A new set of information has come out regarding the Paul Weiss affair, in the form of an email sent out to all employees from the longtime chair of the firm. You can read the full email at the link, but here are a few excerpts:
Late in the evening of Friday, March 14, the President issued an executive order targeting our firm. Since then, we have been facing an unprecedented threat to our firm unlike anything since Samuel Weiss first hung out a shingle in downtown Manhattan on April 1, 1875—almost exactly 150 years ago.
Only several days ago, our firm faced an existential crisis. The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm. It brought the full weight of the government down on our firm, our people, and our clients. In particular, it threatened our clients with the loss of their government contracts, and the loss of access to the government, if they continued to use the firm as their lawyers. And in an obvious effort to target all of you as well as the firm, it raised the specter that the government would not hire our employees.
We were hopeful that the legal industry would rally to our side, even though it had not done so in response to executive orders targeting other firms. We had tried to persuade other firms to come out in public support of Covington and Perkins Coie. And we waited for firms to support us in the wake of the President’s executive order targeting Paul, Weiss. Disappointingly, far from support, we learned that certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys.
We initially prepared to challenge the executive order in court, and a team of Paul, Weiss attorneys prepared a lawsuit in the finest traditions of the firm. But it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration. We could prevent the executive order from taking effect, but we couldn’t erase it. Clients had told us that they were not going to be able to stay with us, even though they wanted to. It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration.
At the same time, we learned that the Administration might be willing to reach a resolution with us. So, working with our outside counsel, we did exactly what we advise our clients to do in “bet the company” litigation every day: we talked with the Administration to see if we could achieve a lasting settlement that would not require us to compromise our core values and fundamental principles.
Posted by Watchung
5 Comments
Outside of a few trial lawyers I know who still follow the old ways, most attorneys are extremely risk adverse (nice way of saying cowards). Don’t be surprised if all of the large firms bend the knee. Most of them would sell their parents if it meant
tl;dr, they wanted to take a united stand against the admin but found nobody was willing to stand with Paul Weiss because the other firms thought there was more profit to be had by undermining them instead.
> It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration.
This reminds me a bit of Sarah “We should use ‘hermaphroditic’ more” Isgur complaining about people expecting DOJ attorneys to leave if there was an attempt to pressure them into unethical conduct during the Thursday Night Massacre. Her argument was that it would essentially destroy their careers. I remember thinking to myself – really? These people with impeccable qualifications, deep networks, and decades of legal experience at the highest level would have to start flipping burgers? It seemed a little melodramatic. It isn’t a struggle to recall Americans who have sacrificed more in defense of our democracy.
Similarly – “not able to survive?” The company would fall apart? If the heights of the American knowledge industry aren’t willing to spend a few years out in the cold to push back against erasure of our civil rights, who’s going to take a stand? Is everyone just going to bend the knee for four years and pray MAGA vanishes?
!ping SNEK&LAW
My question is, if you’re a client in a “bet the company situation” like PW said they were, why would you ever pay big law rates instead of hiring a MAGA affiliated firm and buying $10 million of $TRUMP coin? PW said it made more sense to pay off Trump than pursue legal action – why wouldn’t clients make the same decision? PW said they had to do this to save their business, but how much business is there going to be for law firms in the world where everything is decided by being transactional with the administration?
Quisling 🤝 Karp