To Fold or Fight: Law Firms Weigh Risks of Trump Resistance
57:44 Share

This episode is brought to you by Indeed. When your computer breaks, you don't wait for it to magically start working again. You fix the problem. So why wait to hire the people your company desperately needs? Use Indeed's sponsored jobs to hire top talent fast. And even better, you only pay for results. There's no need to wait. Speed up your hiring with a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply.

Switch to Verizon Business and get more from your internet without paying more for your internet. Get LTE Business Internet starting at $39 a month when paired with a Business Unlimited smartphone plan. That's unlimited data, and with it, unlimited life.

unlimited possibilities. Start saving today with Verizon Business. Ranked number one in small business internet customer satisfaction by J.D. Power. Starting price for 25 megabits per second internet plan with savings, plus taxes, fees, and economic adjustment charge. Terms apply. For J.D. Power 2024 award information, visit jdpower.com slash awards. From KQED.

From KQED in San Francisco, I'm Nina Kim. Coming up on Forum, how law firms are responding to Trump's revenge campaign of executive orders and threats. Wilkie Farr and Gallagher, the firm that employs former second gentleman Doug Emhoff, has cut a deal with the Trump administration, agreeing to provide $100 million in legal services to causes the president likes.

The capitulation by law firms has constitutional law experts alarmed. We look at the implications for democracy and the First Amendment if a president can cow a legal system. And we'll hear from a San Francisco firm that's fighting back. Join us. Welcome to Forum. I'm Mina Kim.

It began in earnest in early March, Trump's retribution campaign against private law firms that brought suits or worked on investigations against him. There was an executive order against the firm Perkins Coie, which was aimed at stripping its lawyers of security clearances and canceling federal contracts. More orders against other firms followed. Then, a week and a half ago, Trump issued a memo threatening lawyers working on causes he doesn't like, including on behalf of asylum seekers.

San Francisco law firm Kecker Van Est & Peters does just that as part of its pro bono immigration practice. And managing partner at Kecker, Lori Carr-Mims, joins me now. Lori, thanks so much for joining us. I really appreciate it. Thank you, Mina. Good morning. I assume when you saw that memo, you thought it was just a matter of time before maybe you'd hear from the Trump administration. And some firms are now working to stay in Trump's good graces. But tell me about the path Kecker has decided to take.

Well, it started when we saw the Perkins Coie executive order in early March. We were shocked, like many lawyers around the nation, to see such a blatant unconstitutional attack on our profession and on the rule of law. And so our firm right away looked

Perkins Coie know how much we supported them in their fight. And then there was a subsequent order against Paul Weiss. Again, we thought that order was unconstitutional and were willing to stand and voice our support for Paul Weiss as well. Shortly before the memo that you

Paul Weiss struck a deal with the Trump administration, and we were surprised and disappointed to see that. And so by the time that that memo that you spoke of came out, which was on the night of March 21st, that next morning, we –

We all, every one of our partners was ready to take a stand and say, enough is enough. We need to let our voice be heard standing up against what we see as a constitutional attack on our profession. Yeah. And your firm over the weekend actually

wrote a New York Times op-ed called Our Law Firm Won't Cave to Trump. Who will join us? So as part of your immigration practice, you represent asylum seekers, and you're in the middle of litigation about that with some as well?

That's right. We historically have devoted a significant portion of our practice to pro bono efforts, at least 5% annually. And as part of that, we have over many years represented asylum seekers and refugees.

been able to secure asylum for people who are political or domestic violence victims who should not have to return to places where they have been, in many cases, tortured. And so that's an important part of our practice. And we also have, in the previous administration and even early in this administration, have

taken action on against Trump administration policies on immigration. And so it's an important part of our practice. And so the memo, while it didn't specifically name our firm, it names immigration lawyers. And it's just a attack on the whole system, which is that the judicial branch is supposed to be a check on executive power.

So what are the risks your firm is taking by taking this sort of vocal stance against the administration, do you think? I think the risks are the same as they are for all firms that depend on having clients that are able to pay us our rates and support.

So we, like other firms, face a business decision of whether we need to stand up or how this could affect our business as far as clients feeling like they cannot stay with our firm based on concerns over they too being subject to the Trump administration's ire.

So your firm is also urging others to sign on to an amicus brief to be filed very soon to defend Perkins Coie. Can you just remind us why Trump is upset with Perkins Coie?

It's, I guess, a decade long grudge against Perkins Coie based on its representation of Hillary Clinton. And that's been the way that these executive orders have gone. It's oftentimes former partners that are no longer even at these firms.

But the Trump administration is also targeting these firms because they have pro bono practices.

regarding causes that are not, in his words, for the conservative ideals. And so that's why Perkins Coie has been targeted. And since then, three other firms have been the targets of executive orders. And as you know, others have been threatened and some have capitulated even before executive orders have issued. Yeah.

What do you make of the legal basis for the Trump administration's order against Perkins Coie and some of the others? I really cannot think of a legal basis for it. It really is just a retribution campaign. There is no legal basis for it. And that's why the three separate –

District court judges from D.C. that have heard the temporary restraining order motions on behalf of the three law firms that remain fighting have all immediately issued temporary restraining orders and finding that these firms are likely to succeed in showing that these orders are unconstitutional under at least the First Amendment.

So given that, what has been your reaction to Paul Weiss reaching a deal with the Trump administration?

It's been very disappointing to our firm and I think lawyers across the country. After we issued our statement in March and then certainly after the founders and name partners of our law firm put out their op-ed last weekend, we've received just hundreds

hundreds of emails and phone calls thanking us for taking a stand and sharing disappointment over firms like Paul Weiss striking a deal when they had the option of doing what Perkins Coie and now WilmerHale and Jenner and Block are doing, which is fighting back in courts and against unconstitutional orders. Because what effect do you think it has? What message do you think it sends?

If law firms that have the privilege of being lawyers and representing other people aren't willing to fight for their own rights, how do ordinary citizens feel about their ability to use the courts to fight back when their fundamental rights are taken? And so it's very disappointing to see that these firms chose, made a business decision to protect their lawyers.

their client relationships and their income over fighting for what we

We see as the role of lawyers in this society, which is to defend the Constitution. I mean, as lawyers, we take an oath before becoming a member of the bar to defend the Constitution. And that's what we are doing here. I mean, I think that's why for our firm, it was a just clear choice to support Perkins Coie and to support these other firms as they fight these executive orders.

We're talking with Lori Carmim's managing partner at Kecker Van Est and Peters, and they wrote an op-ed recently. And I just want to read a little bit from that op-ed article.

Your firm writes,

In Paul Weiss's case, they made a concession of some 100 million of pro bono hours. I'm sorry, 40 million in pro bono hours. Others have done 100 million. I know that some firms have said they would have taken those cases anyway, but I guess how big a concession is that, Laurie?

It's a large concession because what these firms are saying they will do is check with the Trump administration regarding what types of closures

claims they will bring on a pro bono, meaning they're not charging basis. And so while these numbers are big, and probably these firms all devote more than that amount annually to pro bono, just given these are firms that make billions of dollars in revenue, the concession is...

Having to have the government decide which causes your firm is willing to represent. And so that's the concession. So for people not inclined to sympathize with these billion dollar law firms, why does the public need to care about the intimidation campaign against lawyers and firms?

Because lawyers and the judicial branch of the government are meant to be a check on the executive power. And if if

The lawyers that have at these prestigious law firms, skilled lawyers who I've represented clients in conjunction with, are not willing to stand against violation of their own constitutional rights and are willing to have their pro bono efforts violated.

subject to the whims of the executive branch, it means that there's not going to be a way for citizens to

protest the government and to petition the government for changes to policies that we all care about, Social Security, voting rights, immigration. So it's not limited to the legal profession. The potential impact of these types of concessions could be felt by everyone.

Lori Karman is managing partner at Kecker Van Esten Peters, whose op-ed is called Our Law Firm Won't Cave to Trump, who will join us. It's in The New York Times. Thank you so much, Lori. Thank you. Listeners, what questions do you have about how firms are handling and responding to threats from the Trump administration? Are you a lawyer? What do the executive orders and memos targeting law firms bring up?

For you, you can email forum at kqed.org, find us on our social channels, Blue Sky, Facebook, Instagram, and threads at KQED Forum, or call us at 866-733-6786. More after the break.

Accura's all-new ADX, a compact SUV that isn't just built for one thing. It's precision-crafted for everything. To escape the grind with available all-wheel drive. To go with your flow with available Google built-in. Hey, Google, turn it up. Okay, turning up the volume. And crafted to be heard with an available Bang & Olufsen premium sound system. The all-new Accura ADX, crafted to match your energy. Accura, precision-crafted performance. Take your buzz on Google.

Google is a trademark of Google LLC.

This episode is brought to you by Loom by Atlassian. Are you feeling stuck at work? Get your team unstuck with Loom video messaging and move work forward. Use Loom to simultaneously record both your screen and yourself, to share a quick update, provide feedback, train a colleague, and everything in between. Plus, add Loom AI to your meetings for instant written notes and recordings. Try Loom today at loom.com. That's L-O-O-M dot com.

You're listening to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. We're talking about the ways U.S. law firms are responding to attacks by the Trump administration as some capitulate and some fight back, and the broader implications of this. And listeners, you're invited to join the conversation. Do you work in law? Are you a lawyer? What do these executive orders and memos targeting firms bring up for you? What questions do you have about how firms are handling and responding to the threats from the Trump administration?

Or maybe you work for a firm that is facing actual or potential threats from the administration. How is that being handled? How do you think that should be handled? You can call us at 866-733-6786. You can email us at forum at kqed.org, or you can post on our social channels at KQED Forum. Joining me now is Jessica Silver-Greenberg, an investigative reporter for The New York Times. Jessica, glad to have you.

Glad to be on. Thank you. So I want to turn out to just get a better understanding of the firms that did cut deals. First, I talked a little bit with Lori Carr Mims about why the firm Paul Weiss was targeted. And she mentioned that, you know, Paul Weiss represented Hillary Clinton in 2016. Were there other reasons to you suspect?

Well, wait, did she say Perkins represented Hillary? No, sorry, Paul Weiss.

Also, Paul Weiss was a leader, at least during the first Trump administration. It kind of presented itself as a bulwark against that administration and things, policies, including, you know, migrant separation and the Muslim ban that were really impactful. And that law firm kind of

came to the defense and really mobilized in a way that was pretty remarkable for big law. And so, you know, they had at the time of the Muslim ban, they deputized partners even to airports, to Dulles and JFK. They were kind of on the front lines of that work. And so, um,

They got a lot of resistance, so to speak, from the Trump administration, and they were really instrumental in helping fight against policies in Trump's first administration that were

you know, considered illegal or potentially illegal. And so I think that it's broader than, again, the work that they did for the politicians, because I think one of the things that I think is very upsetting to people within Paul Weiss is that

Now that the law firm has reached this deal to provide, you know, that we can go over the details of that to avoid the executive order that was levied against them. I think there's broad based concern that the firm will not be willing to engage in similar efforts to support litigation that is contrary to the Trump administration. And so then that kind of leaves a gulf, I think, is the concern.

And you're right, it was my error in accidentally applying the reasons behind maybe a Perkins Coie to Paul Weiss, Paul Weiss being one of the firms that capitulated. So I'm wondering, the executive order against Paul Weiss, it included things like restricting their security clearances and so on?

It did. It was we've seen a version of this targeted to many of the biggest law firms in the country, especially those that, you know, President Trump perceived as being particularly aggressive in their litigation against him.

So it included, like you said, the possibility of revoking security clearances. It went so far as to say that...

Clients of the firm would have their clients of the firm that had federal contracts with the administration would have those contracts reviewed, which is a, you know, a very real economic threat to those companies. And it also said that certain lawyers would be barred from entering federal buildings. And so I imagine that would be pretty punishing for a law firm. It could drive them out of business.

That was—so the chairman of Polweiss, Brad Karp, in his explanation to his firm as to why he decided to settle rather than fight, as we've seen Perkins Coie do, Wilmer Hale now, and Jenner and Block, is—

the rationale was, even if they were able to go to court and win a temporary restraining order or some kind of injunction against the executive order, their firm would be perceived as kind of a pariah in President Trump's Washington. And so anytime, say, a client of theirs had a deal, a merger, or an acquisition that had to be approved by the federal government, that that

client would be punished for being associated with Paul Weiss. And so the concern was that clients and some of the big kind of rainmaker lawyers would leave Paul Weiss and go to other firms. And that would essentially represent the kind of existential, an existential threat to Paul Weiss's business.

And the rationale that Brad Karp set out was, you know, it's better to be a law firm that is still in business than

that can still pursue good work rather than one that is, you know, shuttered because it's been driven out of business by this executive order. Yeah. And there were some of these things that, that Brad Karp stated in his email to attorneys at Paul Weiss, but how has that been received by the firm, especially by associates at the firm, Jessica? Not, not well, I think there is, you know,

There is widespread dismay at this argument. I think Paul Weiss is also in a, and I'll go into some of the dissent within the ranks of Paul Weiss, but Paul Weiss also, because they were the first big law firm to reach a deal, I think there's some real upset amongst associates, like kind of younger lawyers,

that Paul Weiss, in capitulating, which is how they describe it, and agreeing to this settlement, lay the groundwork for what we're now seeing, which is they basically set a template for all of these other major law firms to settle as well. And if Paul Weiss had fought

That would have set a different precedent, right? So then you would have seen... The argument among the associates is it enabled what we are now seeing, which is just firm after firm after firm caving in the face of these executive orders and agreeing to these settlements. We're talking with Jessica. Yeah. Sorry. People are really... No, no, no. People are very... They're dismayed. And they're especially dismayed because...

Paul Weiss is a very lucrative firm. Last year, it brought in more than $2.5 billion in revenue. This is not a shrinking violet. This is not a law firm that is certainly cash-strapped. And so some of these associates...

went to Paul Weiss because of its commitment to pro bono work and also because of its very storied history as a litigation powerhouse, as a law firm that brought big, impactful lawsuits, cases. And they see this agreement, this willingness to reach a deal with the Trump administration as also speaking to this kind of shift of

power within the law firm where the deal makers, the lawyers that represent big companies in corporate transactions have kind of won out because they bring in a lot more money for the firm. They have won out over the litigators. And there, I think there's this just general dismay that Paul Weiss has abandoned. It's kind of like long history of being a fighter. And now they're just settling it for the interest of their, you know, partner's profits. Yeah.

Again, Jessica Silver-Greenberg is an investigative reporter for The New York Times. I want to bring you to the conversation, Rachel Cohen.

Yeah, not an associate at Paul Weiss, but another major firm that also cut a deal with Trump. And this was done preemptively in anticipation of a possible order. This is Skadden Arps, late meager and flom. Skadden Arps has committed $100 million in pro bono work to causes the president supports and promised not to engage in, quote, illegal discrimination based on DEI initiatives. Rachel Cohen, welcome to Forum. Thanks so much for having me. So, Rachel, today is actually your last day at Skadden Arps.

First, how are you feeling today? I'm feeling like I'm on the precipice of the busiest unemployment anyone has ever had. Mm-hmm.

But I'm feeling deeply affirmed in my decision. And ultimately, while I'm disappointed, optimistic about the advocacy that I and many, many other collaborators are engaging in on this topic. Yeah, you submitted your resignation letter two weeks ago before even the deal with Trump was made. Tell us what what led you to that decision, why you went down that path.

I think there's a real issue with proactivity versus reactivity in this industry and perhaps even in the country broadly right now. We're waiting for bad things to happen before we intervene, but unfortunately if the bad thing that we're waiting to happen is the collapse of our legal system or an authoritarian government, we do have to act before that thing happens.

And I understand that a single law firm making a deal with the Trump administration, jumping then to me discussing how I think its groundwork for an authoritarian government may seem like a stretch. But I will say I tendered my resignation because...

Like Jessica said, like everyone who's speaking on this topic is pointing out, there was a collective action pathway for big law and for legal entities broadly to reject the Trump administration's kind of existential threat to rule of law because this is nonpartisan. It's rooted in basic tenets of the legal profession that everyone enjoys.

deserves zealous representation and that lawyers and clients are not necessarily sharing the same views on things. And so we'd been doing a lot of advocacy internally, externally for the kind of collective response that I truly believe is the only way to prevent this kind of undermining of the judiciary and the legal system broadly in this country. And when Paul Weiss's

made that deal, just like Jessica said, it wasn't just people at Paul Weiss that viewed it as the first domino. It was cross industry. And I was disappointed and surprised that Skadden also decided to cave, having worked with many partners there that I deeply respect over the last almost three years. But it did seem to me likely given how evasive they were being on internal advocacy and requests for collective action that they were at least considering it.

And I didn't want to be tendering my resignation after that had happened when it felt possible that a preemptive intervention could do something. Though I'm very grateful to the associates who have tendered their resignation following Skadden's deal. Yeah, there are a couple of reasons.

more who have come out publicly as well. And yes, you were one of the people that was trying to get management to talk with you about this and to share what you thought was important and not getting much of a response. What are you hoping that your decision to leave and speak publicly about it will have? I think at a very base level, it's important for people who are not in the industry to understand what's going on. And I think that without people willing to speak publicly on that,

It's very, very difficult and inaccessible to understand the connection between corporate law firms being targeted by executive orders from the Trump administration. And what I really do believe is the ultimate goal of totally restricting the capacity to provide immigration representation or to challenge the government in the legal industry is

And so that's kind of an awareness tack. But more than anything else, something that I found myself questioning constantly as I was reading these executive orders and thinking about what they meant, I would come back to the idea of, could I possibly be right about how bad this is? Because if I'm right, shouldn't we all be acting quite differently? Right?

And I turned that over and over in my head. It's almost impossible to believe that this is true, even though everyone is agreeing with me, because I never imagined that I would wake up and go into my job in what I was identifying as early-stage authoritarianism and do exactly the same things I had done two months prior, except that occasionally, and this is a true story, I would say things to partners like,

We're going to end up defending the government as it argues why it should be allowed to use unpaid labor in Guantanamo Bay. And they would say, oh, God, yeah. And then go back to work. It seemed impossible to me that if things were this bad that we would be acting this way. And then I realized, wait, I can act.

Someone else ideally would do it, but if no one else will do it, I want to affirm for people that they are right in acting differently and that they are right to be afraid but also energized to address what they see happening in this country. Rachel Cohen, today is her last day as associate attorney at Skadden Arps. Really appreciate you coming on. Thanks so much. And good luck to you.

Jessica, you know, just listening to Rachel, what kind of impact do you think this could have more broadly firms that might capitulate or cut deals with the Trump administration on, you know, its recruiting efforts for associates? Well, I just have to say, like, I mean, what Rachel did, and I will answer your question. Absolutely. I mean, I'm I'm was really moved and impressed. Well, watching it as an outsider, I mean,

She's absolutely right. There is a collective action problem. And so I think it was very meaningful to people to see Rachel put her name out there. What we are seeing, though, is, and Rachel really led this off, kicked this off, is, you know, there are associates now who are saying, like, we're not willing to

accept this. This is a betrayal of the rule of law. It's a betrayal of what we thought this law firm stood for. It's a betrayal of the principles of zealous representation.

And so we're already starting to see small indications that associates who, as Rachel knows way better than I do, do, you know, they power these big law firms. They don't make nearly as much. They make a fraction of, I mean, a tenth of a fraction of what the partners bring in, but they're doing the bulk of the work and the law firms depend on them for their labor. And so,

I do think we're starting to see impacts on recruiting and the willingness of associates or let's say very recent law school graduates to go to firms that they see as having sold out both the broader legal community and the role of law. And so there's one example of a

a law group at Georgetown law school that canceled a recruiting, they canceled an event that was supposed to be on Skadden's, um, at Skadden's offices. It was a Georgetown law clinic group. Um, and the rationale was that the organizers of this, you know, were really appalled and dismayed, I should say by Skadden's decision to settle. And so they canceled that event. Um, and,

And I've also seen a letter that is now circulating of a number of third-year law students and second-year law students who say they will not participate in recruitment events that involve Paul Weiss. I haven't seen that yet.

directed at Skadden. But I do think it speaks to your broader question, which is, will these decisions to settle lead to law students, you know, voting with their feet and not going to work at these law firms and instead going to law firms that more align with their values, like possibly the Wilmer Hales and Jenners of the world and Perkins?

Perkins Coie, who are fighting rather than settling. So I think it will, we are already starting to see it have an impact. And I think that will just continue as more and more firms make a decision in either camp.

Jessica, I know you need to leave us at the break. So thanks so much for talking with us. Jessica Silver Greenberg, investigative reporter for The New York Times. Listener Michelle writes, I'm a retired lawyer and I'm appalled at the firms who are caving to Trump. What Trump is doing is illegal. This is the time to stand up and fight for what is right. All lawyers must take an oath to defend the Constitution. Paul Weiss and the other firms are violating that oath. These law firms will never be able to regain their reputations. My heart is just broken for my profession. There must be more important things than just politics.

money. Another listener, Anne writes, what specifically can Trump do to the law firm? So what are they afraid he can do? We'll take up that question right after the break. Stay with us. I'm Mina Kim.

Join the conversation with Shell Energy.

Fast and reliable solutions from Comcast Business can help turn your business into a reliably up and running, cyber securing, performance boosting, storm preparing, reliably connected, modern business. Powering the engine of modern business, powering possibilities. Get started for $49.99 a month for 12 months. Plus, ask how to get a $500 prepaid card on a qualifying gig package. Call today.

You're listening to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. We're talking this hour about how law firms are responding to attacks by the Trump administration, why Trump is doing that, and why some firms are giving in. And you, our listeners, are joining the conversation with your questions and reactions to this at 866-733-6786, at the email address forum at kqed.org, and on our social channels on Blue Sky, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and others.

Ray Brescia is now with us, professor at Albany Law School and author of Lawyer Nation, the past, present and future of the American legal profession. Ray, really glad to have you with us. It's great to be here, Mina. Thank you for having me. So we're getting a lot of questions like this. Flavia writes, why in all the reporting on this topic is no one using the word extortion from a layperson's perspective? That is what it seems like Trump is doing. And earlier people were asking about, you know, how is this just not straight up?

illegal. And so I'm wondering, you know, you've looked at the legal basis for the executive orders, these attempts by the Trump administration to sanction lawyers who work on causes that go against what his administration is working on. What do you think about them?

Well, so let's imagine a scenario where a government official – and it's not that hard to imagine – a government official goes around to entities that do business with someone that that government official doesn't like, doesn't approve of.

and says to them, you know, if you do business with, you know, company a, you're gonna, you're, we're going to prosecute you. We're going to investigate you. We're going to slow walk all your applications, you know, because of what company a does is all about. Well,

Funny thing, just last year, in a unanimous opinion by the Supreme Court, written by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court said that an official in New York State could not do just that.

with the National Rifle Association, right? So the NRA. So we had an insurance official in New York State that said to companies that were doing business with the NRA, you know, if we regulate you too, we regulate the NRA because they have insurance programs through us.

We're going to now investigate you if you can. And we're going to, you know, take some action against you if you continue to do business with the NRA. Well, the Supreme Court, again, in a unanimous opinion, said that's unconstitutional. I.

I just don't understand how anyone could look at what the president is doing and say that it's not exactly what the Supreme Court said just a year ago in a unanimous opinion was unconstitutional. So that firms who have some of the best lawyers in the world in them

could think that, hey, what the president is doing might actually be legal is beyond me. And I don't think they think it is legal. And yet they have given into it, which is very, very troubling and shocking, actually. Let me go to caller Andre in Oakland. Hi, Andre, you're on.

Yes, thank you. So I was wondering, it sounds to me, I'm a non-lawyer, it sounds like bribery, shakedown, extortion, and violation of those law firms' free speech. Their work is their speech. And so why isn't this an impeachable offense or a criminal offense, matter of fact? Why is that? Andre, thanks. Does it go that far in your view, Ray? Well, yes.

What's impeachable is up to the House and the Senate these days. The Supreme Court has said that a lot of things that a president does are immune from prosecution.

you know, it really does seem like a shakedown, right? It does seem like, hey, you know, nice law firm you got there. It would be a shame if something bad were to happen to it. I do think that's a bit of what's going on here. And I think that if

any of these lawyers had a client that this was happening to, they would say, you know, this is improper, this is illegal, and we're going to, you know, we're going to fight this case to the Supreme Court. But that is not what some of them did. Some of them are fighting it, and they are taking it to the Supreme Court, and God bless them. You know, they are standing up

for basic rights, not just for themselves, but for their clients and really for all of us. You wrote a book about the legal profession. Ray, just how serious do you think this moment is for the profession?

This is as serious a moment as I think the modern legal profession has ever seen. You know, you can go back 120 years and President Teddy Roosevelt was very concerned about the state of the legal profession. He said that, you know, the American lawyers were hired cunning, that were

were, uh, you know, trying to protect their, uh, wealthy, uh, industrialist clients, um, to maintain trusts to, uh, you know, uh, squash the little guy. And that if, uh, if the profession continued to do this, uh, continued to, uh, fail to uphold the rule of law and to, uh,

defend everyone's rights that you know, we could see, you know riots in the streets. But what President Roosevelt was talking about back then was not like President Trump is complaining of now that you know conservative causes don't have enough legal representation. He was saying that you know big business had plenty of lawyers and it was low-income and working people that had too few.

And to now turn the tables, as the president has done today, to say, as he said in some of these executive orders, that conservative causes don't have enough legal representation, I don't know what world he's living in.

you know, remember most of what these firms do is represent big business, wealthy clients. And it is a tiny fraction of what they do. Although it is substantial, uh, that, that many of them do engage in a very important pro bono work. Uh,

You know, cases that go to the Supreme Court, but also everyday cases representing people who've had their wages stolen, representing people who are in deportation, you know, and whether they're in big firm or big firms or in small or whether they're in nonprofit groups, you know, the day to day work of.

many lawyers is to provide legal services to people who can't otherwise afford them.

And, you know, if that's a liberal cause, I actually think it's every lawyer's obligation so that these firms don't spend every moment of every one of their lawyers time representing big business. You know, if somehow that's not conservative enough, again, I don't know what planet the president is living on.

Lindsay writes, thank you for having the admirable and inspiring Rachel Cohen on the program today. I was moved to tears by her leadership and her patriotic action upholding her oath as an officer of the court. Andrew writes, I applaud the Kecker firm and Rachel Cohen for their bravery and integrity. I'm sure Paul Weiss and organizations in similar predicaments sincerely believed that

They were making a decision to preserve their institutions, but I wonder if history will prove them wrong and that the moral and reputational costs of bowing down to the Trump administration will be just as damaging, if not more so, than if they had joined others in defense of the rule of law and the Constitution. Let me go to Nancy in Berkeley. Hi, Nancy. Thanks for waiting. You're on.

Oh, hi. Yes. I'm very upset about the capitulation of these law firms, but my feeling is that, you know, a

alone, nothing can be done. These law firms really need to talk to each other and band together. We need to fight this. We just can't. I mean, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a regular person. But I think not only the law firms, but the universities, everybody's got to band together. It's the only way we can fight this.

as I call creature from the Black Lagoon. Yeah, thanks for sharing the way you're feeling about this. You know, Ray, one major problem you identify is that these firms that are capitulating may be sending a message that they won't zealously advocate for their clients against the U.S. government and also that

The administration is emboldened and likely to go after more targets, even with the firms that are cutting deals. Talk about those concerns you have.

I think there are significant concerns. I share Nancy's concerns as well. You know, I have tried to stand up to bullies in the past. One thing I have learned is, you know, one way to keep a bully bullying is to give in to their bullying. Rarely does the bully stop bullying when you give in to them.

So, I do think Nancy's accurate, is that folks have to stand together. I don't understand why an institution like Harvard University isn't able to say, "We've been around for over 400 years.

We're going to be around for at least another 400. And you, President Trump and the Trump administration, you're a blip. Paul Weiss, we've been around for 150 years. We're going to be around for at least another 150 more. I just don't understand why some of these institutions can't stand up like that. And I do think it's...

It goes to the heart, at least with respect to law firms, it goes to the heart of the legal profession's obligation to uphold the rule of law.

And there are serious questions moving forward about whether these firms can really honor their obligations to their clients and to the legal system. So first off, the conventional wisdom is,

is, well, these firms, their businesses, and they were going to, you know, they feared that they would lose clients if they did not give in to the president's demands. Well, I think that conventional wisdom should be wrong. I think that clients should say, hey, I want a lawyer who's going to fight for me, not one that's going to capitulate to the government. Moreover,

If the next time that client is in court with their lawyer from one of these firms, are they going to worry that their client...

that their lawyer is going to be more concerned about their own reputation and keeping the Trump administration happy than fighting for their client? I mean, I think that's a very serious question. I also think, you know, in the criminal context,

lawyers have an obligation to provide effective assistance of counsel to their clients and judges have an obligation to oversee lawyers to make sure that they are providing effective assistance of counsel. This is a constitutional obligation.

And if a lawyer is more concerned about their own standing with the government and that they will stay in good graces with the Trump administration, that raises a serious conflict of interest. And that's something that courts are going to have to explore.

In every one of these cases where a lawyer at one of these firms has appeared on behalf of a criminal defendant. So again, that conventional wisdom that, oh, this must be okay because the law firms just had to worry about their business. I would imagine that there are some clients who are worrying, is my lawyer capitulating enough?

I would hope that clients are saying, hey, I don't want a lawyer who's going to capitulate at all. Well, let me remind listeners, you're listening to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. Let me go to Ayman in San Francisco. Hi, Ayman, you're on.

Yes, thank you so much for the program. I couldn't emphasize more the necessity for separating the judicial system from the executive, but I want to bring a historical precedent, John Adams. John Adams defended the redcoats after the Boston Massacre. If we had the same kind of thinking that...

we have today during the time of John Adams, John Adams would never have been elected president. So what I want to say is that the president that's been set by John Adams should have never been overturned or should never be overturned by Donald Trump. Thank you.

Thanks, Ayman. The firm should be able to make the decisions of who they want to represent no matter what and not face the ire of the government is what I think Ayman is saying there. Norma writes, I'm a lawyer who has dedicated my life to advancing the public interest. I'm absolutely appalled by the actions of Paul Weiss and Skadden. These firms are so well resourced and yet are demonstrating a cowardice that is astounding. I also have the privilege of teaching law students at one of our country's premier law schools.

I believe my students will be looking very critically at what firms choose to do in deciding where they want to launch their careers. We must all stand up and fight. Go Rachel Cohen and Kecker Firm. You were talking about clients and making a point about what you would hope that clients do. Realistically, though, I mean...

I guess, what do you think clients should do if they want to be vocal about opposing the actions by the Trump administration? But realistically, you know, who is a lawyer to a big firm if they have a big contract with the government? Well, I think there are instances where...

when clients choose their lawyers because they might have a good working relationship with, you know, the government, with whomever the adversary is. You know, sometimes clients choose lawyers for that reason, because they believe that, hey, they're going to work out the things that can be worked out

But they're also going to stand firm for my rights. And so, you know, absolutely, you know, you could go to the halls of many of these law firms and you see lawyers who were former U.S. attorneys, former attorneys general, right?

And the reason that clients go to those firms is because they believe that those lawyers have good relationships with the government, you know, with, you know, industry adversaries. But I doubt that what they really want is a pushover. So I think that the more clients

clients speak up about these issues and say, you know, we're going to stick with you because

As long as you stand up for yourself, law firm, you know, and if you're not willing to stand up for yourself, that really raises questions about whether you're willing to stand up for me. So, you know, some clients are going to appreciate that the law firms have done this. But I think at the end of the day, and as one of your callers said, in the long run, I

I just don't think that this is good for these firms, nor do I know it's not good for the legal profession as a whole. So I do think, you know, we do have, as another caller said, you know, folks have to stand together. And it is a it's a collective action problem, as was described by one of your previous guests, where, you know, if if if

individual firms cut side deals, that is going to undermine the profession as a whole and certainly those firms that are standing up against these orders. But the reality is at the end of the day, the orders are going to be found to be

flagrantly unconstitutional. And I think, you know, the lawyers that stood up are going to look very good and the lawyers that caved in are not going to look so good. Well, already,

The president has been talking about his track record of bringing law firms to heel, saying they're all bending and saying, sir, thank you very much. Where do I sign? Where do I sign? But Bernadette writes, I have great faith in the coming generation of lawyers. May they survive the changes that are happening at their law schools and universities. Stay strong. We are all in this together.

My thanks to Ray Brescia, professor at Albany Law School, Jessica Silver-Greenberg of The New York Times, Rachel Cohen, former associate attorney at Skadden Arps, and Lori Carr-Mims, managing partner at Kecker, and to Susie Britton for producing this segment. And as always, to you, our listeners, this is Forum. I'm Nina Kim.

This is Tanya Mosley, co-host of Fresh Air. You'll see your favorite actors, directors, and comedians on late-night TV shows or YouTube. But what you get with Fresh Air is a deep dive. Spend some quality time with people like Billie Eilish, Questlove, Ariana Grande, Stephen Colbert, and so many more. We ask questions you won't hear asked anywhere else. Listen to the Fresh Air podcast from NPR and WHYY.

Hey, it's Glenn Washington, the host of the Snap Judgment Podcast. At Snap, we tell cinematic stories that let you feel what it's like inside someone else's skin. Stories that let you walk in someone else's footsteps. Storytelling like you've never heard. The highs, the lows, the joys, the pain, the twists, the turns, the laughs, the life. Snap Judgment drops each and every week. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.