A powerful and well-stated case, Professor; thank you. I wish I could believe that any lawyer arguing dangerous nonsense on Trump’s behalf would spend the rest of their professional days chasing ambulances in rural North Dakota. But I remain astonished that Berkeley, of all schools, hired John “torture memos” Yoo.
Randall: In 2023, Senator Tom Cotton issued a warning (or was it a threat?) to the Nation's largest law firms. In essence, he said that if law firms continue to advise corporate clients on how best to incorporate DEI programs then the government will be coming after them . The Nations' largest firms must have simply hoped the Democrats would win, because they never publicly responded. If Tom Cotton can get away with that behavior, imagine how easy it is for President Trump to take it to a whole different level. Joseph M. Antonellis
Good post. Also to know: Trump/Musk want to break the Federal government, eliminate staff and subject matter expertise, and cut funding so they have a pretext for privatization. And sale/giveaway of public lands. If the Fed govt can’t provide services/maintain public lands, then bring in the private sector. We’ve heard this of course but it makes sense/explains a lot.
Brad Karp’s email is a detailed and emotionally resonant defense of the firm’s decision to settle. But it reinforces three things for me. First, even the strongest legal institutions are imperfect and weak. One of the most elite firms in the world was nearly undone by a single executive order. It saw no viable path forward through litigation (despite ample legal resources). Second, and more important, large law firms are businesses, and this is a weakness not a strength. Protecting clients, revenue streams, and livelihoods means they must compromise core values. The very act of negotiating a settlement that aligns with government-preferred pro bono work—rather than standing firm on the principle of professional independence—is arguably a concession to political pressure. While logical in the short term, the firm has threatened not only the profession’s ethical foundations but its public credibility. Which leads me to my final point. It is more important than ever for individual lawyers to commit to the rule of law. We can’t rely on institutions to save us. Lawyers working at firms must personally re-commit themselves to Rule 2.1 (independent judgment), Rule 5.4 (independence from outside influence), and the broader ethical duty to justice. We can’t wait for “somebody” to do the right thing. We are the people we have been waiting for.
A powerful and well-stated case, Professor; thank you. I wish I could believe that any lawyer arguing dangerous nonsense on Trump’s behalf would spend the rest of their professional days chasing ambulances in rural North Dakota. But I remain astonished that Berkeley, of all schools, hired John “torture memos” Yoo.
Randall: In 2023, Senator Tom Cotton issued a warning (or was it a threat?) to the Nation's largest law firms. In essence, he said that if law firms continue to advise corporate clients on how best to incorporate DEI programs then the government will be coming after them . The Nations' largest firms must have simply hoped the Democrats would win, because they never publicly responded. If Tom Cotton can get away with that behavior, imagine how easy it is for President Trump to take it to a whole different level. Joseph M. Antonellis
Thank you, Randall. We need more organized resistance like you propose
Good post. Also to know: Trump/Musk want to break the Federal government, eliminate staff and subject matter expertise, and cut funding so they have a pretext for privatization. And sale/giveaway of public lands. If the Fed govt can’t provide services/maintain public lands, then bring in the private sector. We’ve heard this of course but it makes sense/explains a lot.
Brad Karp’s email is a detailed and emotionally resonant defense of the firm’s decision to settle. But it reinforces three things for me. First, even the strongest legal institutions are imperfect and weak. One of the most elite firms in the world was nearly undone by a single executive order. It saw no viable path forward through litigation (despite ample legal resources). Second, and more important, large law firms are businesses, and this is a weakness not a strength. Protecting clients, revenue streams, and livelihoods means they must compromise core values. The very act of negotiating a settlement that aligns with government-preferred pro bono work—rather than standing firm on the principle of professional independence—is arguably a concession to political pressure. While logical in the short term, the firm has threatened not only the profession’s ethical foundations but its public credibility. Which leads me to my final point. It is more important than ever for individual lawyers to commit to the rule of law. We can’t rely on institutions to save us. Lawyers working at firms must personally re-commit themselves to Rule 2.1 (independent judgment), Rule 5.4 (independence from outside influence), and the broader ethical duty to justice. We can’t wait for “somebody” to do the right thing. We are the people we have been waiting for.
Appeasers.
Despicable
When feckless ‘super-lawyers’ humiliate themselves, what is left to save us but satire? Check out The Advocate’s Devil: Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary for lawyers. https://aworldeofwordes.substack.com/p/the-advocates-devil-6b5?r=5d7dmx.