WASHINGTON — The chairman of a distinguished law firm, who brokered an agreement with President Donald Trump to stave off the effects of a White House executive order, communicated to colleagues via email on Sunday that this was done out of necessity. The executive order, he explained, posed a serious risk to their firm’s survival.
In his correspondence, Brad Karp offered an in-depth explanation about the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Garrison & Wharton’s decision to make considerable compromises in response to the executive order. The order threatened to suspend security clearances of Paul Weiss attorneys and terminate federal contracts with the firm, primarily because a former attorney from the firm, Mark Pomerantz, played a significant role in a Manhattan district attorney investigation into Trump’s finances before Trump assumed the presidency.
Following a meeting with Karp, Trump announced last Thursday that the March 14 order had been revoked. The White House stated that the firm agreed to provide $40 million in free legal services supporting certain Trump administration agenda focuses, such as combating antisemitism; to evaluate its hiring practices and refrain from DEI policies; and to maintain political neutrality in selecting clients.
The legal community responded with strong criticism, accusing the firm of yielding to Trump instead of resisting him, particularly amidst a period where he employs presidential power to threaten lawyers and businesses perceived as adversarial. This incident underscores Trump’s recent achievements in extracting concessions from various sectors, including academia and private firms, willing to compromise rather than engage in conflict.
In the email obtained, Karp depicted the order as posing an “existential crisis” for the firm, indicating that it could not have endured a protracted battle against the Trump administration. He remarked that the order imposed the government’s full force on their firm, employees, and clients, jeopardizing their clients’ government contracts and access.
Initially, the firm contemplated legally contesting the executive order, a step taken by another firm, Perkins Coie. However, Karp acknowledged that even with a successful legal challenge, the core issue of clients viewing the firm as unwelcome by the administration remained. He noted a lack of anticipated support from other firms, observing instead that some sought to leverage the situation by courting their clients and attorneys.
Given this context, when a potential compromise surfaced, the firm negotiated a settlement quickly. “I know many of you are uncomfortable that we entered into any sort of resolution at all. That is completely understandable,” Karp wrote, acknowledging the tough position they faced.
The firm joins a list of entities, including Columbia University, which recently accepted Trump administration demands to restructure its Middle Eastern studies department to avoid losing federal funding. Tech and financial companies have similarly reversed DEI initiatives to align with Trumpian policies. Columbia’s decision follows in the footsteps of Meta and ABC settling disputes by making payments to Trump’s future presidential library.
This situation reflects ongoing challenges for organizations dealing with the power dynamics and strategic decisions influenced by the broader political landscape.