War on Universities, Lawyers & Expertise

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 36K
  • Politics 
Gee it's almost like this outcome was fairly obvious and the firms who capitulated are craven cowards
This is probably a coincidence but worth noting:

IMG_5426.jpeg


“… In his return to the White House, Trump has sought to exercise retribution against firms whose lawyers have performed legal work with which he disagrees. Paul Weiss was among the targets.

That order noted that a former Paul Weiss attorney, Mark Pomerantz, had been a central player in an investigation by the Manhattan district attorney's office into Trump's finances before Trump became president. …

… Karp was initially prepared to sue over the order, saying his firm "would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration."

Karp later cut a deal with Trump, saying that he did so to save the firm. The move was ridiculed by lawyers outside Paul Weiss, and more than 140 alums of the firm signed a letter assailing it as well.
 
This is probably a coincidence but worth noting:

IMG_5426.jpeg


“… In his return to the White House, Trump has sought to exercise retribution against firms whose lawyers have performed legal work with which he disagrees. Paul Weiss was among the targets.

That order noted that a former Paul Weiss attorney, Mark Pomerantz, had been a central player in an investigation by the Manhattan district attorney's office into Trump's finances before Trump became president. …

… Karp was initially prepared to sue over the order, saying his firm "would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration."

Karp later cut a deal with Trump, saying that he did so to save the firm. The move was ridiculed by lawyers outside Paul Weiss, and more than 140 alums of the firm signed a letter assailing it as well.
I agree it's probably a coincidence - I think Karp was motivated almost entirely by financial self-interest to cut a deal - btu still feels like some delicious karma, no?
 
I agree it's probably a coincidence - I think Karp was motivated almost entirely by financial self-interest to cut a deal - btu still feels like some delicious karma, no?
Indeed. And it further infuriates PW attorneys who were outraged when he cut this deal, which in turn signaled to other big firms they should do the same for competitive reasons.

But the karmic retribution is pretty limited. He is still a partner at PW making millions a year and his resignation didn’t void the agreement with the Trump Administration. Hell, he probably still coordinates all the free legal time they agreed to donate to MAGA causes.
 
Guess Trump didn't know about this, or else he changed his mind overnight.
it's the Harvard thing all over again. Every time Trump sees a headline suggesting that he's backing down on anything, he immediately gets mad and insists on dialing everything back up to 10.

I can't imagine how there are any lawyers left at DOJ. Even if you're a conservative ideologue the job is just a nightmare right now - you are constantly being put in terrible positions by the admin, and they are constantly undermining your authority and the things you say to the court.\

ETA: I suspect the authors of that article are also on to something when they indicate that the Trump DOJ may not have realized, when initially deciding to dismiss their case, that if and when it loses those cases, the result could be that the settlements it negotiated with the other firms are unenforceable.
 
But the karmic retribution is pretty limited. He is still a partner at PW making millions a year and his resignation didn’t void the agreement with the Trump Administration. Hell, he probably still coordinates all the free legal time they agreed to donate to MAGA causes.
What I do not understand is this: the administration cannot enforce that contract. It doesn't matter if Paul Weiss signed the deal. If they say, sorry we don't want to contribute pro bono hours to your cause, the administration cannot make them. It is still viewpoint discrimination.
 
What I do not understand is this: the administration cannot enforce that contract. It doesn't matter if Paul Weiss signed the deal. If they say, sorry we don't want to contribute pro bono hours to your cause, the administration cannot make them. It is still viewpoint discrimination.
Sure, sure, cite the law. A lot depends on how may partners risk losing business if they engage in that legal dust-up, I’m sure. A lot of them won’t feel any direct risk to their book of business but would see a prolonged fight of creating more risk than keeping their head down and telling themselves that the deal is unenforceable if something too egregious is ever demanded. Meanwhile, a lot of folks are getting great networking opportunities in the current administration …
 
Sure, sure, cite the law. A lot depends on how may partners risk losing business if they engage in that legal dust-up, I’m sure. A lot of them won’t feel any direct risk to their book of business but would see a prolonged fight of creating more risk than keeping their head down and telling themselves that the deal is unenforceable if something too egregious is ever demanded. Meanwhile, a lot of folks are getting great networking opportunities in the current administration …
Well, possession being 9/10 of the law and all -- it's PW that would have the possession. The government would have to sue to force compliance.
 
Back
Top