103. Trump’s attacks on law firms—part of a bigger plan
If the mob were doing what President Donald Trump is doing, we’d call it a shakedown. By way of several executive orders, he has accused some of the largest law firms in America of unlawful misconduct and, on his own, determined they violated the law and issued punishment. But if the firms capitulate to his demands, they won’t be punished.
Joining us in this discussion is our friend and fellow lawyer, Jim Meaney.
The targeted firms are guilty of simply representing causes Trump can’t stand and represent some of the largest businesses in America, many of which do business with the federal government. These firms are given a choice: either do legal work for free—for groups that Trump likes—or be barred from entering federal buildings and lose their security clearances, while the government terminates its contract with their clients.
What’s the misconduct? Trump has accused the Paul Weiss firm of engaging in “harmful activity,” Perkins Cioe firm of “dangerous and dishonest activity,” and Susman Godfrey of working to “degrade the quality of American elections.”
What did Paul Weiss do? A partner in the firm brought suit against the individuals who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Perkins Coie represented the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, and Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation case against Fox Corp.
What’s going on here is part of a much bigger plan—a unified attack on everything Trump hates. He is attacking universities and free thought. He is attacking the judiciary by approving the idea of impeaching judges who have ruled against his immigration policies. He’s dismantling multiple federal agencies.
At last count, nine firms have capitulated and struck deals with Trump. Four have filed suit in federal court and attacked his executive orders and have been successful in the early stages of litigation. In street parlance, we have nine “cavers” and four “fighters.”
The issue is, don't law firms have an obligation to see beyond themselves, to see beyond their own interest, and to see beyond their clients’ interests when the system itself is at risk? Nine firms have said no. Four have said yes.
