In a significant development from Washington, the chairman of a well-known law firm, Brad Karp, revealed in an email to colleagues that he struck a deal with President Donald Trump to avoid severe repercussions stemming from a recent executive order. Karp's communication shed light on the precarious situation his firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Garrison & Wharton, faced, stating that the order “could easily have destroyed our firm” and jeopardized its future.
The executive order in question is part of a broader pattern of actions taken against law firms whose attorneys have engaged in legal work contrary to Trump’s objectives. This particular order threatened to suspend security clearances for attorneys at Paul Weiss and jeopardized any federal contracts associated with the firm. The order was notably influenced by the involvement of former Paul Weiss attorney Mark Pomerantz in an investigation into Trump’s finances, a case that became increasingly contentious during Trump's presidency.
After a crucial meeting between Karp and Trump, the executive order was rescinded on Thursday evening. In exchange, the firm agreed to provide $40 million worth of free legal services aimed at supporting specific Trump administration initiatives, including efforts to combat antisemitism. The agreement also included commitments to audit hiring practices and avoid adopting any Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, as well as to represent clients without regard to their political affiliations.
The resolution sparked significant backlash within the legal community, where many lawyers criticized Paul Weiss for capitulating to Trump’s demands instead of standing firmly against his administration. Critics argue that such compromises could set a concerning precedent, especially at a time when Trump is leveraging presidential power to threaten the livelihoods of attorneys and companies that oppose him.
In his email, Karp described the executive order as an “existential crisis” for the firm, indicating that a prolonged battle with the Trump administration would likely have led to its downfall. He emphasized the potential for clients to lose government contracts and access to federal services should they continue to hire Paul Weiss for legal representation. “The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm,” Karp stated, highlighting the severe implications the order posed to both the firm and its clients.
Initially, Karp indicated that the firm was prepared to contest the executive order in court, similar to a response from another law firm, Perkins Coie. However, he soon realized that even a successful legal challenge would not alleviate the fundamental issue: clients’ perceptions of the firm as being unwelcome by the Trump administration. Karp noted, “Disappointingly, far from support, we learned that certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys.”
Faced with these daunting challenges, Paul Weiss opted to negotiate a settlement quickly, concluding discussions within a matter of days. Karp expressed understanding of the discomfort many employees felt regarding the resolution, acknowledging the complexity of the situation. “There was no right answer to the predicament in which we found ourselves,” he wrote, reminding colleagues that it is easy for outsiders to critique decisions without understanding the intense pressure involved.
The circumstances surrounding Paul Weiss are not isolated. The firm is among numerous entities that have recently opted for compromise rather than confrontation with the Trump administration. For example, on Friday, Columbia University agreed to restructure its Middle East studies department and amend its rules regarding protests and student discipline, responding to pressures to avoid losing billions in federal funding. Additionally, companies like Meta and ABC have made settlement payments to Trump's future presidential library to resolve lawsuits, while several firms have rolled back DEI initiatives to align with Trump's policies.
