.S. District Judge John Bates, another Bush appointee, said in his ruling in favor of Jenner & Block on Friday that Trump's order 'seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn't like.' Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell 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.'' Other firms, targeted or not, struck deals with Trump to be spared an executive order or accepted the penalty silently. Trump issued an executive order against Paul, Weiss but later rescinded it after the firm agreed to dedicate the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services to support administration initiatives; eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion policies; and not deny representation to clients based on their political views. After that, at least nine law firms cut deals with Trump to be spared an executive order. The president extracted nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services. This story was updated at 6:17 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
DOJ lawyer has no idea if Trump has written agreements with Big Law firms beyond his Truth Social posts
A DOJ lawyer says he doesn't know anything about written agreements between Trump and Big Law firms. Nine firms reached deals with Trump, which he announced on Truth Social. The posts are light on details and don't explain how the deals would be enforced. A Justice Department lawyer said in federal court Thursday that he didn't know if President Donald Trump had written agreements with Big Law firms beyond what he has shared online. "I know of nothing beyond the generally publicly available information," Richard Lawson said when US District Judge Loren AliKhan asked him about any written agreements. Despite representing the Trump administration in court, Lawson said he didn't know about anything written down beyond "press releases" about the deals. "I know of no other documents than that," he said. "That's not saying there isn't any, but I know of no other." Nine Big Law firms have made deals with Trump, pledging a total of nearly $1 billion in pro bono hours toward his political priorities. At the same time, the firms avoided executive orders targeting them. Thursday's hearing, in a Washington, DC, federal court, was over a lawsuit brought by Susman Godfrey, one of four law firms on the receiving end of Trump's harsh executive orders. Trump issued an executive order in April that would have stripped Susman Godfrey attorneys of security clearances, cut the firm off from government contracts, and potentially barred lawyers from courthouses, post offices, and other government buildings. AliKhan quickly issued a temporary restraining order blocking the implementation of Trump's command, and weighed Thursday whether she would permanently block them. For the nine firms that did come to agreements with Trump, the terms appear to be vague. Trump's Truth Social posts announcing each deal are only about 400 words long. They do not specify time horizons for pro bono donations, making it unclear how much work the firms will contribute during the remainder of Trump's term. And they do not include any details about reporting requirements for the promises firms made over diverse hiring practices. Bloomberg Law reported earlier in May on copies of written agreements between the White House and four law firms: Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, and A&O Shearman. Those written agreements do not include any specific details on how they would comply with the deals, according to the outlet. The four firms also struck deals with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, whose chairman sent letters to 20 law firms inquiring about their diversity practices. Outside counsel for the four firms said they would submit "a confidential written certification" every four months through the end of Trump's term, according to Bloomberg Law. When asked about the written agreements, an EEOC spokesperson told Business Insider, "We don't have anything for you on this." Neither the White House nor the nine law firms that made deals with Trump have offered up any information about potential underlying agreements. Representatives for the White House did not respond to requests for comment about the deals. None of the nine firms that struck deals responded to requests for comment about written agreements with Trump. Read the original article on Business Insider
Business Insider
09-05-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
DOJ lawyer has no idea if Trump has written agreements with Big Law firms beyond his Truth Social posts
A Justice Department lawyer said in federal court Thursday that he didn't know if President Donald Trump had written agreements with Big Law firms beyond what he has shared online. "I know of nothing beyond the generally publicly available information," Richard Lawson said when US District Judge Loren AliKhan asked him about any written agreements. Despite representing the Trump administration in court, Lawson said he didn't know about anything written down beyond "press releases" about the deals. "I know of no other documents than that," he said. "That's not saying there isn't any, but I know of no other." Nine Big Law firms have made deals with Trump, pledging a total of nearly $1 billion in pro bono hours toward his political priorities. At the same time, the firms avoided executive orders targeting them. Thursday's hearing, in a Washington, DC, federal court, was over a lawsuit brought by Susman Godfrey, one of four law firms on the receiving end of Trump's harsh executive orders. Trump issued an executive order in April that would have stripped Susman Godfrey attorneys of security clearances, cut the firm off from government contracts, and potentially barred lawyers from courthouses, post offices, and other government buildings. AliKhan quickly issued a temporary restraining order blocking the implementation of Trump's command, and weighed Thursday whether she would permanently block them. For the nine firms that did come to agreements with Trump, the terms appear to be vague. Trump's Truth Social posts announcing each deal are only about 400 words long. They do not specify time horizons for pro bono donations, making it unclear how much work the firms will contribute during the remainder of Trump's term. And they do not include any details about reporting requirements for the promises firms made over diverse hiring practices. Bloomberg Law reported earlier in May on copies of written agreements between the White House and four law firms: Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, and A&O Shearman. Those written agreements do not include any specific details on how they would comply with the deals, according to the outlet. The four firms also struck deals with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, whose chairman sent letters to 20 law firms inquiring about their diversity practices. Outside counsel for the four firms said they would submit "a confidential written certification" every four months through the end of Trump's term, according to Bloomberg Law. When asked about the written agreements, an EEOC spokesperson told Business Insider, "We don't have anything for you on this." Neither the White House nor the nine law firms that made deals with Trump have offered up any information about potential underlying agreements. Representatives for the White House did not respond to requests for comment about the deals. None of the nine firms that struck deals responded to requests for comment about written agreements with Trump.
Reuters
08-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Trump order against law firm Susman Godfrey faces court test
May 8 (Reuters) - U.S. law firm Susman Godfrey will ask a judge in Washington on Thursday to permanently bar President Donald Trump's executive order against it, calling the measure an act of retaliation that trampled its rights under the U.S. Constitution. The hearing before U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan will be the latest in a series of high-profile court clashes over the Republican president's orders targeting major law firms for their connections to his political adversaries or stances they have taken. Trump has been losing the legal battle so far, after judges put his orders against four firms on hold and struck down one of them entirely on May 2. AliKhan is set to hear arguments in Susman Godfrey's case at 2 p.m. Eastern Time. The Houston-based firm sued the administration last month, asserting Trump's executive order violated constitutional protections for free speech and due process. Trump issued orders against Susman and three other firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — that suspended their lawyers' security clearances, restricted their access to government officials and sought to cancel federal contracts held by their client. Susman Godfrey in its lawsuit said Trump's order was retaliation for its defending the integrity of the 2020 presidential election that Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden. The firm represents election technology supplier Dominion Voting Systems in cases that challenged false claims the election was stolen from Trump through widespread voting fraud. The U.S. Justice Department has defended Trump's orders as lawful exercises of presidential authority and urged judges to uphold them. Nine prominent law firms, including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Latham & Watkins and Kirkland & Ellis, have settled with the White House to avoid similar actions against them by the administration. Those firms cumulatively pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal services and made other concessions in their deals with Trump. They have defended agreements as being aligned with their principles. At an earlier hearing in the Susman Godfrey case, AliKhan lamented the settling firms were "capitulating" to the Trump White House.
