THERE ARE FEW TOPICS THE LEGAL WORLD loves discussing more than the legal world itself.

But even by its standards of self-interest, the chatter about Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison’s decision to reach a settlement with President Donald Trump over his executive order threatening the firm has been immense.

Lawyers at the firm described starkly different internal reactions to the decision. Some expressed despair over what they deemed a morally indefensible capitulation, fearing that in an effort to save the firm, leadership may have harmed it by signaling to clients that it can be coerced. Others rationalized the decision as a small humiliation that didn’t fundamentally alter much of anything; the firm would continue doing what it was doing, minus the threat of immolation.

In an email to staff, obtained by The Bulwark, the head of the firm, Brad Karp, said that the commitments made to Trump—such as representing clients of various political affiliations and contributing $40 million in pro bono legal services to Trump-approved causes—were consistent with those outlined by one of the firm’s founders: Simon H. Rifkind. Karp pointed to a 1963 “Statement of Firm Principles” in which Judge Rifkind wrote that “we believe in maintaining, by affirmative efforts, a membership of partners and associates reflecting a wide variety of religious, political, ethnic and social backgrounds.”

The Karp email was remarkably nonspecific, however. It included an attachment that claimed to be the “final agreement between Paul, Weiss and the Administration.” But that attachment was just the five bullet points that Trump himself had posted (and a copy of a memo obtained by Business Insider suggests that the firm may be less strict than Trump suggested in purging DEI from its hiring practices). Elsewhere in the email, Karp pleaded with recipients to not discuss the matter publicly.

“Given the media attention focused on the firm and the sensitivity of this matter, we request that you refrain from any social media postings or other disclosures relating to the Executive Order or its withdrawal,” the email read.

As of Friday afternoon, the firm had put a fairly tight lid on things. But some former Paul Weiss employees were still incensed. One alum sent The Bulwark a note outlining what they described as “shame” with the firm. The attorney, who requested anonymity because they now work for the government, noted that inside Paul Weiss, there was immense pride about the firm’s pro bono work. For that to now be co-opted by Trump—and for that to have happened through an exercise of extortion—was almost too bitter to take. They were still deciding whether to send the letter to Paul Weiss staff. It read, in part:

Here, I had some degree of faith that the firm I loved and thought I knew so well would stand by [the] ethos that recruited me there in the first place – a place filled with fearless advocates who valued the rule of law. A place with a storied history where merit, judgment, and principle were prized above all else. A place that elevated women attorneys, black attorneys, Jewish attorneys, and un-pedigreed and unconnected attorneys decades before any political or capitalistic wind would justify doing so. A place that led with professionalism and a deep faith that doing what is right will, in the long run, dovetail with what is financially, professionally, and reputationally “successful.”

As a Paul, Weiss alum, I am disgusted. I am betrayed. These are smart, strategic thinkers who cravenly placed cowardice and personal greed over the rule of law, the long term interest of their clients, their peer firms, every single one of their people from the most famous partner to the nameless mail clerk. They have betrayed me and every alum and the legacy of every attorney in the name Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and Garrison.

Share

AMONG THE MAJOR FIRMS with business before the government, there is universal recognition that the industry stands in peril. Trump has moved aggressively to target firms that he believes have worked against him. And he has done so in ways that would likely cripple their business, such as by pulling security clearances for lawyers, prohibiting them from federal buildings, and threatening contractors who hire those firms.

What to do about it all has proved deeply divisive. Lawyers in D.C. have been working behind the scenes to present a united front to the Trump threats. But collective action has proven elusive. Only one major firm, Williams & Connolly, has agreed to represent one of the main firms in Trump’s crosshairs, Perkins Coie. An amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie has reportedly been in the works among other major firms for over a week but has yet to be published. Since the Paul Weiss settlement, some lawyers now expect that a united front in opposition to Trump’s actions will never materialize.

“Seeing the capitulation of Paul Weiss and Brad Karp, for whom I’ve had a great deal of respect since first meeting him in the 2010s, has been devastating,” said one lawyer at another firm. “It only reinforces my belief that my firm—mighty and capable, but smaller than Paul Weiss—would do the same.”

On Friday morning, there was a firmwide meeting at Perkins Coie, according to an associate there. The meeting had been on the books before the Paul Weiss settlement news broke. But during it, Bill Malley, the head of Perkins Coie, acknowledged the Paul Weiss deal with Trump. He didn’t say much about whether Perkins Coie would cave to Trump’s extortion too, or if that was even an option available at this point. Elsewhere at the firm, feelings toward Karp were raw.

“It was so cowardly and despicable,” said the Perkins associate. “They hung us out to dry. If the big firms had stuck together, I think we would have gotten through this. There’s strength in numbers. The corporate clients are less likely to dump any particular firm if Trump is going after ‘Big Law’ as an industry. But now what? Firms have to either pledge fealty to Trump or get destroyed?”

Trump, for his part, seems to delight in watching his extortion cause infighting and mistrust among his perceived enemies. On Friday he noted that the firms “all want to make deals” with him. He didn’t tip his hand as to whether more were coming. But clearly, he feels little pushback. And why would he? In response to his unprecedented campaign of intimidation and extortion, the law firms have almost universally chosen silence. Almost.

On Thursday evening, after the Paul Weiss news broke, Rachel A. Cohen, an associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, sent a firmwide email saying that she would quit her job in two weeks time unless the firm joined an amicus brief supporting Perkins in addition to making other public statements and making clear it would stand up to Trump’s pressure.

An email to Cohen was not returned—perhaps because, as she said on LinkedIn, the firm responded to her letter by freezing her email account.

Share