Powerful Wall Street law firm Paul Weiss faced significant criticism over a deal to circumvent an executive order that jeopardized its operations. Some lawyers argued the firm had limited options.
Online, many legal professionals condemned Paul Weiss for its alignment with former President Donald Trump, following the firm’s decision to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services in support of his administration and seemingly abandon its diversity policies.
Marc Elias, a prominent Democratic lawyer and former partner at Perkins Coie, criticized the agreement, labeling it "a stain on the firm, every one of its partners, and the entire legal profession."
For weeks, Trump had targeted Paul Weiss for its connections to Democratic opponents and its internal diversity initiatives, pressuring universities and companies to align with his administration's priorities through funding cuts and other means.
In an internal email, Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp defended the agreement, asserting it aligned with the firm's principles of political independence. With over 1,000 lawyers and significant clients from the financial and tech sectors, Karp indicated the firm would now focus on client work following the rescission of the executive order.
Karp’s email included a copy of the agreement stating that the firm would hire and promote based on merit. However, the language also indicated that Paul Weiss agreed to "not adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies."
The executive order had cited the firm's ties to a prosecutor investigating Trump and its diversity initiatives, resulting in suspended security clearances for its lawyers and restricted access to government buildings and officials.
A source close to Paul Weiss noted the firm considered legal action against the administration but ultimately believed that even a successful lawsuit would deter clients involved in federal matters.
Earlier this week, a defendant facing bribery charges due to Trump’s order indicated he was reconsidering his legal representation after the firm’s agreement with the president.
Legal experts described the orders against Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie as an unprecedented assault on their business capabilities.
Perkins Coie's order was deemed "life-threatening," prompting the firm to take action against the administration.
Speaking to reporters, Trump declared that legal firms "all want to make deals," asserting that they had aggressively pursued him for years.
An earlier order had also suspended security clearances for two lawyers representing Jack Smith, the special counsel behind Trump’s criminal charges in two cases.
On Monday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sought detailed information regarding diversity initiatives and demographic data from 20 major law firms, further expanding the administration's scrutiny of the legal industry.
Despite potential backlash from their lawyers and clients, University of Connecticut law professor Leslie Levin suggested that Paul Weiss likely viewed the agreement as the safest path forward.
The White House announced that Trump had met with Karp, a long-time Democratic supporter and prominent outside counsel for financial firms, to negotiate the deal.
Numerous lawyers, including those linked to Paul Weiss, criticized the agreement on social media. Molly Coleman, a former summer associate and current executive director of the People's Parity Project, described the move as "unbelievably shameful," asserting that the firm had not mustered the courage needed in the moment.
A former Paul Weiss lawyer, Cindy Chang, expressed her embarrassment in a now-deleted LinkedIn comment, though she did not respond to requests for further comment.
Some legal professionals noted that Paul Weiss might face challenges in attracting young talent due to its apparent retreat from diversity commitments that had become increasingly vital in the legal industry.
"This is a generation that expects to see diversity and inclusion in the workplace," stated Nikia Gray, executive director of the National Association for Law Placement.