President Donald Trump reversed his executive order targeting the law firm Paul Weiss. In a surprising turn of events, the firm agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services to causes supported by the president while also eliminating internal diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. This agreement prompted Trump to rescind his order, which could have had significant financial implications for the firm.
The news of the deal caught many in the legal community off guard, including Rachel Cohen, an associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Cohen was so dismayed by Paul Weiss’ decision that she sent a firmwide email announcing her resignation unless her own firm took a stand against the Trump administration’s targeting of DEI programs.
Despite the potential repercussions, Cohen was driven by her commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting her colleagues. She emphasized the urgency of the situation, expressing concern that the administration was moving swiftly to undermine democratic norms.
Cohen’s actions shed light on the internal discussions occurring within law firms and the Justice Department as they navigate the challenges posed by the new administration. Trump’s executive orders have directly impacted legal professionals, raising questions about their role in safeguarding democratic principles.
In the face of what she sees as a threat to American democracy, Cohen urged her peers to unite against authoritarian tendencies and defend the foundations of the legal system. She acknowledged that while law firms may not be the ultimate saviors, they play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law and preserving democratic institutions.
In the corporate legal world, there is concern among lawyers that certain actions may empower the administration to take similar steps against other firms. A lawyer at a prominent firm in Washington criticized the decision made by Paul Weiss as “craven and despicable.” This lawyer, along with others in the industry mentioned in this article, chose to remain anonymous due to fear of repercussions. Despite some talk among firms about jointly opposing Trump, such efforts have not gained traction. The hesitancy to speak out is primarily driven by commercial interests, such as the fear of losing clients.
There is ongoing discussion among firms about potentially filing an amicus brief in a case against an executive order issued by Trump targeting a specific firm. Some lawyers express frustration at the reluctance of their firms to take a stand, citing a focus on keeping management satisfied rather than considering the welfare of the country. George Conway, a vocal critic of Trump, emphasized that law firms have a moral obligation to defend the system that has allowed their success, rather than prioritizing profits.
Lawyers within the Justice Department are feeling the pressure, with concerns about job security if they do not align with the administration’s priorities. Fear of repercussions for expressing dissent is high, leading to a tense environment. Attorney Mark Zaid expressed a range of emotions in response to the Paul Weiss decision, drawing a parallel to a Shakespeare quote that highlights the crucial role of lawyers in upholding justice and protecting against authoritarianism.
I think that what Trump is doing is precisely that.
