Law Firm’s Surrender to Trump Criticized as ‘Craven and Despicable’ by Legal Community

The recent capitulation of the prominent law firm Paul Weiss to President Donald Trump’s administration has sent shockwaves through the legal world. This decision, which has drawn severe criticism from many legal professionals, has been labeled as “craven and despicable” by lawyers who fear it may set a dangerous precedent for law firms in America.

The agreement made by Paul Weiss has sparked widespread debate, with many questioning the ethical responsibility of top law firms and their ability to stand up against political pressure. The fallout from this situation is still unfolding, as more lawyers within large firms begin to speak out.

The turning point came when Rachel Cohen, an associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, decided to resign in protest. Cohen’s decision to send a two-week notice to her firm sent shockwaves not only through her colleagues but also throughout the legal profession.

In her email, Cohen explained that she could no longer work for a firm that was willing to cooperate with Trump’s administration, especially on matters involving diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Cohen expressed her disillusionment with Paul Weiss’ choice to cave to the Trump administration’s demands, which she saw as a betrayal of the legal profession’s core principles.

“I do not have time. It is now or it is never, and if it is never, I will not continue to work here,” Cohen wrote in her widely circulated email. The message resonated deeply with other legal professionals who found themselves grappling with similar concerns about the state of the legal system and the influence of political power.

Many of Cohen’s colleagues shared her sentiment, with some even applauding her decision to take a stand. Cohen’s email went viral on social media, drawing attention to the increasingly perilous position law firms now find themselves in, caught between political influence and the pressure to remain profitable.

Following her resignation, Cohen spoke with NBC News, emphasizing the gravity of the situation. She made it clear that she didn’t take her decision lightly and that she had consulted with close friends and family before pushing send.

Cohen acknowledged the challenges lawyers face in today’s climate, where the speed at which the Trump administration acts often leaves little time for careful deliberation. “The stakes are high,” she said, underscoring her belief that the legal community must now act quickly to defend the rule of law in the United States.

One of Cohen’s primary concerns was that the Trump administration’s rapid pace of action could result in irreversible damage before the judicial system had a chance to intervene. “They move so quickly that you have to make judgment calls,” she explained, noting that waiting for the court system to catch up could be disastrous. This sense of urgency has become increasingly prevalent among those who oppose Trump’s political influence over legal institutions.

In response to the widespread criticism, Cohen shared her thoughts on what she believes is at stake: a fundamental challenge to the structures that prevent America from devolving into an authoritarian regime. She referred to the current situation as a “coup,” expressing her concern that Trump is testing the limits of what he can get away with and whether the country’s institutions will hold.

She argued that law firms, as powerful institutions in their own right, have a moral obligation to push back against this authoritarian push, even if it means jeopardizing their own commercial interests.

Despite the public backlash against Paul Weiss, many other law firms have chosen to remain silent. Some have cited concerns about the potential loss of clients or business, with some lawyers privately admitting that the fear of retribution from the Trump administration is keeping them from speaking out.

In particular, large firms that rely on government contracts have become increasingly cautious, worried that any public stand against Trump could have dire financial consequences. As a result, many attorneys feel a growing sense of helplessness as they watch their colleagues remain silent in the face of such a clear attack on the legal profession.

In fact, one lawyer with a major firm in Washington D.C. described Paul Weiss’ decision as “as craven and despicable a decision as you will find.” This lawyer, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, expressed concern that the move would embolden the Trump administration to target more firms, further eroding the independence of the legal profession.

The lawyer also noted that such a decision could have a chilling effect on other law firms, making them less likely to stand up for their values in the future.

George Conway, a former partner at a major law firm and a vocal critic of Trump, weighed in on the situation, condemning the profit-driven motives of law firms that prioritize financial interests over their moral duty to defend the rule of law. “These law firms are now basically so profit-driven that they are putting their own economic interests above the system,” Conway said in an interview with NBC News.

“That to me is not only morally appalling but at the end of the day, self-defeating.” Conway’s comments reflect a growing frustration among some legal professionals, who believe that law firms are failing to uphold their duty to the public by allowing political pressure to dictate their actions.

Cohen also expressed frustration with the legal community’s lack of action. “Their silence is not only not going to protect them, it is going to kill people,” she warned, stressing that the stakes were far higher than individual careers or firms.

She emphasized that the legal profession must stand united against political interference in the legal system, as the alternative could result in catastrophic consequences for the rule of law in the United States.

The situation has also raised alarm within the Justice Department, where attorneys are finding themselves under increasing scrutiny for their work. Lawyers who are perceived as not aligning with Trump’s priorities are being reassigned or let go, leaving many concerned about their job security. As one Justice Department attorney explained, the current atmosphere has created a climate of fear, with lawyers constantly looking over their shoulders for fear of losing their positions.

Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney with expertise in national security law, expressed his outrage over Paul Weiss’ decision, drawing parallels to Shakespeare’s famous line from “Henry VI”: “Let’s kill all the lawyers.”

Zaid explained that while the line is often seen as an insult against lawyers, it actually reflects the strategy of authoritarian figures who seek to eliminate legal opposition in order to consolidate power. He warned that Trump’s actions were following a similar pattern, aiming to undermine the legal profession’s ability to challenge political power.

As the legal community grapples with the fallout from Paul Weiss’ decision, the future of law firms under the Trump administration remains uncertain. The crisis has sparked a broader debate about the ethical responsibilities of law firms, their role in defending democracy, and the lengths they are willing to go to preserve their economic interests.

The coming months will likely see further discussions and actions by legal professionals as they try to navigate the increasingly complex and politically charged landscape of American law.