MARCH 22, 2025 – In a post two day ago, I sounded the alarm over the Trumpian call for impeachment of judges. Now comes another alarm. The latest blasts to our democratic foundations are Trump’s executive orders aimed at the storied New York-based law firms of Perkins Cole and Paul Weiss. These serious attacks against a free and open society are not so much the fiats of a political dictator as they are shakedowns by a crime boss seeking retribution—and a payoff.
The EOs prohibit firm DEI programs, bar all firm lawyers and representatives from security clearances to all government buildings and cancel contracts that firm clients have with the government. Given the nature of the firm practices, denial of access and cancellation of contracts would undermine the ability of the firms to represent many of their respective clients.
The two firms targeted by the EOs have adopted divergent responses.
Perkins Cole chose to litigate and right out of the gate won a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order). One of the criteria to be considered by a judge in reviewing a motion for a TRO is the likelihood of the moving party to prevail on the merits. Kudos to the firm for opposing the mobster tactic and to the judge for granting the TRO. The firm has since loaded its website with statements, updates, copies of the relevant court filings, and other materials regarding Trump’s crime-boss maneuver. The EO was in retaliation for Perkins Cole’s opposition to Trump in his 2020 election denial cases—every single one of which was dismissed[1] or withdrawn.
Paul Weiss, on the other hand, capitulated. A glance behind the scenes is instructive. Brad Karp, chairman of the 1,000-lawyer powerhouse firm, has himself been a powerful and effective fund-raiser for Democratic candidates. He hosted a “Lawyers for Biden” fund-raiser two years ago, and a leading partner of the firm prepped Kamala Harris for her debates with Trump. Moreover, on policy issues, Karp worked to unite big-time law firms to fight Trump I on matters such as separation of children from migrant parents. He went so far as to state publicly that “lawyers are obligated to defend the rule of law.” Trump blew a gasket and led him to issue the offending executive order . . . entitled, “Retribution.”
Paul Weiss partners scrambled. Litigators were incensed and wanted to fight back; the corporate lawyers—being corporate lawyers—wanted to “strike a deal,” for fear that to fight would result in the loss of so much business, it would put the entire firm out of business. The latter sentiment prevailed—no doubt because the firm client roster included such mega-corporations as Exxon Mobile and Apollo Global Management. With hat very much in hand, Chairman Karp groveled before the Crime Boss and settled in exchange for rescission of the shakedown order. The cost of settlement: cancel the firm’s DEI programs; acknowledge “wrong-doing” by a partner of the firm who had previously prosecuted a case against Trump; and the kicker . . . dedicate $40 million worth of pro bono services to causes designated by the president.
In contrast to the Perkins Cole website, which is plastered with information about the critical issue here, the website of Paul Weiss is wholly silent.
Where does all this end? It ends with the demise of democracy as it was before the American electorate saw fit to anoint a crime boss as president.
I’ve heard the exhaustive list of reasons, excuses, and explanations for why the Harris/Walz ticket lost in November; I’ve read and pondered a decade’s worth of screeds, articles, opinions, and analyses expounding authoritatively on Trump’s Teflon suits and political appeal. In all the words lies an immutable truth: the Commander in Chief is a Commander of Crime.
If we follow the example of Perkins Cole, we stand a chance of saving the ship. If we surrender in the fashion of Paul Weiss, we will soon be fleeced of our rights.
Subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
© 2025 by Eric Nilsson
[1] Dismissal of a case requires jumping over a very high bar. Courts are generally disinclined to grant motions to dismiss on evidentiary grounds except in cases where the plaintiff lacks standing or evidence (as opposed to proof to the applicable standard) is absent. Of the 62 2020 election cases filed on behalf of Trump, all were dismissed or withdrawn; 30 of them were dismissed for lack of evidence. Trump-appointed judges were among the jurists ordering dismissal. For people who are “pattern-impaired,” the foregoing record established quite convincingly . . . a pattern.
