If you want to know more about Trump's actions, there is a great article about Rachel Cohen who resigned from Skadden in protest.

As she acknowledges, she is privileged enough to be able to take this stand, but it is more of a sacrifice than most of us are willing to make or have ever made (posting here like this does not count). One thing that I miss about being a partner at one of these top firms is the ability to work with, and sometimes mentor, future thought leaders like her.

This will be my last post on this topic and probably for a long time here.

Hope my fellow Cal grads can remove the blinders and think outside of party allegiance to the core values that should unite us all as Americans. Neither party cares much about us. And our character is not in any way tied to party purity or allegiance.

https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/former-skadden-associate-says-aba-inspired-her-letter-asking-big-law-to-push-back-on-white-house

calbear93 said:

---

If you want to know more about Trump's actions, there is a great article about Rachel Cohen who resigned from Skadden in protest.

As she acknowledges, she is privileged enough to be able to take this stand, but it is more of a sacrifice than most of us are willing to make or have ever made (posting here like this does not count). One thing that I miss about being a partner at one of these top firms is the ability to work with, and sometimes mentor, future thought leaders like her.

This will be my last post on this topic and probably for a long time here.

Hope my fellow Cal grads can remove the blinders and think outside of party allegiance to the core values that should unite us all as Americans. Neither party cares much about us. And our character is not in any way tied to party purity or allegiance.

https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/former-skadden-associate-says-aba-inspired-her-letter-asking-big-law-to-push-back-on-white-house

---

calbear93 is right that people need to think outside of party allegiance and that neither party cares about us.

However, that doesn't make Rachel Cohen's resignation brave. She imagined that her voice as a lowly associate with a degree from Harvard Law entitled her to demand that the managing partners of a multi-million dollar BigLaw firm were going to act according to her politics instead of looking out for their own self-interests as they see it. Hopefully someday she'll grow up and realize that virtue signalling for political parties is stupid. They aren't the good guys and frankly, BigLaw aren't good guys either. If she stays in law long enough, she'll learn that lesson the hard way.

But the real lesson is that the government abusing their power against lawyers is nothing new, but since liberals stand for nothing and remember even less, she probably has no idea that the Mueller lawyers acting on behalf of the Federal government played their own dirty tricks as well.

An interesting tidbit: Mueller goons prosecuted several Skadden lawyers, got at least one guilty plea, and ran Paul Manafort's daughter and Greg Craig out of the firm over what amounted to a political dirty trick against Trump in his first term. Pretty sure zero people in big law… https://t.co/bdiCDEreBa

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) March 21, 2025

calbear93 said:

---

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.

---

Yeah - it is a weak sauce conservative argument. And even if some conservative groups had to move their business checking cause people were uncomfortable with the NRA being on a Wells check those services are essentially a commodity with almost no differences between tthe big banks anymore.

socaltownie said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

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.

---

Yeah - it is a weak sauce conservative argument. And even if some conservative groups had to move their business checking cause people were uncomfortable with the NRA being on a Wells check those services are essentially a commodity with almost no differences between tthe big banks anymore.

---

The capacity to rationalize and minimize is amazing.

calbear93 said:

---

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.

---

Biden didn't act so directly. Instead he and other dems pressured banks to debank political opponents (e.g., 2nd amendment supporters), much in the same way they pressured social media to censor.

I'm going to respond to your larger point in my next post.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/jp-morgan-chase-makes-moves-prevent-religious-political-debanking

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5133445-republicans-debanking-biden-era-regulators/

https://www.oag.state.va.us/media-center/news-releases/2718-april-16-2024-attorney-general-miyares-demands-bank-of-america-cease-practice-of-debanking-conservatives

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.

---

I've been taking a sabbatical from this board and my life has been better for it. But late on a Friday, I'm sucked back in.

In my heart, I 100% agree with your original post. It is toxic to attack and threaten attorneys based on who they represent. It is antithetical to the ethos of the legal profession and our justice system, where every client should be entitled to the best representation they can pay for and where lawyers should be lauded for representing unpopular clients.

However, my head is telling me this did not start with Trump. I know that Dem politicians and political actions groups have been attacking conservative lawyers and their law firms for years. Paul Clement - probably the pre-eminent supreme court lawyer of the current generation - was run out of two national law firm (Kirkland and King & Spaulding) solely because he was defending gun cases/DOMA. It was because those firms received pressure from groups that don't uphold the values you and I share.

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/paul-clement-leaves-kirkland-and

None of the big firms would defend Trump in his first impeachment or any of his personal legal matters. They would defend accused terrorists in Guantanamo, but not Trump. The overwhelming amount of their pro bono work is on the liberal/progressive side. J6 defendants received no pro bono help even though many were overcharged (as confirmed by the supreme court).

John Eastman was fired from his job in academia and is being disbarred because he gave controversial (and in my view wrong) legal advice. Many attorneys from the first Trump administration were threatened with bar discipline and/or black balled from future jobs - simply because they worked for Trump. Meanwhile, some of the slimiest democrat operatives Holder, Weissman and others, land cushy jobs at places like Jenner Block and Covington.

So when you claim that now is the time to stand up and shout to the rafters, my feeling is that time was long ago. Yet very few people had a word to say about it. Certainly no one on the left.

This presents the quagmire/question that ultimately led to Trump's election victories. Do republican take the high road (and lose) or do they fight back and win (Trump's tactics)? What is the correct response when Dems do something bad to great benefit and effect? Should republicans be principled losers?

Pre-Trump, I was very much of the two wrongs don't make a right thinking. But I've come around to realizing that if Dems are able to act badly with impunity, they will never change their behavior. There has to be a cost. That is why Trump is doing this - he wants to impose a cost on the law firms that he views (correctly in my view) as partisan and hypocritical.

This a long way of saying that I wish neither side would engage in these tactics. I recognize Trump has escalated in a way that is bad on many levels. But I'm at a loss to offer a better solution. Maybe you can offer one? And I certainly don't feel bad for the large law firms that have behaved badly on so many levels. Either they make space for political actors on both sides or, more likely, they stay out of politics.

socaltownie said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

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.

---

Yeah - it is a weak sauce conservative argument. And even if some conservative groups had to move their business checking cause people were uncomfortable with the NRA being on a Wells check those services are essentially a commodity with almost no differences between tthe big banks anymore.

---

Law services are also a commodity. Your argument is totally unprincipled.

There is nothing more divisive in our society than expecting/pressuring businesses to deny services based on political beliefs.

BearGoggles 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.

---

I've been taking a sabbatical from this board and my life has been better for it. But late on a Friday, I'm sucked back in.

In my heart, I 100% agree with your original post. It is toxic to attack and threaten attorneys based on who they represent. It is antithetical to the ethos of the legal profession and our justice system, where every client should be entitled to the best representation they can pay for and where lawyers should be lauded for representing unpopular clients.

However, my head is telling me this did not start with Trump. I know that Dem politicians and political actions groups have been attacking conservative lawyers and their law firms for years. Paul Clement - probably the pre-eminent supreme court lawyer of the current generation - was run out of two national law firm (Kirkland and King & Spaulding) solely because he was defending gun cases/DOMA. It was because those firms received pressure from groups that don't uphold the values you and I share.

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/paul-clement-leaves-kirkland-and

None of the big firms would defend Trump in his first impeachment or any of his personal legal matters. They would defend accused terrorists in Guantanamo, but not Trump. The overwhelming amount of their pro bono work is on the liberal/progressive side. J6 defendants received no pro bono help even though many were overcharged (as confirmed by the supreme court).

John Eastman was fired from his job in academia and is being disbarred because he gave controversial (and in my view wrong) legal advice. Many attorneys from the first Trump administration were threatened with bar discipline and/or black balled from future jobs - simply because they worked for Trump. Meanwhile, some of the slimiest democrat operatives Holder, Weissman and others, land cushy jobs at places like Jenner Block and Covington.

So when you claim that now is the time to stand up and shout to the rafters, my feeling is that time was long ago. Yet very few people had a word to say about it. Certainly no one on the left.

This presents the quagmire/question that ultimately led to Trump's election victories. Do republican take the high road (and lose) or do they fight back and win (Trump's tactics)? What is the correct response when Dems do something bad to great benefit and effect? Should republicans be principled losers?

Pre-Trump, I was very much of the two wrongs don't make a right thinking. But I've come around to realizing that if Dems are able to act badly with impunity, they will never change their behavior. There has to be a cost. That is why Trump is doing this - he wants to impose a cost on the law firms that he views (correctly in my view) as partisan and hypocritical.

This a long way of saying that I wish neither side would engage in these tactics. I recognize Trump has escalated in a way that is bad on many levels. But I'm at a loss to offer a better solution. Maybe you can offer one? And I certainly don't feel bad for the large law firms that have behaved badly on so many levels. Either they make space for political actors on both sides or, more likely, they stay out of politics.

---

I understand why a political conservative would be unhappy and/or uncomfortable with some of what you describe above, but ultimately aren't you just showing different private actors making their own private decisions? Like, if a law firm's other clients are unhappy with certain cases that firm pursues then that is just part of doing business in the market. They are free to pursue the cases they want and clients are free to hire whatever firms they want.

This is fundamentally different from the government (especially the Presidency) trying to pick winners and losers in the market, is it not?

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles 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.

---

I've been taking a sabbatical from this board and my life has been better for it. But late on a Friday, I'm sucked back in.

In my heart, I 100% agree with your original post. It is toxic to attack and threaten attorneys based on who they represent. It is antithetical to the ethos of the legal profession and our justice system, where every client should be entitled to the best representation they can pay for and where lawyers should be lauded for representing unpopular clients.

However, my head is telling me this did not start with Trump. I know that Dem politicians and political actions groups have been attacking conservative lawyers and their law firms for years. Paul Clement - probably the pre-eminent supreme court lawyer of the current generation - was run out of two national law firm (Kirkland and King & Spaulding) solely because he was defending gun cases/DOMA. It was because those firms received pressure from groups that don't uphold the values you and I share.

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/paul-clement-leaves-kirkland-and

None of the big firms would defend Trump in his first impeachment or any of his personal legal matters. They would defend accused terrorists in Guantanamo, but not Trump. The overwhelming amount of their pro bono work is on the liberal/progressive side. J6 defendants received no pro bono help even though many were overcharged (as confirmed by the supreme court).

John Eastman was fired from his job in academia and is being disbarred because he gave controversial (and in my view wrong) legal advice. Many attorneys from the first Trump administration were threatened with bar discipline and/or black balled from future jobs - simply because they worked for Trump. Meanwhile, some of the slimiest democrat operatives Holder, Weissman and others, land cushy jobs at places like Jenner Block and Covington.

So when you claim that now is the time to stand up and shout to the rafters, my feeling is that time was long ago. Yet very few people had a word to say about it. Certainly no one on the left.

This presents the quagmire/question that ultimately led to Trump's election victories. Do republican take the high road (and lose) or do they fight back and win (Trump's tactics)? What is the correct response when Dems do something bad to great benefit and effect? Should republicans be principled losers?

Pre-Trump, I was very much of the two wrongs don't make a right thinking. But I've come around to realizing that if Dems are able to act badly with impunity, they will never change their behavior. There has to be a cost. That is why Trump is doing this - he wants to impose a cost on the law firms that he views (correctly in my view) as partisan and hypocritical.

This a long way of saying that I wish neither side would engage in these tactics. I recognize Trump has escalated in a way that is bad on many levels. But I'm at a loss to offer a better solution. Maybe you can offer one? And I certainly don't feel bad for the large law firms that have behaved badly on so many levels. Either they make space for political actors on both sides or, more likely, they stay out of politics.

---

I understand why a political conservative would be unhappy and/or uncomfortable with some of what you describe above, but ultimately aren't you just showing different private actors making their own private decisions? Like, if a law firm's other clients are unhappy with certain cases that firm pursues then that is just part of doing business in the market. They are free to pursue the cases they want and clients are free to hire whatever firms they want.

This is fundamentally different from the government (especially the Presidency) trying to pick winners and losers in the market, is it not?

---

I agree there is a slight difference when it becomes official government policy, which is why I said Trump has escalated. The difference may not be as much as it appears for multiple reasons.

• If the Dems are in power (e.g., Biden) and the pressure comes from democratic controlled groups or congressional threats, is that really all that different?
• In this case, the government is the client at least as to the part of Trump's executive order terminating government contracts with those firms. Again - I don't like this. But it is not all that different than other forms of governmental pressure.

To the larger point, it is toxic to our culture and society when customers impose political litmus tests on companies via boycotts or other similar measures. Among other things, it leads to wackos attacking tesla owners and vandalizing property.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles 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.

---

I've been taking a sabbatical from this board and my life has been better for it. But late on a Friday, I'm sucked back in.

In my heart, I 100% agree with your original post. It is toxic to attack and threaten attorneys based on who they represent. It is antithetical to the ethos of the legal profession and our justice system, where every client should be entitled to the best representation they can pay for and where lawyers should be lauded for representing unpopular clients.

However, my head is telling me this did not start with Trump. I know that Dem politicians and political actions groups have been attacking conservative lawyers and their law firms for years. Paul Clement - probably the pre-eminent supreme court lawyer of the current generation - was run out of two national law firm (Kirkland and King & Spaulding) solely because he was defending gun cases/DOMA. It was because those firms received pressure from groups that don't uphold the values you and I share.

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/paul-clement-leaves-kirkland-and

None of the big firms would defend Trump in his first impeachment or any of his personal legal matters. They would defend accused terrorists in Guantanamo, but not Trump. The overwhelming amount of their pro bono work is on the liberal/progressive side. J6 defendants received no pro bono help even though many were overcharged (as confirmed by the supreme court).

John Eastman was fired from his job in academia and is being disbarred because he gave controversial (and in my view wrong) legal advice. Many attorneys from the first Trump administration were threatened with bar discipline and/or black balled from future jobs - simply because they worked for Trump. Meanwhile, some of the slimiest democrat operatives Holder, Weissman and others, land cushy jobs at places like Jenner Block and Covington.

So when you claim that now is the time to stand up and shout to the rafters, my feeling is that time was long ago. Yet very few people had a word to say about it. Certainly no one on the left.

This presents the quagmire/question that ultimately led to Trump's election victories. Do republican take the high road (and lose) or do they fight back and win (Trump's tactics)? What is the correct response when Dems do something bad to great benefit and effect? Should republicans be principled losers?

Pre-Trump, I was very much of the two wrongs don't make a right thinking. But I've come around to realizing that if Dems are able to act badly with impunity, they will never change their behavior. There has to be a cost. That is why Trump is doing this - he wants to impose a cost on the law firms that he views (correctly in my view) as partisan and hypocritical.

This a long way of saying that I wish neither side would engage in these tactics. I recognize Trump has escalated in a way that is bad on many levels. But I'm at a loss to offer a better solution. Maybe you can offer one? And I certainly don't feel bad for the large law firms that have behaved badly on so many levels. Either they make space for political actors on both sides or, more likely, they stay out of politics.

---

I understand why a political conservative would be unhappy and/or uncomfortable with some of what you describe above, but ultimately aren't you just showing different private actors making their own private decisions? Like, if a law firm's other clients are unhappy with certain cases that firm pursues then that is just part of doing business in the market. They are free to pursue the cases they want and clients are free to hire whatever firms they want.

This is fundamentally different from the government (especially the Presidency) trying to pick winners and losers in the market, is it not?

---

I agree there is a slight difference when it becomes official government policy, which is why I said Trump has escalated. The difference may not be as much as it appears for multiple reasons.

• If the Dems are in power (e.g., Biden) and the pressure comes from democratic controlled groups or congressional threats, is that really all that different?
• In this case, the government is the client at least as to the part of Trump's executive order terminating government contracts with those firms. Again - I don't like this. But it is not all that different than other forms of governmental pressure.

To the larger point, it is toxic to our culture and society when customers impose political litmus tests on companies via boycotts or other similar measures. Among other things, it leads to wackos attacking tesla owners and vandalizing property.

---

I'm gonna say the difference when the government does it directly is more than "slight," especially the federal government because they have so many ways to punish you that private actors don't.

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles 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.

---

I've been taking a sabbatical from this board and my life has been better for it. But late on a Friday, I'm sucked back in.

In my heart, I 100% agree with your original post. It is toxic to attack and threaten attorneys based on who they represent. It is antithetical to the ethos of the legal profession and our justice system, where every client should be entitled to the best representation they can pay for and where lawyers should be lauded for representing unpopular clients.

However, my head is telling me this did not start with Trump. I know that Dem politicians and political actions groups have been attacking conservative lawyers and their law firms for years. Paul Clement - probably the pre-eminent supreme court lawyer of the current generation - was run out of two national law firm (Kirkland and King & Spaulding) solely because he was defending gun cases/DOMA. It was because those firms received pressure from groups that don't uphold the values you and I share.

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/paul-clement-leaves-kirkland-and

None of the big firms would defend Trump in his first impeachment or any of his personal legal matters. They would defend accused terrorists in Guantanamo, but not Trump. The overwhelming amount of their pro bono work is on the liberal/progressive side. J6 defendants received no pro bono help even though many were overcharged (as confirmed by the supreme court).

John Eastman was fired from his job in academia and is being disbarred because he gave controversial (and in my view wrong) legal advice. Many attorneys from the first Trump administration were threatened with bar discipline and/or black balled from future jobs - simply because they worked for Trump. Meanwhile, some of the slimiest democrat operatives Holder, Weissman and others, land cushy jobs at places like Jenner Block and Covington.

So when you claim that now is the time to stand up and shout to the rafters, my feeling is that time was long ago. Yet very few people had a word to say about it. Certainly no one on the left.

This presents the quagmire/question that ultimately led to Trump's election victories. Do republican take the high road (and lose) or do they fight back and win (Trump's tactics)? What is the correct response when Dems do something bad to great benefit and effect? Should republicans be principled losers?

Pre-Trump, I was very much of the two wrongs don't make a right thinking. But I've come around to realizing that if Dems are able to act badly with impunity, they will never change their behavior. There has to be a cost. That is why Trump is doing this - he wants to impose a cost on the law firms that he views (correctly in my view) as partisan and hypocritical.

This a long way of saying that I wish neither side would engage in these tactics. I recognize Trump has escalated in a way that is bad on many levels. But I'm at a loss to offer a better solution. Maybe you can offer one? And I certainly don't feel bad for the large law firms that have behaved badly on so many levels. Either they make space for political actors on both sides or, more likely, they stay out of politics.

---

I understand why a political conservative would be unhappy and/or uncomfortable with some of what you describe above, but ultimately aren't you just showing different private actors making their own private decisions? Like, if a law firm's other clients are unhappy with certain cases that firm pursues then that is just part of doing business in the market. They are free to pursue the cases they want and clients are free to hire whatever firms they want.

This is fundamentally different from the government (especially the Presidency) trying to pick winners and losers in the market, is it not?

---

I agree there is a slight difference when it becomes official government policy, which is why I said Trump has escalated. The difference may not be as much as it appears for multiple reasons.

• If the Dems are in power (e.g., Biden) and the pressure comes from democratic controlled groups or congressional threats, is that really all that different?
• In this case, the government is the client at least as to the part of Trump's executive order terminating government contracts with those firms. Again - I don't like this. But it is not all that different than other forms of governmental pressure.

To the larger point, it is toxic to our culture and society when customers impose political litmus tests on companies via boycotts or other similar measures. Among other things, it leads to wackos attacking tesla owners and vandalizing property.

---

I'm gonna say the difference when the government does it directly is more than "slight," especially the federal government because they have so many ways to punish you that private actors don't.

---

Agencies under Biden did it, or are alleged to

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles 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.

---

I've been taking a sabbatical from this board and my life has been better for it. But late on a Friday, I'm sucked back in.

In my heart, I 100% agree with your original post. It is toxic to attack and threaten attorneys based on who they represent. It is antithetical to the ethos of the legal profession and our justice system, where every client should be entitled to the best representation they can pay for and where lawyers should be lauded for representing unpopular clients.

However, my head is telling me this did not start with Trump. I know that Dem politicians and political actions groups have been attacking conservative lawyers and their law firms for years. Paul Clement - probably the pre-eminent supreme court lawyer of the current generation - was run out of two national law firm (Kirkland and King & Spaulding) solely because he was defending gun cases/DOMA. It was because those firms received pressure from groups that don't uphold the values you and I share.

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/paul-clement-leaves-kirkland-and

None of the big firms would defend Trump in his first impeachment or any of his personal legal matters. They would defend accused terrorists in Guantanamo, but not Trump. The overwhelming amount of their pro bono work is on the liberal/progressive side. J6 defendants received no pro bono help even though many were overcharged (as confirmed by the supreme court).

John Eastman was fired from his job in academia and is being disbarred because he gave controversial (and in my view wrong) legal advice. Many attorneys from the first Trump administration were threatened with bar discipline and/or black balled from future jobs - simply because they worked for Trump. Meanwhile, some of the slimiest democrat operatives Holder, Weissman and others, land cushy jobs at places like Jenner Block and Covington.

So when you claim that now is the time to stand up and shout to the rafters, my feeling is that time was long ago. Yet very few people had a word to say about it. Certainly no one on the left.

This presents the quagmire/question that ultimately led to Trump's election victories. Do republican take the high road (and lose) or do they fight back and win (Trump's tactics)? What is the correct response when Dems do something bad to great benefit and effect? Should republicans be principled losers?

Pre-Trump, I was very much of the two wrongs don't make a right thinking. But I've come around to realizing that if Dems are able to act badly with impunity, they will never change their behavior. There has to be a cost. That is why Trump is doing this - he wants to impose a cost on the law firms that he views (correctly in my view) as partisan and hypocritical.

This a long way of saying that I wish neither side would engage in these tactics. I recognize Trump has escalated in a way that is bad on many levels. But I'm at a loss to offer a better solution. Maybe you can offer one? And I certainly don't feel bad for the large law firms that have behaved badly on so many levels. Either they make space for political actors on both sides or, more likely, they stay out of politics.

---

I understand why a political conservative would be unhappy and/or uncomfortable with some of what you describe above, but ultimately aren't you just showing different private actors making their own private decisions? Like, if a law firm's other clients are unhappy with certain cases that firm pursues then that is just part of doing business in the market. They are free to pursue the cases they want and clients are free to hire whatever firms they want.

This is fundamentally different from the government (especially the Presidency) trying to pick winners and losers in the market, is it not?

---

I agree there is a slight difference when it becomes official government policy, which is why I said Trump has escalated. The difference may not be as much as it appears for multiple reasons.

• If the Dems are in power (e.g., Biden) and the pressure comes from democratic controlled groups or congressional threats, is that really all that different?
• In this case, the government is the client at least as to the part of Trump's executive order terminating government contracts with those firms. Again - I don't like this. But it is not all that different than other forms of governmental pressure.

To the larger point, it is toxic to our culture and society when customers impose political litmus tests on companies via boycotts or other similar measures. Among other things, it leads to wackos attacking tesla owners and vandalizing property.

---

I'm gonna say the difference when the government does it directly is more than "slight," especially the federal government because they have so many ways to punish you that private actors don't.

---

Agencies under Biden did it, or are alleged to

---

Even for that the claim seems to be that they did it in a roundabout suggestive way and not as a direct punishment on command of the President like Trump is doing. Again, this difference seems more than slight to me.

BearGoggles 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.

---

I've been taking a sabbatical from this board and my life has been better for it. But late on a Friday, I'm sucked back in.

In my heart, I 100% agree with your original post. It is toxic to attack and threaten attorneys based on who they represent. It is antithetical to the ethos of the legal profession and our justice system, where every client should be entitled to the best representation they can pay for and where lawyers should be lauded for representing unpopular clients.

However, my head is telling me this did not start with Trump. I know that Dem politicians and political actions groups have been attacking conservative lawyers and their law firms for years. Paul Clement - probably the pre-eminent supreme court lawyer of the current generation - was run out of two national law firm (Kirkland and King & Spaulding) solely because he was defending gun cases/DOMA. It was because those firms received pressure from groups that don't uphold the values you and I share.

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/paul-clement-leaves-kirkland-and

None of the big firms would defend Trump in his first impeachment or any of his personal legal matters. They would defend accused terrorists in Guantanamo, but not Trump. The overwhelming amount of their pro bono work is on the liberal/progressive side. J6 defendants received no pro bono help even though many were overcharged (as confirmed by the supreme court).

John Eastman was fired from his job in academia and is being disbarred because he gave controversial (and in my view wrong) legal advice. Many attorneys from the first Trump administration were threatened with bar discipline and/or black balled from future jobs - simply because they worked for Trump. Meanwhile, some of the slimiest democrat operatives Holder, Weissman and others, land cushy jobs at places like Jenner Block and Covington.

So when you claim that now is the time to stand up and shout to the rafters, my feeling is that time was long ago. Yet very few people had a word to say about it. Certainly no one on the left.

This presents the quagmire/question that ultimately led to Trump's election victories. Do republican take the high road (and lose) or do they fight back and win (Trump's tactics)? What is the correct response when Dems do something bad to great benefit and effect? Should republicans be principled losers?

Pre-Trump, I was very much of the two wrongs don't make a right thinking. But I've come around to realizing that if Dems are able to act badly with impunity, they will never change their behavior. There has to be a cost. That is why Trump is doing this - he wants to impose a cost on the law firms that he views (correctly in my view) as partisan and hypocritical.

This a long way of saying that I wish neither side would engage in these tactics. I recognize Trump has escalated in a way that is bad on many levels. But I'm at a loss to offer a better solution. Maybe you can offer one? And I certainly don't feel bad for the large law firms that have behaved badly on so many levels. Either they make space for political actors on both sides or, more likely, they stay out of politics.

---

As expected, a very thoughtful response.

I don't disagree with you that neither side of street is clean. And having been at corporate when BLM extorted private enterprise with the threat of playing the race card, no one can claim the high moral ground.

For me, the line is drawn at the direct use of the power of the government to eliminate a basic right. We may condone those who dance around the edges, but if we stand by and watch when there is such blatant and direct betrayal of our rule of law by the most powerful government representative, we cannot say that we ever valued those principles.

Let me give you an example of where I stand. I may hate progressives falsely claiming to hate bigotry but boycotting a small business because the owner is practicing Christianity, but I recognize that it is the right of a consumer to determine how they participate in commerce. However, a government penalizing a business because the owner is practicing his religion crosses a red line for me.

I did not like Clement being forced to choose between his duty as a lawyer and keeping his position at K&E, especially when K&E is one of the more conservative big law firms out there. It was slimy and dirty but also within norms of using social but not direct governmental pressure to influence commercial behavior.

Eastman was just unethical and a piss poor second rate law professor at an unaccredited law school who advocated for the president to violate the constitution. Almost shameful to Clement to be compared to Eastman.

I guess for me, the president wielding the DOJ and executive order to prohibit law firms from representing causes he does not approve or hiring lawyers he dislikes crosses a red line for me. That threshold does not mean the other side is ethical. It just means that being a passive observer in this situation involving the most powerful representative in the world is not acceptable to me.

What will I do? Not much other than speak to general counsels with whom I have some influence (including where I serve on the board and on the nominating and governance committee) to discuss why they should not engage firms like Skadden (hurts my heart to write that), Paul Weiss, Milbank, and Willkie Farr. I don't wield nearly the power that someone in the DOJ wields but I am resisting in the only way I can. Just like associates and law students are resisting with the tiny influence they have. There has to be some costs for firms choosing complete surrender instead of standing for rule of law. I am not delusional enough to think that most firms will not capitulate. Sometimes one has to fight even when the results are predetermined because personal integrity does not stand solely on practicality or party allegiance.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'm gonna say the difference when the government does it directly is more than "slight," especially the federal government because they have so many ways to punish you that private actors don't.

---

Agencies under Biden did it, or are alleged to

---

Even for that the claim seems to be that they did it in a roundabout suggestive way and not as a direct punishment on command of the President like Trump is doing. Again, this difference seems more than slight to me.

---

There was nothing roundabout about it. Democrat presidential administrations since Obama have been targeting conservative groups based on politics.

https://nypost.com/2025/01/31/business/how-obama-biden-crackdowns-spurred-debanking-fiasco/

Please to report Doug Emhoff's firm cut a deal with Trump.

I think we can agree that the "rule of money" is a lot more powerful than the "rule of law."

Happy Roevember said:

---

Google loses yet another anti-trust suit.

BOOM: Google loses ANOTHER antitrust suit, it's a monopolist of the software used by publishers to manage online ads, as well as the exchanges used to buy and sell online ads. pic.twitter.com/5bstcP50PN

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) April 17, 2025

Now why is that relevant to this thread?

Google isn't just a monopolist in search, it is also a monopolist in app stores and now in the software underpinning online advertising.

The board needs to get rid of top legal advisor Kent Walker. https://t.co/DGCS6ZSxqf

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) April 17, 2025

Quote:

---

Third, this decision is highly damaging to the profession of big law. Kamala Harris advisor and Democratic leaning big law firm Paul Weiss partner Karen Dunn oversaw the case for Google at the same time as she was advising Harris' campaign. It's a pretty brutal career moment, made even worse by Paul Weiss' recent decision to cut a deal with the Trump administration. (Dave Dayen and I did an important Organized Money episode with Paul Weiss alum Jonathan Kanter on how these firms make money and why the current moment is so destructive.)
More specifically, all three judges overseeing these Google cases have ruled that the company's lawyers acted unethically, specifically calling out its top lawyer, Kent Walker for false claims of privilege and for allowing the wholesale destruction of documents while on a litigation hold. Here's Brinkema today:

Quote:

---

Google employees and executives also misused the attorney-client privilege. For example, Kent Walker, an attorney who served as Google's President of Global Affairs and oversaw the company's legal team, marked an email in which he asked his colleagues for reactions to a New York Times article as "privileged…"
Google's systemic disregard of the evidentiary rules regarding spoliation of evidence and its misuse of the attorney-client privilege may well be sanctionable. But because the Court has found Google liable under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act based on trial testimony and admitted evidence, including those Google documents that were preserved, it need not adopt an adverse inference or otherwise sanction Google for spoilation at this juncture. As in Google Search, the Court's decision not to sanction "should not be understood as condoning Google's failure to preserve chat evidence."

---

---

Given Google's third monopolization loss today, I want to give a shout-out to Politico writer and former Paul Weiss lawyer Ankush Khardori for writing just last month that antitrust enforcement will fail.

Khardori's bad faith criticism is our good luck charm. pic.twitter.com/OqEnVoGcla

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) April 17, 2025

I laugh right in the face of the protestations of BigLaw alumni lawyers and Democratic Party sycophants about how important ethics and the rule of law are. Both groups are prostitutes beholden to different pimps.

---

Have you noticed the sacred " rule of law" only means obfuscation, incomprehensible language and exorbitant fees while the lawyers deconstruct the dead minds of Hamilton and Jefferson in order to serve their political
masters. I'm all for rule by "non law"

Anarchistbear said:

---

I'm all for rule by "non law"

---

What does this even mean?

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

I'm all for rule by "non law"

---

What does this even mean?

---

Most things decided by the courts could be decided by a panel of citizens

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

I'm all for rule by "non law"

---

What does this even mean?

---

Most things decided by the courts could be decided by a panel of citizens

---

And the citizens would decide things based on what?

Whether the arguments had merit, same as juries

Anarchistbear said:

---

Whether the arguments had merit, same as juries

---

What determines "merit," if not for laws?

There can be laws passed by legislatures . Citizens can judge whether these are "democratic" and meet the needs of citizens. The current system is hierarchical and biased . The Courts have little to do with the lives of citizens.

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

I'm all for rule by "non law"

---

What does this even mean?

---

Most things decided by the courts could be decided by a panel of citizens

---

This is one of the most absurd statements ever made on BI, and that is really saying something. Consider this board and how easily elements of both sides are willing to dismiss and rationalize anything if their dude is getting the W

Anarchistbear said:

---

There can be laws passed by legislatures . Citizens can judge whether these are "democratic" and meet the needs of citizens. The current system is hierarchical and biased . The Courts have little to do with the lives of citizens.

---

Most of our current problems are due to the decisions of a small panel of "citizens" without much oversight or supervision by courts or outsiders. I have little faith that any citizens panel chosen would be without bias.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

I'm all for rule by "non law"

---

What does this even mean?

---

Most things decided by the courts could be decided by a panel of citizens

---

This is one of the most absurd statements ever made on BI, and that is really saying something. Consider this board and how easily elements of both sides are willing to dismiss and rationalize anything if their dude is getting the W

---

No diffferent than the courts. You can't be this naive

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

There can be laws passed by legislatures . Citizens can judge whether these are "democratic" and meet the needs of citizens. The current system is hierarchical and biased . The Courts have little to do with the lives of citizens.

---

Most of our current problems are due to the decisions of a small panel of "citizens" without much oversight or supervision by courts or outsiders. I have little faith that any citizens panel chosen would be without bias.

---

You're talking about elected leaders, officials?
Citizen panels would have lots more sense

Anarchistbear said:

---

There can be laws passed by legislatures . Citizens can judge whether these are "democratic" and meet the needs of citizens. The current system is hierarchical and biased . The Courts have little to do with the lives of citizens.

---

So basically convene a jury to decide on the constitutionality of new laws?

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

There can be laws passed by legislatures . Citizens can judge whether these are "democratic" and meet the needs of citizens. The current system is hierarchical and biased . The Courts have little to do with the lives of citizens.

---

So basically convene a jury to decide on the constitutionality of new laws?

---

Sure, why not……..and this is why Trump got elected twice:






Exactly how f@ucked do you think we are?

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

There can be laws passed by legislatures . Citizens can judge whether these are "democratic" and meet the needs of citizens. The current system is hierarchical and biased . The Courts have little to do with the lives of citizens.

---

So basically convene a jury to decide on the constitutionality of new laws?

---

Sure if you believe in democracy not the current obstruction of same.

" Can you pick up and deport a uS person/ alien to a Salvadoran jail?

This is a question which the current system deals with by inventing things that make it complicated and undecipherable

bearister said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

There can be laws passed by legislatures . Citizens can judge whether these are "democratic" and meet the needs of citizens. The current system is hierarchical and biased . The Courts have little to do with the lives of citizens.

---

So basically convene a jury to decide on the constitutionality of new laws?

---

Sure, why not……..and this is why Trump got elected twice:






Exactly how f@ucked do you think we are?

---

I'd take a panel of citizens over a small group of "judges" handpicked for their obedience to the billionaire class like we have now. A Supreme Court that has largely legalized white collar corruption so they can't get into trouble for the bribes they are taking.

But enough about lawyers being special or something. The attempted coup of 2021 was mostly a lawyer's coup. The alternate slate of electors was a legal scheme. It wasn't a coup by the military or the the clergy or students. At it's core it was an attempt by lawyers to game the system and overturn an election.

Lawyers are business people. If they can market it, they will sell it

For every crooked lawyer there is a crooked piece of sh@it lay person calling the shots.

It was also lawyers that got Trump's lawyers prosecuted and disbarred.

bearister said:

---

For every crooked lawyer there is a crooked piece of sh@it lay person calling the shots.

It was also lawyers that got Trump's lawyers prosecuted and disbarred.

---

They're the ones paying tribute to Trump now.

Face ir, it's a shameless profession of hustlers and pimps

bearister said:

---

For every crooked lawyer there is a crooked piece of sh@it lay person calling the shots.

It was also lawyers that got Trump's lawyers prosecuted and disbarred.

---

Only some of them are crooked, like many professions. The crooked ones do often rise to the top, like many professions. The vast majority of lawyers are just business people and employees. Hardly any kind of noble profession.

You lawyer bashers change your tunes pretty quickly, like the little b@itches you are, when you need one to get your tit out of a ringer.

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?

---

Wait, I thought the firms were sued for conspiracy to commit some sort of wrong with their clients, which is of course an ethical violation with the crime-fraud exception involved. Whatever the claims, they must have survived motions to dismiss and thus it is smart for all parties to settle. I think no money paid, rather pro bono service by the firms. I assume they will calculate hours based on their standard $1,000/hour rates….