Trump vs. Big Law | Power Line

On Friday, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Addressing Risks From Paul Weiss.” This follows similar orders relating to Perkins Coie, the firm that was involved in trying to rig the 2016 presidential election by fabricating the “Steele dossier” on behalf of the Clinton campaign, and Covington & Burling, one of the top firms in Washington, D.C.

Paul Weiss is a great law firm, probably my favorite of all the firms I worked with over a long career. So what is Trump’s beef? The executive order covers several points:

Global law firms have for years played an outsized role in undermining the judicial process and in the destruction of bedrock American principles. Many have engaged in activities that make our communities less safe, increase burdens on local businesses, limit constitutional freedoms, and degrade the quality of American elections. Additionally, they have sometimes done so on behalf of clients, pro bono, or ostensibly “for the public good” — potentially depriving those who cannot otherwise afford the benefit of top legal talent the access to justice deserved by all. My Administration will no longer support taxpayer funds sponsoring such harm.

These observations, I think, are generally true. The bar used to be one of the pillars of the Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln is traditionally the patron saint of lawyers. But in more recent times, lawyers have drifted to the left, basically out of economic self-interest.

It is true, as Trump writes, that “pro bono” work by big law firms has often been destructive. Thus, terrorists confined at Guantanamo Bay received many millions of dollars in free legal services that were far beyond the reach of any ordinary American. But, do taxpayer dollars actually “sponsor” or subsidize “such harm?” That is a more dubious proposition.

Additionally, Paul Weiss discriminates against its own employees on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. Paul Weiss, along with nearly every other large, influential, or industry leading law firm, makes decisions around “targets” based on race and sex. My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies….

This is true too, although, as Trump says, virtually every major law firm has engaged in such discrimination, and proudly so. There is no apparent reason to single out Paul Weiss in this regard.

Finally, we get to the main point:

In 2021, a Paul Weiss partner and former leading prosecutor in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought a pro bono suit against individuals alleged to have participated in the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, on behalf of the District of Columbia Attorney General.

In 2022, Paul Weiss hired unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz, who had previously left Paul Weiss to join the Manhattan District Attorney’s office solely to manufacture a prosecution against me and who, according to his co-workers, unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me. After being unable to convince even Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that a fraud case was feasible, Pomerantz engaged in a media campaign to gin up support for this unwarranted prosecution.

The Democrats tried repeatedly to have Donald Trump imprisoned on the most absurd, fictitious grounds imaginable. They failed, and instead, he was elected President. I don’t know on what basis they could expect that he would let bygones be bygones.

And yet, the steps he is taking against law firms and others are mild. In this case, executive branch officials are directed to review security clearances of Paul Weiss employees to determine whether they are consistent with the national interest. My guess is that they will be found to be unobjectionable. Further, executive offices are directed to stop providing facilities to Paul Weiss (if they are doing so, which I doubt), “to the extent permitted by law.”

Further, officials are to “take appropriate steps to terminate any contract, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation, for which Paul Weiss has been hired to perform any service.” This will be a problem to the extent that the law firm has a government contracts practice. And, finally, access of government buildings to Paul Weiss employees is limited “when such access would threaten the national security of or otherwise be inconsistent with the interests of the United States,” which is never. Likewise, former Paul Weiss employees are not be be hired by the administration “absent a waiver … that such hire will not threaten the national security of the United States.” Which of course it won’t.

Trump’s anti-big law initiatives have been greeted with horror–although not, to be fair, by Paul Weiss, whose spokeswoman issued a mild statement. The liberal Wall Street Journal headlines: “Trump Escalates Fight With Big Law Firms, Targeting Paul Weiss.” Subhed: “Executive order comes days after judge said such retaliation was likely unconstitutional.” But Democratic Party judges say a lot of things. The Journal writes of Paul Weiss:

It played a prominent role in challenging Trump’s policies during his first administration but had stayed out of the fray this time around.

That is true of a number of institutions.

This time, the firm has shied away from taking public stands against Trump’s policies or providing pro bono legal services to plaintiffs in cases against the administration. Other top firms have been similarly cautious, amid a climate of fear in the industry.

Oh, please. The only climate of fear was the woke tyranny that we have been living through in recent years. Law firms, like other institutions, have cowered in fear of being called racist, subjected to boycotts by the Left, etc. To the extent that law firms and others realize that inappropriate partisan actions may have consequences when their side loses, they have learned a valuable lesson.