Authored by Richard Porter via RealClearPolitics,
The top law firms in New York City gave Donald Trump the high hat for years, despite his wealth, fame, and standing. But Big Law is finally putting politics aside and getting back to business.
Last month, Sullivan & Cromwell agreed to handle President Trump’s appeal in the egregious criminal case brought by posing partisan prosecutor Alvin Bragg. Last week, Paul Weiss agreed to provide $40 million of legal work on “mutually agreeable matters” in support of the Trump administration’s policy initiatives, and agreed to boot DEI too, in exchange for Trump’s agreement to terminate his Executive Order “Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss.”
Some decry Paul Weiss’ agreement as craven – and one young associate at another firm threatened to quit unless her law firm fights with Trump to her satisfaction. She’s missing the point, as have most of Trump’s other critics in the legal profession.
Until relatively recently, Big Law is all about business – and avoiding political risks. Leading partners at the mega-firms are practical people who behave rationally, not ideologically. And that’s how it’s supposed to work.
So, when Democratic Party lawyers tried to overwhelm Trump with egregious and extra-legal lawfare, Americans rallied around him and helped him retake the presidency. Even then, Big Law refused to represent him because the risk-adjusted return of helping Donald Trump was less than shunning him. Nothing personal, just business – or so they thought.
It’s true that most lawyers, including those who pursue careers in the elite law firms, are Democrats. Two of the three law firms singled out by President Trump are among the most unbalanced of the largest 100 firms. And while Paul Weiss was closer to average, its partners donated more money to Democratic Party campaign committees in a recent cycle than any other large law firm – and one of its partners prepped Kamala Harris for her debate with Trump.
It’s also true that big law firms perceive left-wing activist groups as an outsize risk to their ability to recruit top talent, mostly from elite institutions that are also left. To mitigate that risk, firms have for many years catered to the groups’ requests for financial, policy, and legal support.
That’s why Big Law tilted further and further to the left over the last 15 years. With groups agitating from the left and with big clients who previously leaned right, such as BlackRock and members of the Business Roundtable, riding shotgun for activists, Big Law went with the flow.
These law firms contributed money to Democrats while also synchronizing their pro bono and corporate advisory work with the left’s economic activism – leveraging public sector pension investments, boycott threats, and “naming and shaming” publicity campaigns – along with legal, regulatory, and bureaucratic activism in support of “Environmental, Social and Governance” and “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” initiatives.
Together, the groups and the law firms harnessed much of private finance and industry to the Democrats’ agenda, putting political commissars in C-suites of American businesses under the rubric of DEI and ESG, in a stunningly successful end run around democratic legislative processes.
As Big Law attorneys midwifed this revolution, conservative activists and attorneys took note. Some opposed the status quo in private practice; others were shunned by big law after serving in the first Trump administration. Compounding the affront, some firms actually embraced those who participated in the anti-Trump lawfare, betting that Trump was finished and his lawyers would fade away.
They lost that bet and, with a volley of Executive Orders, Trump sent shock waves through the legal ecosystem, increasing the cost of participating in progressive activism and taking a big step toward purging the politicization of American business.
With that background, it’s clear that Paul Weiss’ agreement is a savvy business move that’s “sleeves off a vest.” According to the New York Times, Paul Weiss’ chairman pointed out in his firmwide email that the agreement “reaffirmed” long standing principles of the firm – and rebalances their firm politically going forward.
Paul Weiss agreed: The justice system should be fair and nonpartisan; not to hire lawyers or choose clients based on their partisan affiliation; to take on a wide range of pro bono matters that represent the full spectrum of political viewpoints; to affirm their commitment to merit-based hiring promotion and retention; to terminate its DEI programs; and to take on “mutually agreed” pro bono projects in support of the administration’s initiatives.
This is a win-win resolution for Paul Weiss and President Trump.
Perhaps the hardest pill for some lawyers to swallow is the termination of DEI, but the problem with DEI is not diversity or inclusion – the problem is the equity in between.
A firm culture premised on equity is inherently more fractious and unstable than one built around equality of opportunity and equal treatment. As currently conceived, “equity” is a transactional concept rooted in anger that’s conceptually unbounded. There is no limiting principle inherent to the concept of “equity.” When do you know you have achieved it? What’s the standard if it isn’t equality? This makes equity arbitrary and unbounded – it’s why when San Francisco had a commission on equity for descendants of slaves they came up with $5 million per person – a number plucked from thin air – which even if paid would lead to demands for even more.
On the other hand, equality is relational, not transactional, bounded by reciprocity and rooted in respect for, not anger at, other people, including those who have different viewpoints or backgrounds.
Diversity is a fact, inclusivity remains a virtue, and equality is a better organizational ethic than equity.
So, while there are still issues to be resolved regarding the executive orders directed at other law firms, the Paul Weiss agreement is a smart roadmap for Big Law generally, but also in dealings with the Trump administration more specifically: Focus on business and keep the politics in balance.
Richard Porter is the former National Committeeman to the RNC from Illinois.
Authored by Richard Porter via RealClearPolitics,
The top law firms in New York City gave Donald Trump the high hat for years, despite his wealth, fame, and standing. But Big Law is finally putting politics aside and getting back to business.
Last month, Sullivan & Cromwell agreed to handle President Trump’s appeal in the egregious criminal case brought by posing partisan prosecutor Alvin Bragg. Last week, Paul Weiss agreed to provide $40 million of legal work on “mutually agreeable matters” in support of the Trump administration’s policy initiatives, and agreed to boot DEI too, in exchange for Trump’s agreement to terminate his Executive Order “Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss.”
Some decry Paul Weiss’ agreement as craven – and one young associate at another firm threatened to quit unless her law firm fights with Trump to her satisfaction. She’s missing the point, as have most of Trump’s other critics in the legal profession.
Until relatively recently, Big Law is all about business – and avoiding political risks. Leading partners at the mega-firms are practical people who behave rationally, not ideologically. And that’s how it’s supposed to work.
So, when Democratic Party lawyers tried to overwhelm Trump with egregious and extra-legal lawfare, Americans rallied around him and helped him retake the presidency. Even then, Big Law refused to represent him because the risk-adjusted return of helping Donald Trump was less than shunning him. Nothing personal, just business – or so they thought.
It’s true that most lawyers, including those who pursue careers in the elite law firms, are Democrats. Two of the three law firms singled out by President Trump are among the most unbalanced of the largest 100 firms. And while Paul Weiss was closer to average, its partners donated more money to Democratic Party campaign committees in a recent cycle than any other large law firm – and one of its partners prepped Kamala Harris for her debate with Trump.
It’s also true that big law firms perceive left-wing activist groups as an outsize risk to their ability to recruit top talent, mostly from elite institutions that are also left. To mitigate that risk, firms have for many years catered to the groups’ requests for financial, policy, and legal support.
That’s why Big Law tilted further and further to the left over the last 15 years. With groups agitating from the left and with big clients who previously leaned right, such as BlackRock and members of the Business Roundtable, riding shotgun for activists, Big Law went with the flow.
These law firms contributed money to Democrats while also synchronizing their pro bono and corporate advisory work with the left’s economic activism – leveraging public sector pension investments, boycott threats, and “naming and shaming” publicity campaigns – along with legal, regulatory, and bureaucratic activism in support of “Environmental, Social and Governance” and “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” initiatives.
Together, the groups and the law firms harnessed much of private finance and industry to the Democrats’ agenda, putting political commissars in C-suites of American businesses under the rubric of DEI and ESG, in a stunningly successful end run around democratic legislative processes.
As Big Law attorneys midwifed this revolution, conservative activists and attorneys took note. Some opposed the status quo in private practice; others were shunned by big law after serving in the first Trump administration. Compounding the affront, some firms actually embraced those who participated in the anti-Trump lawfare, betting that Trump was finished and his lawyers would fade away.
They lost that bet and, with a volley of Executive Orders, Trump sent shock waves through the legal ecosystem, increasing the cost of participating in progressive activism and taking a big step toward purging the politicization of American business.
With that background, it’s clear that Paul Weiss’ agreement is a savvy business move that’s “sleeves off a vest.” According to the New York Times, Paul Weiss’ chairman pointed out in his firmwide email that the agreement “reaffirmed” long standing principles of the firm – and rebalances their firm politically going forward.
Paul Weiss agreed: The justice system should be fair and nonpartisan; not to hire lawyers or choose clients based on their partisan affiliation; to take on a wide range of pro bono matters that represent the full spectrum of political viewpoints; to affirm their commitment to merit-based hiring promotion and retention; to terminate its DEI programs; and to take on “mutually agreed” pro bono projects in support of the administration’s initiatives.
This is a win-win resolution for Paul Weiss and President Trump.
Perhaps the hardest pill for some lawyers to swallow is the termination of DEI, but the problem with DEI is not diversity or inclusion – the problem is the equity in between.
A firm culture premised on equity is inherently more fractious and unstable than one built around equality of opportunity and equal treatment. As currently conceived, “equity” is a transactional concept rooted in anger that’s conceptually unbounded. There is no limiting principle inherent to the concept of “equity.” When do you know you have achieved it? What’s the standard if it isn’t equality? This makes equity arbitrary and unbounded – it’s why when San Francisco had a commission on equity for descendants of slaves they came up with $5 million per person – a number plucked from thin air – which even if paid would lead to demands for even more.
On the other hand, equality is relational, not transactional, bounded by reciprocity and rooted in respect for, not anger at, other people, including those who have different viewpoints or backgrounds.
Diversity is a fact, inclusivity remains a virtue, and equality is a better organizational ethic than equity.
So, while there are still issues to be resolved regarding the executive orders directed at other law firms, the Paul Weiss agreement is a smart roadmap for Big Law generally, but also in dealings with the Trump administration more specifically: Focus on business and keep the politics in balance.
Richard Porter is the former National Committeeman to the RNC from Illinois.
Loading…
