Latest news with #lawFirms
Forbes
04-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Litigation Funding Tax Was Dropped From Big Tax Bill Before Passage
Hand holding lawsuit court documents. getty I recently noted that litigation funders and lawyers were about to face a 40.8% tax courtesy of the One, Big, Beautiful Tax Bill . The unusual excise tax was a controversial part of the then pending tax bill that was roiling the topic of litigation funding. The enormous proposed excise tax on litigation funding proceeds—including tax withholding by lawyers'—was causing some lawyers and litigation funders alike heartburn or even some restless nights. There were constituents and lobbyists lined up on each side, but as the sausage was being made, the excise tax morphed materially. First, the Senate bill proposed to reduce the withholding rate from 20.4% to 15.9%. That would have meant that, under a typical gross-up provision in a litigation funding contract, a law firm would have been contractually obligated to increase its payments to the funder by 18.9%. That was an improvement over the 25.6% that would have been necessary under the House bill. But that was not the only change. Significantly, the Senate version also changed the amount to which the withholding rate would apply. The original Tillis bill required withholding on the full gross amount of each payment to the funder. The updated Senate bill required withholding only on the amount representing 'qualified litigation proceeds,' which is defined as the funder's profit from the transaction. However, the bill the Senate passed and that the House also passed does not include it. The Senate parliamentarian ruled that the new litigation funding tax could not be included in the reconciliation process because it was a regulatory provision with only incidental revenue effects. So, the provision is probably dead for now, even if the House wants to revive it. Even so, some funders have already said they expect the provision in one of its guises to rear its head again in future legislation. The excise tax on funders—with withholding tax enforcement on lawyers—was intended in part to curb litigation. A long list of companies was firmly behind the proposed tax and some have powerful lobbyists. Therefore, some people expect this issue to come back in some form in the future.
Reuters
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Trump appeals ruling blocking executive order against law firm Perkins Coie
June 30 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration on Monday appealed a federal judge's decision to strike down an executive order targeting law firm Perkins Coie over its past legal work for Hillary Clinton and others. The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the May 2 ruling by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell. The appeal could give one of the country's most influential courts its first chance to weigh the Republican president's orders singling out law firms, which the Justice Department has argued fall within his authority. Three other judges in Washington federal court have rejected executive orders against law firms WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey. The Justice Department has not yet filed appeal notices in those cases. Trump in February launched a pressure campaign against law firms he perceived as aligned against him and the interests of his administration. His executive order against Perkins Coie accused the firm of taking part in an effort to "steal" the 2016 election for Clinton, his Democratic opponent. The order, issued in March, sought to strip government contracts from the law firm's clients and to restrict attorneys at the firm from entering federal buildings. The administration's executive orders against WilmerHale, Jenner and Susman Godfrey contained similar provisions. Perkins Coie's lawsuit, like the cases from rival firms, said the executive order violated U.S. constitutional protections for speech and other measures, and was designed to intimidate lawyers from representing clients Trump might disfavor. Howell agreed, rebuking the president in a strongly worded 102-page ruling, opens new tab. 'Settling personal vendettas by targeting a disliked business or individual for punitive government action is not a legitimate use of the powers of the U.S. government or an American president,' wrote Howell, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama. Republican-appointed U.S. District Judges John Bates and Richard Leon also ruled against the Trump administration in the cases brought by Jenner and WilmerHale, respectively. Democratic-appointed U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled similarly in the case brought by Susman Godfrey. Nine other firms have pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal services and made other concessions in settling with the White House to avoid being targeted by Trump.
Washington Post
27-06-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Judge rejects another Trump executive order targeting the legal community
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday struck down another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the order against the firm of Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked. The order was the latest ruling to reject Trump's efforts to punish law firms for legal work he does not like and for employing attorneys he perceives as his adversaries.
Al Arabiya
27-06-2025
- Business
- Al Arabiya
Judge Rejects Another Trump Executive Order Targeting the Legal Community
A federal judge on Friday struck down another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms. US District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the order against the firm of Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked. The order was the latest ruling to reject Trump's efforts to punish law firms for legal work he does not like and for employing attorneys he perceives as his adversaries. The Susman Godfrey firm suggested that it had drawn Trump's ire at least in part because it represented Dominion Voting Systems in the voting machine company's defamation lawsuit against Fox News over false claims surrounding the 2020 presidential election. The suit ended in a massive settlement. Other judges in recent weeks have blocked similar orders against the firms of Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, and WilmerHale. The orders have sought to impose similar sanctions, including the suspension of security clearances of attorneys and the restriction of access to federal buildings. The order was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed. 'In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full,' AliKhan wrote. 'Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the US Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.' Other major firms have sought to avert orders by preemptively reaching settlements that require them, among other things, to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports.
Associated Press
27-06-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Judge rejects another Trump executive order targeting the legal community
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday struck down another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the order against the firm of Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked. The order was the latest ruling to reject Trump's efforts to punish law firms for legal work he does not like and for employing attorneys he perceives as his adversaries. The Susman Godfrey firm suggested that it had drawn Trump's ire at least in part because it represented Dominion Voting Systems in the voting machine company's defamation lawsuit against Fox News over false claims surrounding the 2020 presidential election. The suit ended in a massive settlement. Other judges in recent weeks have blocked similar orders against the firms of Jenner Block, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale. The orders have sought to impose similar sanctions, including the suspension of security clearances of attorneys and the restriction of access to federal buildings. 'The order was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed. In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full,' AliKhan wrote. 'Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.' Other major firms have sought to avert orders by preemptively reaching settlements that require them, among other things, to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports. ___
