Trump & Big Law: A Counterfactual History of Legal Resistance

When power ‍Targets Counsel: The Paul, weiss Case adn⁣ the Erosion of Legal ‍Independence

The ⁢story of ⁢Paul, weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP isn’t just about a successful law firm; it’s a stark warning about the fragility of legal independence. With 1,250 lawyers globally and annual revenues exceeding $2.63 billion ⁣- translating to over $7.5 million in profit per⁤ partner – Paul, Weiss is a legal powerhouse. But its strength and reputation also made it a target. Beyond⁣ its financial success, the firm boasts a distinguished history of championing civil rights, dating‍ back to assisting Thurgood Marshall in desegregation cases in the 1950s⁣ and, more recently, representing Edith Windsor in the landmark united States v. Windsor case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.This commitment to⁣ justice, ironically, contributed to a political‍ backlash that threatened ⁣the very foundation of its practice.

Former President⁤ Trump harbored significant animosity⁢ towards Paul, Weiss. This stemmed from several factors: partner ‍Jeannie Rhee’s⁣ prior work with the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, her subsequent pro-bono depiction of individuals involved in the January 6th Capitol riot investigation, and the firm’s commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) employment practices. On March 14th, Trump responded with an executive order targeting Paul, Weiss, directing federal agencies to review the security clearances of its attorneys, restrict their access to federal buildings, and potentially terminate government contracts. This wasn’t an isolated incident; similar orders were issued against other firms based on perceived political grievances, including Perkins‍ Coie for its representation⁢ of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

The potential consequences for a firm like Paul, Weiss were severe. Restricting access to federal buildings and courthouses would cripple its ability to represent clients in federal litigation and before regulatory agencies. the firm’s work advising multinational corporations on permits, licenses, and SEC negotiations – a significant portion of its business – could have been effectively shut down. ⁣ This wasn’t simply about impacting⁣ a single firm; it was about undermining⁤ the entire adversarial system.

However,such actions are fundamentally unconstitutional. The ⁢government punishing speech or the legal representation it disfavors is a direct assault ⁣on the⁣ First Amendment. Preventing ⁤lawyers from choosing ⁢their clients, and penalizing firms based on the political affiliations of individual attorneys, represents a hazardous weaponization of executive power – a clear ⁤overreach with no constitutional basis. The ‍legal principle at ‍stake is not debatable.

Leading Paul, Weiss through this crisis was Chairman brad Karp, a‍ highly respected litigator‍ known for representing major financial institutions in billion-dollar disputes. Karp’s commitment to the ⁣rule of ‍law was further demonstrated through his involvement with the World Law Foundation, a global ⁣organization dedicated to promoting democratic principles and the rule of law. The Foundation, which‍ has honored legal giants like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Nelson Mandela, regularly addresses ⁣threats to legal independence. (Full disclosure:⁤ I have participated in panels at the Foundation’s congresses in 2023 and 2025,focusing on press freedoms.)

Yet, despite Karp’s understanding ⁣of the stakes and the firm’s resources, Paul, Weiss opted for a settlement just six days after‍ the executive order was issued. The terms were deeply ‍troubling: a commitment of $40 million in pro-bono services‍ to support⁣ the Governance’s ⁣initiatives and a pledge to abandon its DEI policies.This decision⁢ was quickly followed by similar settlements from eight other global law firms, totaling nearly ⁣$1 billion in pro-bon