The firms that have caved rather than challenge the egregiously unconstitutional executive orders issued by the Trump Administration have all agreed to provide tens of millions of dollars of pro bono assistance.
Another spot–on post, Brad. Beyond the constitutional and other legal issues about which you and others have written, these conflict issues are dizzying. Especially in light of Trump‘s reference to the capitulating firms as “his lawyers” and his assumption that they could actually perform legal work for the government, there could also be massive Rule 1.7(a) conflicts. Of course, even assuming those direct-adversity conflicts were consentable, a firm would need the informed consent of the government as well as of its many clients with interest adverse to the government; and those consents would be subject to the demanding disclosures that firms would often be unable to provide under Rule 1.6(a), as you so compellingly discuss. Maybe that was the goal all along—beyond extracting shameful obedience to shameful demands and financial commitments from the capitulating firms, to put them into an inescapable conflicts box that would entirely negate their ability to represent their Big-Law clients with interests adverse to the government, even on non-culture-war issues like the mergers and other regulatory work that you mentioned. In other words, beyond denying legal services to offensive-to-Trump pro bono clients, the upshot of the law firms‘ deals with the devil might be to deny legal services to the clients they purportedly took the deals in order to “protect.” Thanks for highlighting these issues, Brad
Great post as usual Brad. When news broke of the Paul Weiss deal I heard from an acquaintance who is a former GC for a large law firm and we made ourselves dizzy, as Marcy puts it, trying to think through all the conflicts. Will be interesting to see if this is acknowledged or dealt with in any way within the firms or dismissed as "potential" if raised. Great also to see the cite to the McMunigal article. Keep up the great work
Finally! Glad to see this out there, Brad. Far too little attention has, in my view, been paid to these conflicts issues in the many media reports about these EOs.
Big coincidence. The other day I was on a Zoom meeting with the conflicts staff of a major law firm. There were 20 people there, mostly lawyers(!). Something seemed off; I am neither intimidating nor boring. Later that day, or the next morning, I learned that firm had caved to Trump. I thought, when I learned this, maybe the mood I encountered was because they were unhappy the firm was not "standing up for the rule of law." Your article brings home that they may have been worried about how to do their conflicts work. Yikes. This is nauseating.
Thanks, Bill. A lot of the commentary so far has focused on the inhibiting effect of these deals on law firms' pro bono representations, and it's true that if these firms think they can continue to represent petitioners in capital habeas matters, people unlawfully detained and removed from the country, transgender athletes, graduate students protesting against the conduct of Israel's war in Gaza, etc. But I was starting to realize that these deals will affect these firms' paid engagements as well. The penny dropped for me when listening to the Serious Trouble episode about the AUSA in Los Angeles who was fired - not just removed from the case but terminated from government employment - for prosecuting someone who is either a buddy of Trump's or is well-connected with one of his supporters. That plus the CBS News matter, which has been ongoing, made me realize how much this administration will use the power of the government to intervene on behalf of favored parties and in opposition to disfavored ones. The risk for firms is getting on the wrong side of that line in what would otherwise be garden-variety litigation or transactional matters. Now they have to politically vet all of their representations. That's going to make conflicts-checking a bit more . . . interesting.
Another spot–on post, Brad. Beyond the constitutional and other legal issues about which you and others have written, these conflict issues are dizzying. Especially in light of Trump‘s reference to the capitulating firms as “his lawyers” and his assumption that they could actually perform legal work for the government, there could also be massive Rule 1.7(a) conflicts. Of course, even assuming those direct-adversity conflicts were consentable, a firm would need the informed consent of the government as well as of its many clients with interest adverse to the government; and those consents would be subject to the demanding disclosures that firms would often be unable to provide under Rule 1.6(a), as you so compellingly discuss. Maybe that was the goal all along—beyond extracting shameful obedience to shameful demands and financial commitments from the capitulating firms, to put them into an inescapable conflicts box that would entirely negate their ability to represent their Big-Law clients with interests adverse to the government, even on non-culture-war issues like the mergers and other regulatory work that you mentioned. In other words, beyond denying legal services to offensive-to-Trump pro bono clients, the upshot of the law firms‘ deals with the devil might be to deny legal services to the clients they purportedly took the deals in order to “protect.” Thanks for highlighting these issues, Brad
Great post as usual Brad. When news broke of the Paul Weiss deal I heard from an acquaintance who is a former GC for a large law firm and we made ourselves dizzy, as Marcy puts it, trying to think through all the conflicts. Will be interesting to see if this is acknowledged or dealt with in any way within the firms or dismissed as "potential" if raised. Great also to see the cite to the McMunigal article. Keep up the great work
Finally! Glad to see this out there, Brad. Far too little attention has, in my view, been paid to these conflicts issues in the many media reports about these EOs.
Big coincidence. The other day I was on a Zoom meeting with the conflicts staff of a major law firm. There were 20 people there, mostly lawyers(!). Something seemed off; I am neither intimidating nor boring. Later that day, or the next morning, I learned that firm had caved to Trump. I thought, when I learned this, maybe the mood I encountered was because they were unhappy the firm was not "standing up for the rule of law." Your article brings home that they may have been worried about how to do their conflicts work. Yikes. This is nauseating.
Thanks, Bill. A lot of the commentary so far has focused on the inhibiting effect of these deals on law firms' pro bono representations, and it's true that if these firms think they can continue to represent petitioners in capital habeas matters, people unlawfully detained and removed from the country, transgender athletes, graduate students protesting against the conduct of Israel's war in Gaza, etc. But I was starting to realize that these deals will affect these firms' paid engagements as well. The penny dropped for me when listening to the Serious Trouble episode about the AUSA in Los Angeles who was fired - not just removed from the case but terminated from government employment - for prosecuting someone who is either a buddy of Trump's or is well-connected with one of his supporters. That plus the CBS News matter, which has been ongoing, made me realize how much this administration will use the power of the government to intervene on behalf of favored parties and in opposition to disfavored ones. The risk for firms is getting on the wrong side of that line in what would otherwise be garden-variety litigation or transactional matters. Now they have to politically vet all of their representations. That's going to make conflicts-checking a bit more . . . interesting.
This is absolutely disgraceful and disgusting.