With the recent capitulation from Paul, Weiss and from Skadden, Arps, the sanctity of the legal profession is at risk to a clearly authoritarian behavior.

I can agree with certain aspects of the Trump administration, but I have to realize that our rule of law and our way of governing is at risk to an authoritarian and those without courage to resist.

I am retired and no longer practicing, but, when I was a practicing lawyer, I took pride in our profession and in defending the rule of law. That value rose above politics.

If we do not stand against this now because of politics, it can easily be used by those on the other side. What is to stop a future Democrat from threatening same removal of access to anyone who would work with anyone on the Republican party. And our profession will become a puppet to whichever party is in the executive branch.

As a director, I for one will ask the CLOs to explain why they would continue to use Skadden or Paul Weiss.

We have to be intelligent and sentient enough to know what is wrong and what is right and understand that neither party encompasses all that is right at all time.

The extortion by the White House against law firms representing anyone they don't like with exclusion from being present in any matter in which the government is a party or potentially even accessing federal courts is unthinkable.

This was important enough for me to venture back here after many months.

And I won't debate this.

But I implore the conservative lawyers here to recognize how destructive these extortions against law firms are to our rule of law and our profession.

And if you don't speak up now, when will you?

And if you lack courage or independence to think for yourself now on this topic as a lawyer, when will you?

"Every tyrant in history has sought to stifle criticism of himself and his regime.

But America was founded on criticism. American democracy was built on dissent. We conducted a revolution against tyranny.

This moment calls for courage and collective action rather than capitulation resolve by universities, researchers, journalists, the legal community, and the arts to stand up to Trump.

Anyone holding responsible positions in these five pillars of civil society must reject Trump's attempts at intimidation and condemn what he is trying to do.

Those who surrender to Trump's tyranny invite more of it."

Robert Reich

S.F. Firm Takes a Stand

https://abc7news.com/post/san-francisco-law-firm-keker-van-nest-peters-takes-stand-trump-administration-executive-orders-target-contracts/16099485/


*The irony is that Trump is guilty of every bad thing he has been accused of his entire life (and has done worse that he never got accused of). He has betrayed everyone he ever had a personal or business relationship with. All of his unlawful Executive Orders are going to be reversed by his SCOTUS, with Alito and Thomas dissenting. His only option in order to impose his will is to install a totalitarian government, which anywhere from 30 to 40 percent of Americans are on board with anyway. All he needs is the backing of the military and he has replaced most of the commanding generals with loyalists. I see it unfolding with civil unrest, Trump declares Martial Law and from there…..

What is there about his recent conduct that convinces anyone that he won't push the limits as far as he thinks he can get away with? If he truly has the last guard rail supporting him, the military, what is so far fetched about my scenario?

calbear93 said:

---

With the recent capitulation from Paul, Weiss and from Skadden, Arps, the sanctity of the legal profession is at risk to a clearly authoritarian behavior.

I can agree with certain aspects of the Trump administration, but I have to realize that our rule of law and our way of governing is at risk to an authoritarian and those without courage to resist.

I am retired and no longer practicing, but, when I was a practicing lawyer, I took pride in our profession and in defending the rule of law. That value rose above politics.

If we do not stand against this now because of politics, it can easily be used by those on the other side. What is to stop a future Democrat from threatening same removal of access to anyone who would work with anyone on the Republican party. And our profession will become a puppet to whichever party is in the executive branch.

As a director, I for one will ask the CLOs to explain why they would continue to use Skadden or Paul Weiss.

We have to be intelligent and sentient enough to know what is wrong and what is right and understand that neither party encompasses all that is right at all time.

The extortion by the White House against law firms representing anyone they don't like with exclusion from being present in any matter in which the government is a party or potentially even accessing federal courts is unthinkable.

This was important enough for me to venture back here after many months.

And I won't debate this.

But I implore the conservative lawyers here to recognize how destructive these extortions against law firms are to our rule of law and our profession.

And if you don't speak up now, when will you?

And if you lack courage or independence to think for yourself now on this topic as a lawyer, when will you?

---

This is where you make a stand against trump? Quite telling of your moral compass.

"As of Friday, there have been 46 cases in which federal judges have blocked Trump policies.

The rulings in those cases have come from 39 different judges appointed by 5 different presidents (of both parties) to 11 different district courts across 7 different circuits.

Maybe it's not the judges?"

Steve Vladeck

calpoly said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

With the recent capitulation from Paul, Weiss and from Skadden, Arps, the sanctity of the legal profession is at risk to a clearly authoritarian behavior.

I can agree with certain aspects of the Trump administration, but I have to realize that our rule of law and our way of governing is at risk to an authoritarian and those without courage to resist.

I am retired and no longer practicing, but, when I was a practicing lawyer, I took pride in our profession and in defending the rule of law. That value rose above politics.

If we do not stand against this now because of politics, it can easily be used by those on the other side. What is to stop a future Democrat from threatening same removal of access to anyone who would work with anyone on the Republican party. And our profession will become a puppet to whichever party is in the executive branch.

As a director, I for one will ask the CLOs to explain why they would continue to use Skadden or Paul Weiss.

We have to be intelligent and sentient enough to know what is wrong and what is right and understand that neither party encompasses all that is right at all time.

The extortion by the White House against law firms representing anyone they don't like with exclusion from being present in any matter in which the government is a party or potentially even accessing federal courts is unthinkable.

This was important enough for me to venture back here after many months.

And I won't debate this.

But I implore the conservative lawyers here to recognize how destructive these extortions against law firms are to our rule of law and our profession.

And if you don't speak up now, when will you?

And if you lack courage or independence to think for yourself now on this topic as a lawyer, when will you?

---

This is where you make a stand against trump? Quite telling of your moral compass.

---

100%.

And the firms, with a few exceptions, will lay down like dogs for this MAGAt administration. Dollars over principles will govern the partners.

VOTE BLUE

Go Bears Forever

Just to be clear, this was intended for the intelligent posters like BearGoggle, wif, and t4k who otherwise have had very successful legal careers.

While the warrior spirit of the brave progressive posters never rests and causes them to ignore the title of the thread, the post was not intended for those brave progressive warriors fighting the good fight here but who really do not have any influence whatsoever on this topic outside the confines of this impactful board.

To BearGoggle, wif and t4k, chilling law firms from representing those opposed to a political party betrays the basic tenet of our profession. Similar to how we often agree on our fiscal conservative viewpoints and the need to enforce the border, I hope we can agree that we need to take a stand in our profession against this constraint on our oath.

Lawyers in firms like these are more partisan and more privileged than most of us and they are not "beyond politics" but agents of parties. I don't think, therefore, they being subject to the prevailing winds is exemplary of any principle of lost sanctity and I don't think it's an issue that most of us care about

Anarchistbear said:

---

Lawyers in firms like these are more partisan and more privileged than most of us and they are not "beyond politics" but agents of parties. I don't think, therefore, they being subject to the prevailing winds is exemplary of any principle of lost sanctity and I don't think it's an issue that most of us care about

---

Just so we are talking about the same thing, number of top firms, including Skadden, Paul Weiss, Wilmer Hale, Perkins Coie, have been threaten with executive order that would prevent them from obtaining security clearance for federal building access, from participating in any transaction involving the government (e.g., unable to represent corporate clients who do transaction with government, etc.), or potentially being unable to be present in federal courtroom, all as a result of having hired a lawyer or worked on matters that Trump did not approve, including, in one instance, hiring a member who had worked on the Mueller team.

If law firms are now unable to provide legal support for any of the opposing party members or any cause the president doesn't approve, that means that the opposing party will be unable to get any representation from the top firms.

Extortion to prevent top lawyers from representing political opponents by threatening them with government sanctions threatens our rule of law. Forcing law firms to hire the president's favorite sycophants or to dedicate pro bono funds to the president's top personal causes all under the threat of government sanctions threatens our rule of law.

I am directing this to lawyers because they understand the gravity of opposing party not getting legal support. Progressive warriors will think they get it but they neither have experience nor knowledge to understand. As such, I am presenting to intelligent lawyers whose influence goes beyond this powerful message board and not to convince the typical keyboard warriors whose fight rightfully remains contained here.

bearister said:

---

"Every tyrant in history has sought to stifle criticism of himself and his regime.

But America was founded on criticism. American democracy was built on dissent. We conducted a revolution against tyranny.

This moment calls for courage and collective action rather than capitulation resolve by universities, researchers, journalists, the legal community, and the arts to stand up to Trump.

Anyone holding responsible positions in these five pillars of civil society must reject Trump's attempts at intimidation and condemn what he is trying to do.

Those who surrender to Trump's tyranny invite more of it."

Robert Reich

S.F. Firm Takes a Stand

https://abc7news.com/post/san-francisco-law-firm-keker-van-nest-peters-takes-stand-trump-administration-executive-orders-target-contracts/16099485/


*The irony is that Trump is guilty of every bad thing he has been accused of his entire life (and has done worse that he never got accused of). He has betrayed everyone he ever had a personal or business relationship with. All of his unlawful Executive Orders are going to be reversed by his SCOTUS, with Alito and Thomas dissenting. His only option in order to impose his will is to install a totalitarian government, which anywhere from 30 to 40 percent of Americans are on board with anyway. All he needs is the backing of the military and he has replaced most of the commanding generals with loyalists. I see it unfolding with civil unrest, Trump declares Martial Law and from there…..

What is there about his recent conduct that convinces you he won't push the limits as far as he thinks he can get away with? If he truly has the last guard rail supporting him, the military, what is so far fetched about my scenario?

---

That's exactly right.

Imagine anyone opposed to the president's position now being sanctioned by the government in a way that would make them bankrupt. Imagine that lawyers who want to practice now cannot defend anyone that opposed the president.

I don't expect most to understand, and like most uninformed Americans, it is not surprising that the uninformed are completely missing the point of the executive order punishing the top firms that had previously provided pro bono support to challenge the constitutionality of Trump's actions or causes to defend the disenfranchised. Glad you understand that using the government to ensure opponents cannot appeal to the courts is a grave danger.

"….. who otherwise have had very successful legal careers."

Says who? Them?

"Progressive warriors?" Read my thread, "The Town has major trouble " and tell me how progressive I am. I think that reaction to Progressive policies got Trump elected. Progressives and MAGAs are different sides of the same coin. They both want to control what you think, say and do and they can both F@uck Off!

bearister said:

---

"….. who otherwise have had very successful legal careers."

Says who? Them?

"Progressive warriors?" Read my thread, The Town is in Trouble and tell me how progressive I am. I think that reaction to Progressive policies got Trump elected. Progressives and MAGAs are different sides of the same coin. They both want to control what you think, say and do and they can both F@uck Off!

---

I don't think you are progressive. You are the only one on this thread who understands the gravity of Trump's executive order. I am appealing to the conservative lawyers who had successful careers and are committed to our oath. I don't view you as someone who needs to be convinced that this is overreach by Trump.

If I recall correctly, you are in to martial arts. If so, and you are watching White Lotus this season, I predict it will play a key part in the resolution of one of the subplots……but I digress.

bearister said:

---

If I recall correctly, you are in to martial arts. If so, and you are watching White Lotus this season, I predict it will play a key part in the resolution of one of the subplots……but I digress.

---

Haven't watch White Lotus. Still do mixed martial arts, but not as much as I get older with older knees. Going from 40 to 50 was a significant change for my joints.

bearister said:

---

"As of Friday, there have been 46 cases in which federal judges have blocked Trump policies.

The rulings in those cases have come from 39 different judges appointed by 5 different presidents (of both parties) to 11 different district courts across 7 different circuits.

Maybe it's not the judges?"

Steve Vladeck

---

Imagine now sanctioning those law firms that provided legal support to challenge those policies, ensuring that they cease to challenge Trump's policies or otherwise disagree with him.

What a chilling result.

calbear93 said:

---

Just to be clear, this was intended for the intelligent posters like BearGoggle, wif, and t4k who otherwise have had very successful legal careers.

While the warrior spirit of the brave progressive posters never rests and causes them to ignore the title of the thread, the post was not intended for those brave progressive warriors fighting the good fight here but who really do not have any influence whatsoever on this topic outside the confines of this impactful board.

To BearGoggle, wif and t4k, chilling law firms from representing those opposed to a political party betrays the basic tenet of our profession. Similar to how we often agree on our fiscal conservative viewpoints and the need to enforce the border, I hope we can agree that we need to take a stand in our profession against this constraint on our oath.

---

Thank you for including me in that favorable light. I agree with the general sentiment, of course. But we appear to part ways on the details. I have zero sympathy for Perkins Coi. They were basically cleaners who enabled the greatest political scam in our nation's history. Prosecuting a hoax on the nation with the Steele Dossier and being a party to its improper use against a political candidate is unforgivable. That is a violation of professional standards IMO and earned them whatever financial punishment they get. Some others on the list clearly engaged in lawfare. They crossed professional lines and deserve what they are getting too. If the admin removes security clearances for 'regular' D attorneys...I'm right there with you saying it is wrong and fighting it (just as I am doing with this BS talk of a 3rd Trump term...F that noise). Also, not for nothing, but I recall bar complaints being filed by left wing types seeking to disbar attorneys for merely representing republicans. That was worth fighting over too ... but nobody did.

tequila4kapp said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Just to be clear, this was intended for the intelligent posters like BearGoggle, wif, and t4k who otherwise have had very successful legal careers.

While the warrior spirit of the brave progressive posters never rests and causes them to ignore the title of the thread, the post was not intended for those brave progressive warriors fighting the good fight here but who really do not have any influence whatsoever on this topic outside the confines of this impactful board.

To BearGoggle, wif and t4k, chilling law firms from representing those opposed to a political party betrays the basic tenet of our profession. Similar to how we often agree on our fiscal conservative viewpoints and the need to enforce the border, I hope we can agree that we need to take a stand in our profession against this constraint on our oath.

---

Thank you for including me in that favorable light. I agree with the general sentiment, of course. But we appear to part ways on the details. I have zero sympathy for Perkins Coi. They were basically cleaners who enabled the greatest political scam in our nation's history. Prosecuting a hoax on the nation with the Steele Dossier and being a party to its improper use against a political candidate is unforgivable. That is a violation of professional standards IMO and earned them whatever financial punishment they get. Some others on the list clearly engaged in lawfare. They crossed professional lines and deserve what they are getting too. If the admin removes security clearances for 'regular' D attorneys...I'm right there with you saying it is wrong and fighting it (just as I am doing with this BS talk of a 3rd Trump term...F that noise). Also, not for nothing, but I recall bar complaints being filed by left wing types seeking to disbar attorneys for merely representing republicans. That was worth fighting over too ... but nobody did.

---

How do you justify Jenner & Block being sanctioned into potential bankruptcy for the sin of hiring someone on Mueller's team?

How do you justify Skadden Arps, when they have provided pro bono services for both sides?

How about Paul Weiss? What was their sin other than allow pro bono work for a cause Trump didn't approve?

You know how I feel about the empty sack progressives who don't even live their own lives that reflect their "values" demanded of others.

But, as a lawyer, the White House sanctioning other lawyers for providing legal support for causes or party the president does not support is something where I feel compelled to oppose irrespective of party affiliation.

I will do everything I can to make sure that I don't associate myself with law firms that lack courage to stand for the rule of law.

This is big enough and waged by someone with too much power that I am not going to overlook just because of some rogue DA (who was shameful for persecuting for political purposes) or some rando filing complaints with the bar that went nowhere.

All fair points. I am not familiar with each of the firm's work. My immediate reaction was to the firms / lawyers I believe crossed a line. Those who didn't and who merely engaged in normal advocacy...this should not happen. The problem with these types of things - which we also see with the Alien Enemies Act - is with who gets to decide when lines were crossed.

I say a prayer every night that Trump files suit against every party he thinks lawfared/witch hunted him. All the pending or concluded cases against Trump were derailed by the immunity decision of the SCOTUS or him winning the election.

If his Justice Department prosecutes criminal cases or civil actions are filed, the mountain of damning evidence* against Trump will come into play as part of the defense and will be smeared all over the media. For that reason, Trump is bluffing about going after people, and if he isn't bluffing, then he truly has lost his sh@it.

If Trump proceeds with criminal prosecutions and/or civil actions, it will generate millions of dollars in malicious prosecution action damage awards for the innocent people he went after.

Trump's vengeance wet dream only plays out for him if he can establish a totalitarian state…..which I view as a possibility.

*My favorite will be reopening and doing a deep dive on those 100+ meetings Mueller discovered that the Trump Campaign had with Russians (many of whom had SVR/GRU connections) in the run up to the 2016 Election.

I usually stay away from O/T because the posts descend into backs and forth on perceived hypocrisy. So I was glad when an attorney on this board said I had been called out and asked me to respond to this thread. Current Presidents with views as dissimilar at RR, Clinton and Obama have been trying to expand Executive Power, and in this day of instant decision-making and complexity, I can see where courts have been willing to play ball sometimes. I don't like a lot of Trumps executive orders, but I voted for someone else, and elections matter. But none of this compares to Trump shaking firms down law for free services or donations. Are law firms getting the same pay for play treatment business often now finds itself in? On the cultural side, Is Trump just a white Jessie Jackson demanding money from business that otherwise would face a boycott and an adverse media blitz?

Trump should be differentiated from cultural warriors or folks like JJ. He is the POTUS and not a private actor, and that distinction, by itself, should be sufficient to those of us who are lawyers. But on the play for pay side, there is a real question in my mind. Some of this retribution seems personal to Trump, aimed at firms who employ lawyers who investigated Trump, even when one of those firm's managing partners has been the solicitor general under GOP administrations and is considered a very conservative firm. Some of this is Trump does not like the cases these firms took on, often on a pro-bono basis. The problem is that law firms by their very nature represent people who oppose Presidents, the federal government and different branches of the government, even actions by the courts themselves. if you can't take on government action these days as a large law firm you can't survive. This is not a partisan issue. For example, and by extension of what Trump is doing, what if you penalize law firms (1) for who their clients are, or (2) disagreeing with the views the law firms are tying to assert on behalf of their clients? You have utter tyranny and the end of the justice system. There is no way for those who oppose government action to obtain desired legal representation. Again, this is not a partisan issue. What happens if a liberal democratic President goes after all law firms who represent taxpayers, fee payers or regulated business (which is pretty much every large firm)? The country and the legal system simply can't function, and you lose Democracy.

Peeling back the onion one step more, what if Trump goes after law firms just to get donations to the RNC, conservative causes or inauguration expenses? Tougher call. You better donate to the Dems in California if you want to any government work, and in a red state like Utah, just replace Dems with the GOP. How is this different? As someone who no longer practices law, upon reflection, the legal profession likes to assert a lot of platitudes to justify what it does that seem unwarranted. Just my two cents.

Welcome back calbear93. I'm sorry Chris Christie didn't have enough votes to take you to the promise land.

wifeisafurd said:

---

I usually stay away from O/T because the posts descend into backs and forth on perceived hypocrisy. So I was glad when an attorney on this board said I had been called out and asked me to respond to this thread. Current Presidents with views as dissimilar at RR, Clinton and Obama have been trying to expand Executive Power, and in this day of instant decision-making and complexity, I can see where courts have been willing to play ball sometimes. I don't like a lot of Trumps executive orders, but I voted for someone else, and elections matter. But none of this compares to Trump shaking firms down law for free services or donations. Are law firms getting the same pay for play treatment business often now finds itself in? On the cultural side, Is Trump just a white Jessie Jackson demanding money from business that otherwise would face a boycott and an adverse media blitz?

Trump should be differentiated from cultural warriors or folks like JJ. He is the POTUS and not a private actor, and that distinction, by itself, should be sufficient to those of us who are lawyers. But on the play for pay side, there is a real question in my mind. Some of this retribution seems personal to Trump, aimed at firms who employ lawyers who investigated Trump, even when one of those firm's managing partners has been the solicitor general under GOP administrations and is considered a very conservative firm. Some of this is Trump does not like the cases these firms took on, often on a pro-bono basis. The problem is that law firms by their very nature represent people who oppose Presidents, the federal government and different branches of the government, even actions by the courts themselves. if you can't take on government action these days as a large law firm you can't survive. This is not a partisan issue. For example, and by extension of what Trump is doing, what if you penalize law firms (1) for who their clients are, or (2) disagreeing with the views the law firms are tying to assert on behalf of their clients? You have utter tyranny and the end of the justice system. There is no way for those who oppose government action to obtain desired legal representation. Again, this is not a partisan issue. What happens if a liberal democratic President goes after all law firms who represent taxpayers, fee payers or regulated business (which is pretty much every large firm)? The country and the legal system simply can't function, and you lose Democracy.

Peeling back the onion one step more, what if Trump goes after law firms just to get donations to the RNC, conservative causes or inauguration expenses? Tougher call. You better donate to the Dems in California if you want to any government work, and in a red state like Utah, just replace Dems with the GOP. How is this different? As someone who no longer practices law, upon reflection, the legal profession likes to assert a lot of platitudes to justify what it does that seem unwarranted. Just my two cents.

---

Thank you for this very thoughtful response. I couldn't agree more with your post.

The reason meaningful infringement of our rule of law like this goes unresisted and the ability to appeal to the checks and balances gets derailed is that people get distracted by fringe issues and defending their identity by seeking purity test and fighting the bad fight behind their keyboards, thinking they are righteous and made pure by party affiliation. It's sound and fury signifying nothing. A game played by uninformed.

In the meantime, our rule of law gets weakened day by day, by uninformed fighting the social wars, thinking they are better by pledging allegiance to party instead of principle,

The $140,000,000 Trump has extorted from law firms to date will end up in his pocket just like the money of his charitable foundation did.*

Judge fines Trump $2 million for misusing charity foundation | AP News


https://apnews.com/general-news-united-states-government-7b8d0f5ce9cb4cadad948c2c414afd57

"The president admitted, among other things, to arranging for the charity to pay $10,000 for a 6-foot portrait of him."


*The claim is it is for pro bono legal services not cash paid. I eagerly await further details on how the "deal" gets structured.

bearister said:

---

The $140,000,000 Trump has extorted from law firms to date will end up in his pocket just like the money of his charitable foundation did.

Judge fines Trump $2 million for misusing charity foundation | AP News


https://apnews.com/general-news-united-states-government-7b8d0f5ce9cb4cadad948c2c414afd57

---

In my mind, the settlement money is secondary.

The real issue is the use of extortion with the power of the federal government against law firms who provide pro bono services to causes the president does not support. The message is that the courts are open only to those who bend the knees for a president.

John Adams defended Captain Preston and the other British soldiers not because he supported their role against the colonists. He did so because our rule of law demands the right of legal counsel for even people we don't like. We demand that the president's power must be checked by the courts and Congress.

I am not interested in purity tests or condemning something just because it came from another party. I am condemning this because it is fundamental to checking the power of the president.

calbear93 said:

---

In my mind, the settlement money is secondary.

The real issue is the use of extortion with the power of the federal government against law firms who provide pro bono services to causes the president does not support. The message is that the courts are open only to those who bend the knees for a president.

John Adams defended Captain Preston and the other British soldiers not because he supported their role against the colonists. He did so because our rule of law demands the right of legal counsel for even people we don't like. We demand that the president's power must be checked by the courts and Congress.

I am not interested in purity tests or condemning something just because it came from another party. I am condemning this because it is fundamental to checking the power of the president.

---

This is of course correct. But it is incomplete without also discussing how the legal profession was weaponized, and that such weaponization is improper. PC was not representing a defendant in a criminal trial, protecting an accused's sacred Constitutional rights. They were money laundering middle-men that enabled completely false accusations to be brought to the FBI in order to institute a criminal investigation against their client's political opponent.

tequila4kapp said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

In my mind, the settlement money is secondary.

The real issue is the use of extortion with the power of the federal government against law firms who provide pro bono services to causes the president does not support. The message is that the courts are open only to those who bend the knees for a president.

John Adams defended Captain Preston and the other British soldiers not because he supported their role against the colonists. He did so because our rule of law demands the right of legal counsel for even people we don't like. We demand that the president's power must be checked by the courts and Congress.

I am not interested in purity tests or condemning something just because it came from another party. I am condemning this because it is fundamental to checking the power of the president.

---

This is of course correct. But it is incomplete without also discussing how the legal profession was weaponized, and that such weaponization is improper. PC was not representing a defendant in a criminal trial, protecting an accused's sacred Constitutional rights. They were money laundering middle-men that enabled completely false accusations to be brought to the FBI in order to institute a criminal investigation against their client's political opponent.

---

If it ended with Perkins Coie, you could make that argument.

You cannot make that argument when it goes beyond Perkins Coie, but extends to any law firm that hired anyone on Jack Smith's team (even after the special prosecutor investigation ended) or Mueller's team or that provided any challenge to constitutionality of executive overreach.

calbear93 said:

---

With the recent capitulation from Paul, Weiss and from Skadden, Arps, the sanctity of the legal profession is at risk to a clearly authoritarian behavior.

I can agree with certain aspects of the Trump administration, but I have to realize that our rule of law and our way of governing is at risk to an authoritarian and those without courage to resist.

I am retired and no longer practicing, but, when I was a practicing lawyer, I took pride in our profession and in defending the rule of law. That value rose above politics.

If we do not stand against this now because of politics, it can easily be used by those on the other side. What is to stop a future Democrat from threatening same removal of access to anyone who would work with anyone on the Republican party. And our profession will become a puppet to whichever party is in the executive branch.

As a director, I for one will ask the CLOs to explain why they would continue to use Skadden or Paul Weiss.

We have to be intelligent and sentient enough to know what is wrong and what is right and understand that neither party encompasses all that is right at all time.

The extortion by the White House against law firms representing anyone they don't like with exclusion from being present in any matter in which the government is a party or potentially even accessing federal courts is unthinkable.

This was important enough for me to venture back here after many months.

And I won't debate this.

But I implore the conservative lawyers here to recognize how destructive these extortions against law firms are to our rule of law and our profession.

And if you don't speak up now, when will you?

And if you lack courage or independence to think for yourself now on this topic as a lawyer, when will you?

---

I will readily admit that what I haven't done is follow this closely but is it THAT different from a firm that says

"You know, we represent X. Have for 2 decades. They pay us an ungodly amount of money every year. We probably shouldn't take on representing Y. No dispute YET but we KNOW that X hates Y and has been in litigation in the past. Lets say with the girl we took to the prom."

I see this ALL the time in real estate/development industry. There is a major firm that is blackballed in our community by a lot of developers for siding with a long standing client of theirs in a land use dispute that pissed the industry off big time.

socaltownie said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

With the recent capitulation from Paul, Weiss and from Skadden, Arps, the sanctity of the legal profession is at risk to a clearly authoritarian behavior.

I can agree with certain aspects of the Trump administration, but I have to realize that our rule of law and our way of governing is at risk to an authoritarian and those without courage to resist.

I am retired and no longer practicing, but, when I was a practicing lawyer, I took pride in our profession and in defending the rule of law. That value rose above politics.

If we do not stand against this now because of politics, it can easily be used by those on the other side. What is to stop a future Democrat from threatening same removal of access to anyone who would work with anyone on the Republican party. And our profession will become a puppet to whichever party is in the executive branch.

As a director, I for one will ask the CLOs to explain why they would continue to use Skadden or Paul Weiss.

We have to be intelligent and sentient enough to know what is wrong and what is right and understand that neither party encompasses all that is right at all time.

The extortion by the White House against law firms representing anyone they don't like with exclusion from being present in any matter in which the government is a party or potentially even accessing federal courts is unthinkable.

This was important enough for me to venture back here after many months.

And I won't debate this.

But I implore the conservative lawyers here to recognize how destructive these extortions against law firms are to our rule of law and our profession.

And if you don't speak up now, when will you?

And if you lack courage or independence to think for yourself now on this topic as a lawyer, when will you?

---

I will readily admit that what I haven't done is follow this closely but is it THAT different from a firm that says

"You know, we represent X. Have for 2 decades. They pay us an ungodly amount of money every year. We probably shouldn't take on representing Y. No dispute YET but we KNOW that X hates Y and has been in litigation in the past. Lets say with the girl we took to the prom."

I see this ALL the time in real estate/development industry. There is a major firm that is blackballed in our community by a lot of developers for siding with a long standing client of theirs in a land use dispute that pissed the industry off big time.

---

Absolutely it is different. And your example may even be unethical if there is a conflict of interest that has not been waived

Here is an example. As a private party, I can choose not to do business with you because I don't like your speech. As a state actor with the power of the state, I cannot pass laws that restrict your speech without compelling state interest and without the law narrowly tailored.

A president that threatens with the immense power of the presidency the very ability of law firms to practice law (including representing clients who do business with the government) because of who they hire or because one of their attorneys accepted a pro bono project to challenge the constitutionality of the executive branch action is different than a private client choosing not to work with a law firm because their clients include a party they don't like.

The president saying he will blacklist you from access to the courts for posting something here is different from someone here blocking you.

As Voltaire wrote, "With great power comes great responsibility." Or as James Madison stated, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

The executive branch restricting access to the court system for those who oppose him is right in the fairway of tyranny.

"The Very ability of law firms to practice law" and "The president saying he will blacklist you from access to the courts for posting something"

I guess that is what I don't get. I understand (and I guess am actually OK with) the executive saying "We hate X and won't be using them in the future." I mean it is a business relationship. He is just saying the quiet part out loud.

But what I guess I don't understand is the actions he is threatening which would actually hinder the abilitty of firms to practice law. I mean wouldn't baring someone from the courthouse without cause be immediately litigated and overturned?

socaltownie said:

---

"The Very ability of law firms to practice law" and "The president saying he will blacklist you from access to the courts for posting something"

I guess that is what I don't get. I understand (and I guess am actually OK with) the executive saying "We hate X and won't be using them in the future." I mean it is a business relationship. He is just saying the quiet part out loud.

But what I guess I don't understand is the actions he is threatening which would actually hinder the abilitty of firms to practice law. I mean wouldn't baring someone from the courthouse without cause be immediately litigated and overturned?

---

Fair question.

One, most law firms represent corporate clients who also do business with the federal government, from health care, software, hardware, and energy. Executive order prohibiting the federal government from working with any vendor who brings lawyers from targeted law firms means a law firm will lose their clients.

Second, taking away security clearance to enter federal buildings means lawyers could not interact with federal agencies in live meetings. It could also prevent them from being admitted to certain courthouses.

In effect, disadvantage these law firms to the point that they cannot function.

Law firms that did not previously cater to the Republican Party can be targeted with these orders. As such, to survive, law firms like Paul Weiss and Skadden capitulated to Trump with settlement that not only committed to free legal services to Trump's causes but also implicitly not to take on causes he doesn't approve at the treat of executive order imposing the restrictions noted above.

In other words, take the most talented lawyers off the table for liberal causes or challenges to Trump's authority.

Hope that answers your question.

"Note that the government isn't suing or prosecuting any of these firms as they did to Trump."

Is that because Trump is good guy or because someone explained to him what malicious prosecution is? I hope the mother f@ucker is dumb enough to file criminal or civil cases against his all his enemies.

Pocahontas Says Yes said:

---

Oh boo ****ing hoo for the honorable legal profession. Apparently, you can engage in lawfare against a former President and abuse your power as an officer of the court, but then when the tables are turned and that person has power to mess with your precious multi-million dollar law firms, suddenly that's a bridge too far.

The truth of the matter is that all of these lawyers Trump has targeted targeted him first. It wasn't a case of investigating actions to see if any laws were broken - these were targeted attacks against someone and then they tried to create reasons to prosecute, most of the time on extremely flimsy legal principles.

Take poor Paul Weiss, former firm of Mark Pomerantz. He's the lawyer who invented the flimsy New York case that is going to be overturned in appeals court (the 34 "felonies" case with no victims). He resigned his position when the state of New York wouldn't pursue his flimsy legal theories and then wrote a tell-all book when he didn't get his way, possibly violating a non-disclosure agreement and his ethical duties as a lawyer.

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/02/03/mark-pomerantz-could-get-disbarred-over-trump-book-association-of-prosecuting-attorneys/?slreturn=20250402-45100

Perkins Coie was already covered. They're the source of the fake Russiagate and Alfa Bank scandals. Wilmer Hale also worked on Russiagate.

Elias Law Group is headed by Marc Elias, who is the very definition of lawfare masquerading as "election law defense."

Note that the government isn't suing or prosecuting any of these firms as they did to Trump. They're just taking away their ability to suck on the government teat.

---

Do you feel like you know what you are writing about? Serious question. I don't think you know how law firms works. If your supposed expertise on this topic comes from actual knowledge and not some supposed knowledge, I would love to understand how you acquired such knowledge. Serious question because I find it extremely interesting that internet seems to make people present themselves as experts on so many topics. Genuine curiosity where this tendency comes from.

I won't pretend to be an expert on teaching but I was a partner at one of these firms for years and know that pro bono work by one attorney does not mean belief by all attorneys at the firm. Skadden has almost 2,000 attorneys but a pro bono project by a few attorneys is all attorneys? And those attorneys should only support the actions of the president? Paul Weiss has over 1,000 attorneys but you think all those attorneys have the same political beliefs? You think they all do only left or right causes as a firm when they take on hundreds of pro bono projects? And former DOJ or special prosecution team members should never get a job when the executive branch is occupied by the opposing party? And if any of these firms ever had a lawyer who represented anyone of the right, should the firm be put out of business when the democrats occupy the White House? But please share the basis for your supposed insight into how law firms work that your project in your post, Yogi.

This kind of nonsense is why I am really requesting feedback from actual attorneys and not just gut feelings based on no real experience or knowledge.

calbear93 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

"The Very ability of law firms to practice law" and "The president saying he will blacklist you from access to the courts for posting something"

I guess that is what I don't get. I understand (and I guess am actually OK with) the executive saying "We hate X and won't be using them in the future." I mean it is a business relationship. He is just saying the quiet part out loud.

But what I guess I don't understand is the actions he is threatening which would actually hinder the abilitty of firms to practice law. I mean wouldn't baring someone from the courthouse without cause be immediately litigated and overturned?

---

Fair question.

One, most law firms represent corporate clients who also do business with the federal government, from health care, software, hardware, and energy. Executive order prohibiting the federal government from working with any vendor who brings lawyers from targeted law firms means a law firm will lose their clients.

Second, taking away security clearance to enter federal buildings means lawyers could not interact with federal agencies in live meetings. It could also prevent them from being admitted to certain courthouses.

In effect, disadvantage these law firms to the point that they cannot function.

Law firms that did not previously cater to the Republican Party can be targeted with these orders. As such, to survive, law firms like Paul Weiss and Skadden capitulated to Trump with settlement that not only committed to free legal services to Trump's causes but also implicitly not to take on causes he doesn't approve at the treat of executive order imposing the restrictions noted above.

In other words, take the most talented lawyers off the table for liberal causes or challenges to Trump's authority.

Hope that answers your question.

---

Fair. And the courthouse and security clearance issues feel very real. GOPers really need to ask whether this is the world they want for the future.

Though I also think it is ridiculous. I mean is the government going to somehow audit these firms (if it even can legally?) to discover whether, in some far flung office, someone used someone for trusts and wills or as an executor? This feels like a scare tactic which would ultimately be unenforceable but is designed to get a private sector business to cower and bend the knee out of conservative concern.

And to the Maga folks out there. It can get worse. Way worse. Imagine a world in which a far left president uses the same tactics but in a different target -

"OK 10 biggest banks. We won't do business with you or your clients unless all your CRA money goes to these groups. Here is the list. Expecting their checks by THursday."

That would PALE in comparison to a few millions in pro bono work.

socaltownie said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

"The Very ability of law firms to practice law" and "The president saying he will blacklist you from access to the courts for posting something"

I guess that is what I don't get. I understand (and I guess am actually OK with) the executive saying "We hate X and won't be using them in the future." I mean it is a business relationship. He is just saying the quiet part out loud.

But what I guess I don't understand is the actions he is threatening which would actually hinder the abilitty of firms to practice law. I mean wouldn't baring someone from the courthouse without cause be immediately litigated and overturned?

---

Fair question.

One, most law firms represent corporate clients who also do business with the federal government, from health care, software, hardware, and energy. Executive order prohibiting the federal government from working with any vendor who brings lawyers from targeted law firms means a law firm will lose their clients.

Second, taking away security clearance to enter federal buildings means lawyers could not interact with federal agencies in live meetings. It could also prevent them from being admitted to certain courthouses.

In effect, disadvantage these law firms to the point that they cannot function.

Law firms that did not previously cater to the Republican Party can be targeted with these orders. As such, to survive, law firms like Paul Weiss and Skadden capitulated to Trump with settlement that not only committed to free legal services to Trump's causes but also implicitly not to take on causes he doesn't approve at the treat of executive order imposing the restrictions noted above.

In other words, take the most talented lawyers off the table for liberal causes or challenges to Trump's authority.

Hope that answers your question.

---

Fair. And the courthouse and security clearance issues feel very real. GOPers really need to ask whether this is the world they want for the future.

Though I also think it is ridiculous. I mean is the government going to somehow audit these firms (if it even can legally?) to discover whether, in some far flung office, someone used someone for trusts and wills or as an executor? This feels like a scare tactic which would ultimately be unenforceable but is designed to get a private sector business to cower and bend the knee out of conservative concern.

And to the Maga folks out there. It can get worse. Way worse. Imagine a world in which a far left president uses the same tactics but in a different target -

"OK 10 biggest banks. We won't do business with you or your clients unless all your CRA money goes to these groups. Here is the list. Expecting their checks by THursday."

That would PALE in comparison to a few millions in pro bono work.

---

As I mentioned, the monetary settlement is secondary. The removal of access to these lawyers for the other side is more destructive.

These firms are not surviving on doing wills and trusts for some far flung office. They represent the top corporations on M&A transactions, litigation, etc. Losing these corporate clients (who will not want to use a firm that is subject to these restrictions) means they are out of business. So, Trump is using the power of the presidency to deprive legal service of these top lawyers for causes and people Trump does not approve.

I think it is hard for non-lawyers to understand this, and how this will hurt the checks and balances and access to courts for the opponents to the president's overreach.

Americans who are becoming more and more tribalists will focus on purity, political identity and social warfare and get distracted from truly meaningful actions that pave the path for tyranny. Similar to uneducated buying into stupid concept that other countries will pay for tariffs as opposed to the US consumers or that tariffs can at both generate great revenue while moving production all to the US. We see some of the knee jerk tribalists here too who are so busy playing game of political identity that they think ignorance and trolling anything they view as not 100% committed to their political party purity as righteousness. And that type of ignorance will be what the future generation will study and sigh just like we did with McCarthyism and wonder how America was really ever that stupid.

socaltownie said:

---

And to the Maga folks out there. It can get worse. Way worse. Imagine a world in which a far left president uses the same tactics but in a different target -

"OK 10 biggest banks. We won't do business with you or your clients unless all your CRA money goes to these groups. Here is the list. Expecting their checks by THursday.".

---

I seriously do not mean this in the "your side is bad too" way that it probably sounds, but sometimes these posts read to me like some folks thought the world was perfectly fair and reasonable and Trump is doing this stuff out of the blue for the first time ever. More specifically, are you aware there is/was a de-banking movement against conservatives? The monetary system was used as the thought police…have the wrong beliefs, can't bank with X, Y and Z.

tequila4kapp said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

And to the Maga folks out there. It can get worse. Way worse. Imagine a world in which a far left president uses the same tactics but in a different target -

"OK 10 biggest banks. We won't do business with you or your clients unless all your CRA money goes to these groups. Here is the list. Expecting their checks by THursday.".

---

I seriously do not mean this in the "your side is bad too" way that it probably sounds, but sometimes these posts read to me like some folks thought the world was perfectly fair and reasonable and Trump is doing this stuff out of the blue for the first time ever. More specifically, are you aware there is/was a de-banking movement against conservatives? The monetary system was used as the thought police…have the wrong beliefs, can't bank with X, Y and Z.

---

I was not aware that Biden's treasury department put sanctions against conservative groups. If Biden used the government and power of the presidency to freeze out conservative groups from accessing the banking system like they did with certain Russian corporations after Ukraine, I would love to read more about it. Because, unlike private choice on boycott, the president's power to execute and prosecute broadly must not be used to target political opponents through freezing out access to capital.