President Donald Trump successfully pressured eight major law firms into caving to frivolous lawsuits near the start of his second term, from Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey to the legendary Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Now a recent report from The New York Times reveals exactly what went into the decision-making process for that last company — revelations that make Paul Weiss appear motivated by fear and money.
“When [firm chair Brad] Karp quickly surrendered to the White House and made a deal to resolve an executive order widely seen as illegal, it seemed like a dramatic pivot,” reported The New York Times' Michael S. Schmidt and Jessica Silver-Greenberg on Sunday. “It was also consequential, foreshadowing how an array of institutions would bend to President Trump. Though four firms fought similar executive orders, eight others followed Paul Weiss’s example and cut deals, agreeing to perform a total of nearly $1 billion in free legal work for causes Mr. Trump supported.”
The report explained that, prior to the firm’s capitulation to Trump, there had been an internal struggle between its idealistic litigators and the corporate attorneys who believed they should focus solely on their profitability.
“As the corporate lawyers rode a wave of private equity growth and raked in more and more profits, their influence grew,” the report revealed. “They pushed against the pro bono civil rights litigation that had been at the center of Paul Weiss’s culture.”
It added, “So when Mr. Trump took aim at Paul Weiss, partly because of its activist history, a long-simmering identity crisis morphed into an existential one.”
A key figure in all of this was lawyer Scott Barshay, “a bona fide rainmaker,” who was key to the push to settle with Trump even though the firm knew he had no case against them. Barshay also reportedly wanted a trans attorney named Lex Korberg pulled from cases because he believed they could hurt business by making clients uncomfortable; Korberg was eventually pushed out with a $3.5 million non-disparagement deal.
“Among the leadership of Paul Weiss, there was broad support to resolve the executive order,” the Times wrote. “Even Karen Dunn, a top partner who had helped the Harris campaign, pushed to finalize the deal.”
They added, “‘Let’s get this done!!!!’ Ms. Dunn wrote to Mr. Karp and other leaders in an email reviewed by The Times.”
Despite some pushback within the firm, including urging it to take on some high profile cases against Trump to restore their reputation for independence, both Karp and Barshay refused to accept any such cases against the Trump administration.
“The firm looked to appease the Trump administration in other ways, too,” the Times reported. “It cleansed its website for the Center to Combat Hate of any references to its lawsuits against the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for their role in the Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021.”
Last year former Paul Weiss associate and executive director of Common Cause Illinois, Elizabeth Grossman, explained to Politico that the Paul Weiss call has proved less practical than Karp and Barshay seemed to believe it would be.
“They made a calculated decision,” Grossman explained. “They were thinking about their bottom line… I think what we’ve seen is that they made the wrong decision."
Among other things, top law students are no longer interested in joining the firm.
“Paul, Weiss used to be the gold standard for litigation,” Bryson Malcolm, founder of legal recruiting firm Mosaic Search Partners, told Politico. He continued, “I think that reputation is waning.”
Overall he concluded “I don’t really see a situation where a student would choose Paul, Weiss over any of its peers that didn’t have a similar fallout. Even if you’re just thinking pragmatically and you’re not really tied to the morality of it all, it’s just very clear Paul, Weiss is not a safe option compared to the others.”
