Upon hearing about PaulWeiss capitulation, as a retired civil rights lawyer, I had to do something. I stood in front of the PaulWeiss San Francisco office and protested. I was alone the first few times but 50 wonderful members of Indivisible East Bay joined me. I am sickened by the cowardice of PaulWeiss and the other 8:firms which have overtly joined forces with the felon tyrant and the many others that have silently and fearfully joined the ranks of cowards letting the rule of law be destroyed. See Youtube retired lawyer protests KPIX.
Yes I agree. A malignant narcissistic opportunist...., an ass he is.....
I am especially disgusted that this draft dodging wimp missed Vietnam. Hey Donny, I enlisted, served as a Navy Corpsman with a Marine infantry company (I 3/9 3rd MarDiv). I understand your "Vietnam" was dodging sexually transmitted diseases. You are such a worthless thing.....
The Society for the Rule of Law stands firmly on the right side of history. Attorneys in private practice, academia, state government, and those departing the federal civil service have consistently demonstrated greater competence than those purporting to represent the United States—namely, President Trump and his enablers. This disparity is being exposed in courtrooms almost daily. Judges are increasingly noting that Department of Justice lawyers are not entitled to deference or the presumption of regularity in government conduct.
This reality has not gone unnoticed within the legal community. It is steadily eroding the willingness of many law firms to defend the Administration’s actions before other members of the Bar and in conversations with clients who have experienced arbitrary and capricious treatment. One striking example is the case before Judge Burroughs involving the Administration’s cancellation of billions of dollars in contracts related to medical research and public health. The justification—that Harvard’s policies are “anti-Semitic”—is specious, especially given that the university’s president, a substantial portion of its faculty, and many of the affected researchers are Jewish (as is Judge Burroughs who had difficulty appearing dispassionate in the face of such arguments).
It is outrageous that the Administration has targeted specific law firms it deems hostile—suspending security clearances, terminating contracts, restricting federal access, and demanding contractor disclosures. In response, firms like Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block fought back in court, winning First Amendment injunctions. Others—including Paul, Weiss; Skadden; and Kirkland & Ellis—settled, agreeing to costly pro bono commitments for administration-approved causes and scaling back or eliminating DEI programs.
The Administration has lost every case in which law firms opposed its unlawful and unconstitutional Executive Orders. The Department of Justice has not sought to appeal any of these adverse rulings, since intimidation—not legal victory—is its goal. Sadly, corporate America has largely cowered. Professor Erran Carmel of American University's Kogod School of Business recently published initial research examining how Fortune 500 companies have altered (largely abandoned) their DEI policies in response to today’s political climate. See “Caution in the C-suite: How business leaders are navigating Trump 2.0,” at The Conversation.
Timothy Snyder’s most famous warning about “obeying in advance” comes from his short book On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century (2017). There, he describes how authoritarian regimes rely less on constant coercion than on the willingness of individuals and institutions to anticipate what those in power want—and to conform preemptively. The jury system suggests that plaintiffs with valid claims of discrimination will win many cases, since they need only demonstrate civil liability by a preponderance of the evidence. Many of these cases will be highly fact-specific and cannot be dismissed on summary judgment.
It remains to be seen whether companies will find themselves defending—and losing—thousands of lawsuits. Causes of action will arise under both federal and state law and will prove costly to all parties involved. In many jurisdictions, the defending corporations will not be sympathetic defendants, and many employees may not provide helpful testimony if their friends and colleagues have been negatively impacted.
Some corporations—such as Oracle, Morgan Stanley, McDonald’s, and others—have moved their legal work away from firms that compromised their independence, particularly those entangled in disputes with the government. These companies recognized that some firms prioritized maintaining favorable relations with the Administration over rigorously pursuing their clients’ interests. Within law firms, veritable civil wars have erupted: litigators abhor the idea of compromising with unlawful interference and executive overreach, while transactional partners live in fear. Firms are losing associates who reject their political culture. Prominent lawyers are leaving firms that lack the will to uphold the core principles set out in applicable Codes of Conduct governing the practice of law, which are generally patterned on the ABA Model Rules.
Significantly, the generally conservative but pro–rule of law American Bar Association has filed its own lawsuit against the Trump Administration. See “ABA sues over Trump administration's intimidation of law firms and lawyers,” ABA Journal, Amanda Robert, June 16, 2025, and American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, et al., Civil Case No. 25-1888, filed June 16, 2025.
Many law firms have had to “pay to play.” Corporations that severed ties with firms willing to capitulate to this extortion recognize that both the country and their commercial interests depend on the rule of law—now threatened by the Administration in areas such as the imposition of punitive tariffs on traditional allies and major trading partners like Canada, Brazil, and Mexico.
Judge Beryl Howell, in granting a temporary restraining order on March 12, 2025, warned that such retaliation imposes a “chilling harm of blizzard proportions” across the legal profession. Lawyers cannot serve clients effectively if they fear reprisal for doing so. See TRO Hearing Transcript. Corporate counsel and boards who ignore this reality may breach their fiduciary duties and invite shareholder suits.
(i) Concerns about legal independence and coercion
Many international legal outlets interpret such “free work” deals as implicitly coerced by the administration. They stress that when powerful firms agree to provide free legal services to a government body, especially one that has publicly threatened them, it raises structural concerns about the independence of the legal profession. The International Bar Association, for instance, frames the executive orders and promised pro bono commitments as undermining lawyer autonomy.
International Bar Association
(ii) “Deals” as a tool of power and control
Observers in global legal journals see these arrangements not just as benevolence but as an exertion of political pressure—effectively using state leverage to demand favorable alignment from elite firms. The IBA commentary describes them as part of a “playbook” to suppress legal opposition.
International Bar Association
(iii) Chilling effects on pro bono and dissent litigation
Reports suggest that these deals may redirect or limit traditional pro bono work, particularly on cases that might oppose the state. By tying firms to administration-approved causes, the critiques argue, fewer resources remain for independent or adversarial legal work.
International Bar Association
(iv) International legal standards & norms invoked
Coverage often references international principles of legal ethics, rule of law norms, and how a law system’s credibility depends on lawyers being able to represent clients without fear of reprisal. Some global legal media compare these to patterns in weaker democracies where governments pressure law firms to comply.
International Bar Association
(v) Support and pushback from legal institutions
Institutions like the International Bar Association, bar associations abroad, and press freedom groups are entering the conversation—filing statements, press releases, and critiques. For example, RSF (Reporters Without Borders) is arguing that such pressure on law firms endangers press freedom by limiting legal representation for journalists.
Reporters Without Borders
Here are some examples and notable coverage
The IBA’s piece “US presidency: law firms face targeted executive orders that undermine independence of profession” explores how multiple U.S. firms have been pressured into hidden or formal “deals” pledging pro bono work favorable to the administration, with moral and ethical trade-offs flagged.
International Bar Association
Reuters reported that even firms that had struck these deals are taking on litigation against parts of the Trump administration (e.g. school districts suing over education policy), suggesting a complex and sometimes contradictory landscape.
Reuters
Bloomberg Law is highlighting that Democratic lawmakers are now demanding deeper disclosure from firms like Paul Weiss, Skadden, and Kirkland & Ellis about the nature and scope of work done for the administration, questioning whether it truly qualifies as “pro bono.”
Bloomberg Law News
RSF, in the media/press freedom space, has weighed in by joining amicus briefs opposing executive orders that punish firms representing clients deemed unfavorable by the administration. They frame it as part of a larger threat to press freedom.
Reporters Without Borders
Here’s a roundup of how foreign press (Europe, Latin America, Asia) are covering or interpreting the story of U.S. law firms doing pro bono / “free work” deals for the Trump administration — plus the angles they emphasize and criticisms they raise.
Key Headlines & Coverage Abroad
The Guardian (UK / global)
“Legal groups resist Trump authoritarian moves with pro bono work” — frames it as a backlash by legal actors asserting the rule of law.
The Guardian
“Two more law firms reach deals with Trump to avoid punitive executive orders” — notes that firms are being maneuvered into deals under threat of punishment.
The Guardian
“Fear spreads as Trump targets lawyers and non-profits in ‘authoritarian’ move” — describes how legal and non-profit sectors see a chilling effect.
The Guardian
“‘A capitalistic cowardice’: big law firms being threatened by Trump face pressure” — strong moral language, arguing that firms are under duress.
The Guardian
“US lawyers set up own firms to lead legal fightback in face of Trump onslaught” — highlights shift of legal talent breaking away to resist pressure.
The Guardian
“More than 80 ex-staffers of top law firm express ‘deep …’” — internal pushback within firms, especially Skadden, over their deals.
The Guardian
Le Monde / French media (in translation / commentary)
I did not find a direct Le Monde article on this topic in the searches so far. However, French media often rely on The Guardian / Reuters / Associated Press wire coverage and tend to frame it as part of broader concerns about the U.S. “rule of law crisis” or institutional erosion.
In general French commentary would likely highlight tensions between “republican values” (rule of law, separation of powers) and what they see as executive overreach in the U.S.
Continental Europe / Global Legal / Latin America
TrustLaw / ProPublico writeups on global pro bono note that pro bono culture is growing in Europe and Latin America, but see these U.S. developments as outliers or stress tests.
ProPublico
Some Latin American legal discourse draws analogies between U.S. firms being coerced and pressures on law firms in weaker democracies where governments demand loyalty from private actors. (This is more in opinion / legal commentary circles than front-page news.)
Asia & Pacific region
In jurisdictions like India, Australia, Singapore, etc., legal professional media are watching closely—some see this as a warning: if a democracy like the U.S. can pressure law firms, so too might illiberal governments elsewhere.
Global surveys (e.g., Pro Bono Institute’s surveys covering 84 jurisdictions) show that pro bono practice is growing in Asia, but commentary notes that in many places pro bono is still marginal compared to the U.S./UK models.
Pro Bono Institute
How International Outlets Frame the Story
Here are repeated narrative frames and emphases you’ll see in non-U.S. coverage:
Frame Focus Why it matters internationally
Rule of Law under stress These “free work” deals are seen as pressure tools to control the legal profession, not genuine philanthropy. If U.S. firms, with many protections, can be pressured like this, it sets a dangerous global precedent.
Coercion over voluntarism Many commentaries suggest these agreements are not voluntary but coerced by executive orders and threats. Distinguishes this from normal pro bono tradition; raises ethical questions for the legal profession.
Internal dissent & reputational risk Journalists point out resignations, staff protests, public letters from firms’ alumni. Signals that the deals are controversial even within U.S. firms; foreign readers see it as scandalous.
Comparative warning Some legal commentators compare U.S. pressure tactics to state interference in law in weaker democracies. Encourages reflection in other countries: “If it can happen in the U.S., it might happen to us too.”
Global pro bono culture challenged The U.S. is often seen as a leader in pro bono; when top U.S. firms compromise, that affects the model globally. Other jurisdictions may lose confidence in the U.S. standard or see it as less morally pristine.
Upon hearing about PaulWeiss capitulation, as a retired civil rights lawyer, I had to do something. I stood in front of the PaulWeiss San Francisco office and protested. I was alone the first few times but 50 wonderful members of Indivisible East Bay joined me. I am sickened by the cowardice of PaulWeiss and the other 8:firms which have overtly joined forces with the felon tyrant and the many others that have silently and fearfully joined the ranks of cowards letting the rule of law be destroyed. See Youtube retired lawyer protests KPIX.
Yes I agree. A malignant narcissistic opportunist...., an ass he is.....
I am especially disgusted that this draft dodging wimp missed Vietnam. Hey Donny, I enlisted, served as a Navy Corpsman with a Marine infantry company (I 3/9 3rd MarDiv). I understand your "Vietnam" was dodging sexually transmitted diseases. You are such a worthless thing.....
The Society for the Rule of Law stands firmly on the right side of history. Attorneys in private practice, academia, state government, and those departing the federal civil service have consistently demonstrated greater competence than those purporting to represent the United States—namely, President Trump and his enablers. This disparity is being exposed in courtrooms almost daily. Judges are increasingly noting that Department of Justice lawyers are not entitled to deference or the presumption of regularity in government conduct.
This reality has not gone unnoticed within the legal community. It is steadily eroding the willingness of many law firms to defend the Administration’s actions before other members of the Bar and in conversations with clients who have experienced arbitrary and capricious treatment. One striking example is the case before Judge Burroughs involving the Administration’s cancellation of billions of dollars in contracts related to medical research and public health. The justification—that Harvard’s policies are “anti-Semitic”—is specious, especially given that the university’s president, a substantial portion of its faculty, and many of the affected researchers are Jewish (as is Judge Burroughs who had difficulty appearing dispassionate in the face of such arguments).
It is outrageous that the Administration has targeted specific law firms it deems hostile—suspending security clearances, terminating contracts, restricting federal access, and demanding contractor disclosures. In response, firms like Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block fought back in court, winning First Amendment injunctions. Others—including Paul, Weiss; Skadden; and Kirkland & Ellis—settled, agreeing to costly pro bono commitments for administration-approved causes and scaling back or eliminating DEI programs.
The Administration has lost every case in which law firms opposed its unlawful and unconstitutional Executive Orders. The Department of Justice has not sought to appeal any of these adverse rulings, since intimidation—not legal victory—is its goal. Sadly, corporate America has largely cowered. Professor Erran Carmel of American University's Kogod School of Business recently published initial research examining how Fortune 500 companies have altered (largely abandoned) their DEI policies in response to today’s political climate. See “Caution in the C-suite: How business leaders are navigating Trump 2.0,” at The Conversation.
Timothy Snyder’s most famous warning about “obeying in advance” comes from his short book On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century (2017). There, he describes how authoritarian regimes rely less on constant coercion than on the willingness of individuals and institutions to anticipate what those in power want—and to conform preemptively. The jury system suggests that plaintiffs with valid claims of discrimination will win many cases, since they need only demonstrate civil liability by a preponderance of the evidence. Many of these cases will be highly fact-specific and cannot be dismissed on summary judgment.
It remains to be seen whether companies will find themselves defending—and losing—thousands of lawsuits. Causes of action will arise under both federal and state law and will prove costly to all parties involved. In many jurisdictions, the defending corporations will not be sympathetic defendants, and many employees may not provide helpful testimony if their friends and colleagues have been negatively impacted.
Some corporations—such as Oracle, Morgan Stanley, McDonald’s, and others—have moved their legal work away from firms that compromised their independence, particularly those entangled in disputes with the government. These companies recognized that some firms prioritized maintaining favorable relations with the Administration over rigorously pursuing their clients’ interests. Within law firms, veritable civil wars have erupted: litigators abhor the idea of compromising with unlawful interference and executive overreach, while transactional partners live in fear. Firms are losing associates who reject their political culture. Prominent lawyers are leaving firms that lack the will to uphold the core principles set out in applicable Codes of Conduct governing the practice of law, which are generally patterned on the ABA Model Rules.
Significantly, the generally conservative but pro–rule of law American Bar Association has filed its own lawsuit against the Trump Administration. See “ABA sues over Trump administration's intimidation of law firms and lawyers,” ABA Journal, Amanda Robert, June 16, 2025, and American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, et al., Civil Case No. 25-1888, filed June 16, 2025.
Many law firms have had to “pay to play.” Corporations that severed ties with firms willing to capitulate to this extortion recognize that both the country and their commercial interests depend on the rule of law—now threatened by the Administration in areas such as the imposition of punitive tariffs on traditional allies and major trading partners like Canada, Brazil, and Mexico.
Judge Beryl Howell, in granting a temporary restraining order on March 12, 2025, warned that such retaliation imposes a “chilling harm of blizzard proportions” across the legal profession. Lawyers cannot serve clients effectively if they fear reprisal for doing so. See TRO Hearing Transcript. Corporate counsel and boards who ignore this reality may breach their fiduciary duties and invite shareholder suits.
Thank-you for your public comments.
Greg,
You are several steps ahead of the rest.
This story has global significance.
Thanks for spreading the word.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here are some key themes in coverage
(i) Concerns about legal independence and coercion
Many international legal outlets interpret such “free work” deals as implicitly coerced by the administration. They stress that when powerful firms agree to provide free legal services to a government body, especially one that has publicly threatened them, it raises structural concerns about the independence of the legal profession. The International Bar Association, for instance, frames the executive orders and promised pro bono commitments as undermining lawyer autonomy.
International Bar Association
(ii) “Deals” as a tool of power and control
Observers in global legal journals see these arrangements not just as benevolence but as an exertion of political pressure—effectively using state leverage to demand favorable alignment from elite firms. The IBA commentary describes them as part of a “playbook” to suppress legal opposition.
International Bar Association
(iii) Chilling effects on pro bono and dissent litigation
Reports suggest that these deals may redirect or limit traditional pro bono work, particularly on cases that might oppose the state. By tying firms to administration-approved causes, the critiques argue, fewer resources remain for independent or adversarial legal work.
International Bar Association
(iv) International legal standards & norms invoked
Coverage often references international principles of legal ethics, rule of law norms, and how a law system’s credibility depends on lawyers being able to represent clients without fear of reprisal. Some global legal media compare these to patterns in weaker democracies where governments pressure law firms to comply.
International Bar Association
(v) Support and pushback from legal institutions
Institutions like the International Bar Association, bar associations abroad, and press freedom groups are entering the conversation—filing statements, press releases, and critiques. For example, RSF (Reporters Without Borders) is arguing that such pressure on law firms endangers press freedom by limiting legal representation for journalists.
Reporters Without Borders
Here are some examples and notable coverage
The IBA’s piece “US presidency: law firms face targeted executive orders that undermine independence of profession” explores how multiple U.S. firms have been pressured into hidden or formal “deals” pledging pro bono work favorable to the administration, with moral and ethical trade-offs flagged.
International Bar Association
Reuters reported that even firms that had struck these deals are taking on litigation against parts of the Trump administration (e.g. school districts suing over education policy), suggesting a complex and sometimes contradictory landscape.
Reuters
Bloomberg Law is highlighting that Democratic lawmakers are now demanding deeper disclosure from firms like Paul Weiss, Skadden, and Kirkland & Ellis about the nature and scope of work done for the administration, questioning whether it truly qualifies as “pro bono.”
Bloomberg Law News
RSF, in the media/press freedom space, has weighed in by joining amicus briefs opposing executive orders that punish firms representing clients deemed unfavorable by the administration. They frame it as part of a larger threat to press freedom.
Reporters Without Borders
Here’s a roundup of how foreign press (Europe, Latin America, Asia) are covering or interpreting the story of U.S. law firms doing pro bono / “free work” deals for the Trump administration — plus the angles they emphasize and criticisms they raise.
Key Headlines & Coverage Abroad
The Guardian (UK / global)
“Legal groups resist Trump authoritarian moves with pro bono work” — frames it as a backlash by legal actors asserting the rule of law.
The Guardian
“Two more law firms reach deals with Trump to avoid punitive executive orders” — notes that firms are being maneuvered into deals under threat of punishment.
The Guardian
“Fear spreads as Trump targets lawyers and non-profits in ‘authoritarian’ move” — describes how legal and non-profit sectors see a chilling effect.
The Guardian
“‘A capitalistic cowardice’: big law firms being threatened by Trump face pressure” — strong moral language, arguing that firms are under duress.
The Guardian
“US lawyers set up own firms to lead legal fightback in face of Trump onslaught” — highlights shift of legal talent breaking away to resist pressure.
The Guardian
“More than 80 ex-staffers of top law firm express ‘deep …’” — internal pushback within firms, especially Skadden, over their deals.
The Guardian
Le Monde / French media (in translation / commentary)
I did not find a direct Le Monde article on this topic in the searches so far. However, French media often rely on The Guardian / Reuters / Associated Press wire coverage and tend to frame it as part of broader concerns about the U.S. “rule of law crisis” or institutional erosion.
In general French commentary would likely highlight tensions between “republican values” (rule of law, separation of powers) and what they see as executive overreach in the U.S.
Continental Europe / Global Legal / Latin America
TrustLaw / ProPublico writeups on global pro bono note that pro bono culture is growing in Europe and Latin America, but see these U.S. developments as outliers or stress tests.
ProPublico
Some Latin American legal discourse draws analogies between U.S. firms being coerced and pressures on law firms in weaker democracies where governments demand loyalty from private actors. (This is more in opinion / legal commentary circles than front-page news.)
Asia & Pacific region
In jurisdictions like India, Australia, Singapore, etc., legal professional media are watching closely—some see this as a warning: if a democracy like the U.S. can pressure law firms, so too might illiberal governments elsewhere.
Global surveys (e.g., Pro Bono Institute’s surveys covering 84 jurisdictions) show that pro bono practice is growing in Asia, but commentary notes that in many places pro bono is still marginal compared to the U.S./UK models.
Pro Bono Institute
How International Outlets Frame the Story
Here are repeated narrative frames and emphases you’ll see in non-U.S. coverage:
Frame Focus Why it matters internationally
Rule of Law under stress These “free work” deals are seen as pressure tools to control the legal profession, not genuine philanthropy. If U.S. firms, with many protections, can be pressured like this, it sets a dangerous global precedent.
Coercion over voluntarism Many commentaries suggest these agreements are not voluntary but coerced by executive orders and threats. Distinguishes this from normal pro bono tradition; raises ethical questions for the legal profession.
Internal dissent & reputational risk Journalists point out resignations, staff protests, public letters from firms’ alumni. Signals that the deals are controversial even within U.S. firms; foreign readers see it as scandalous.
Comparative warning Some legal commentators compare U.S. pressure tactics to state interference in law in weaker democracies. Encourages reflection in other countries: “If it can happen in the U.S., it might happen to us too.”
Global pro bono culture challenged The U.S. is often seen as a leader in pro bono; when top U.S. firms compromise, that affects the model globally. Other jurisdictions may lose confidence in the U.S. standard or see it as less morally pristine.