Some lawyers said the transaction is driven by profits. Others said it makes dictatorship possible. One said the move prompted her to quit her legal job because of disgust.
Throughout the legal world, Friday's lawyers were talking about the deal that Paul Weiss, one of the nation's most well-known law firms, made with President Trump to escape the troublesome executive order that had prevented many clients from representing the federal government. To avoid a blow to its business, the company agreed to do $40 million worth of free work for the White House's favorite cause.
This was an incredible development in the White House's wide-ranging retaliation campaign against a large law firm that represented lawyers or prosecutors in criminal cases against Trump prior to the 2024 election.
Paul Weiss' move was a point of particular conflict due to the company's position in the legal community. The company has long been ruled by Democrats and takes pride in being at the forefront of the government's fight against civil rights.
“They have all the resources they need to fight against illegal order,” said John Moscow, the top prosecutor at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, under Robert Morgensaw. “The example they set is not to fight in court, but to surrender to an illegal order.”
Attorneys for both large and small companies took them to social media and blamed the company.
“Absolutely no shame and spineless behavior,” one lawyer wrote to X.
“This is time to find a soul,” another lawyer who worked for Paul Weiss wrote on LinkedIn.
“It's never too late to leave your company and find something with a backbone,” said a commenter on Paul Weiss' Corporate LinkedIn page.
Leslie Levin, a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, said he was “very disappointed” that the company had signed a contract with Trump, especially given its history.
She said many large companies struggle with how to respond to pressure from the Trump administration. But she said that basic decisions on concerns about harm to their business are contrary to the key tenets of the legal profession.
“Attorneys are supposed to stand up to government when there is power abuse, and companies like Paul Weiss have the ability to do that,” Levin said.
Mark Zaid, another critic of Paul Weiss' move, is the lawyer representing whistleblowers, including the cases that led to Trump's first blast each, and said “the principles are stronger than the dollar.”
On Thursday, Trump said he signed a deal with Paul Weiss chairman Brad Carp and deleted the executive order he issued to the company. The order restricted security clearance for businesses (which are often necessary to verify government contracts for corporate clients) and banned lawyers from federal buildings.
Instead, the company agreed to represent its clients regardless of political affiliation and to do $40 million worth of pro bono work on reasons that the Trump administration supports, including fighting anti-Semitism.
Trump issued an executive order targeting other law firms, including Perkins Koy, who chose to sue in federal court last week. A federal judge in Washington found that an order targeting Perkins was likely unconstitutional and issued a restraining order to stop it. That legal battle is ongoing.
The American Bar Association issued a statement this month denounced the Trump administration's efforts to undermine major law firms, saying these actions by the White House “denied clients access to justice and betrayed fundamental values.” The association declined to comment on Paul Weiss' arrangement with the White House on Friday.
Hundreds of peers from major corporate law firms have signed an open letter urging employers to oppose the Trump administration's move, claiming that White House actions could threaten businesses to take on certain clients.
On Thursday, law firms Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom associate Rachel Cohen shared a LinkedIn screenshot of a resignation email he sent to company staff, citing the company's “lack of a lack of response to the Trump administration's attacks,” Paul Weiss' decision to concede to the Trump administration “had forced my hand,” Cohen wrote in her email.
Neither Cohen nor Skaden responded to requests for comment.
Some lawyers supported Paul Weiss' decision to settle with Trump. They pointed out that the damage to the law firm's business was important.
Several lawyers said it was clear that many of their clients have been suspended in their work with Paul Weiss, as many clients are involved in the federal government.
“I fully understand where Paul Weiss came from, as he faced an existential threat,” said Ronald Barsch, a retired partner at the Skaden Arks.
“Remember: Your lawyer will tell your clients every day to compromise, as a rule, and tell them that the dispute needs to be resolved and resolved,” Barsch said. “So they're probably following the advice they might give themselves.”
But he added, “I like seeing people stand in the system.”
Yale University professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld argued that contracts do not significantly attack the company's ability to serve clients, as it encourages businesses to take an attitude about social issues, including protecting democracy.
Sonnenfeld added that many components of the transaction are consistent with the company's existing priorities. This is the sentiment that Karp expressed in an email to staff.
“The contract does not constrain Paul Weiss' ability to enthusiastically represent the client's interests in the Trump administration's actions or defense against regulatory litigation from executives,” Sonnenfeld said.
But Paul Weiss' drama raised even greater questions in the legal industry. What does it mean to be a lawyer if the administration can make demands about how businesses run their businesses?
Paul Weiss “is simply reorganizing the chairs on the Titanic proverb deck,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel wrote X:
Jessica Silver Greenberg contributed the report.
