1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Attrition rate is ‘markedly higher’ for associates…

Careers

Attrition rate is ‘markedly higher’ for associates of color, NALP Foundation says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 29, 2025, 9:19 am CDT

The attrition rate for associates in law firms was 20% in 2024, up from 18% in 2023 but still lower than the historic high of 26% in 2021, according to the NALP Foundation for Law Career Research and Education.

The attrition rate was slightly higher for females than males, at 22% and 20% respectively, and was “markedly higher” for associates of color, at 24% compared to 19% for white associates, according to selected findings from the NALP Foundation’s newest annual Update on Associate Attrition, a detailed report on firms’ associate hiring and departures for 2024.

An April 24 press release summarized the findings.

More associates are leaving in a shorter time frame than in the past, according to the data from 119 reporting firms in the United States and Canada. In 2024, 74% of associates left their firms within four years of their hiring, up from a high of 72% in 2023. That is a departure from the five-year historical pattern for departures.

The survey also found an increase in hiring and departures at the surveyed firms. In 2024, 6,092 associates were hired by reporting firms, up from 5,236 in 2023. The number who left—4,125 associates—was also higher than in 2023, when 3,875 associates left firms.

Fifty-five percent of new associates were hired at the entry level, rather than laterally. The difference is even more pronounced in the largest firms of more than 1,000 lawyers, where 61% of associate hires were at the entry level.

Fiona Trevelyan Hornblower, the president and CEO of the NALP Foundation, sees some trends in the findings.

“This new data shows shifts in the talent market are emerging, with the rise in entry level recruiting, as well as earlier departures by associates,” Hornblower said in the press release.

More larger than smaller firms responded to the survey. Only 17% of responding firms had 100 or fewer lawyers. Thirty-seven percent of the firms had more than 500 attorneys.

Law.com covered the results.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Firm failed to honor exit package after retaliating…

Law Firms

Firm failed to honor exit package after retaliating for bias complaint, former BigLaw partner alleges

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 29, 2025, 10:53 am CDT

A former salaried partner at Womble Bond Dickinson has filed a lawsuit alleging that the law firm cut her pay by half and offered her an exit package—which it didn’t honor—after she complained about a hostile work environment.

The April 25 suit filed by Wilka Toppins alleges race and gender discrimination, retaliation, misrepresentation and breach of contract.

Law360 has a story on the suit, filed in Harris County, Texas.

Toppins, who is Hispanic, said she accomplished “a great deal of origination and a large book of business” after she began work at the firm’s Houston office in November 2021, despite receiving inadequate support.

For a majority of her time at the firm, Toppins “had no associate help and no secretarial help,” the suit said. She was also subjected to a “very hostile work environment” by firm members and support staff in her corporate and securities practice group, according to the suit.

“The disparity in treatment included not providing sufficient support, attempting to take away plaintiff’s immigration clients and business, speaking to plaintiff in a derogatory and condescending manner, and failing to fulfill basic promises to her,” the suit said.

Toppins was the only Hispanic female in the entire firm at the time of her hiring, according to the suit.

After Toppins complained, the firm said it would investigate. Eventually, Toppins was told that the firm found that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, but it was not because she was a member of a protected class.

A pattern of retaliation followed, the suit said. Toppins’ pay was cut from $350,000 to $175,000, and she was told that if she did not like the new salary, the firm would be happy to “transition her off,” according to the suit.

After Toppins sought restoration of her pay, Womble Bond Dickinson offered her an exit package consisting of a 10% referral agreement, a contract position for immigration work and a severance agreement. Relying on the agreement, Toppins resigned in January 2024.

The firm then failed to honor the agreement under the exit package, the suit said.

A spokesperson for Womble Bond Dickinson did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s request for comment made in an email and a voicemail.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Harvard Law Review investigated for alleged…

Law Schools

Harvard Law Review investigated for alleged ‘spoils system’ that uses race in article selection

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 29, 2025, 12:13 pm CDT

The federal government has opened an investigation into the Harvard Law Review “based on reports of race-based discrimination permeating the operations of the journal,” according to an April 28 press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

At issue is whether the law review’s policies for membership and article selection violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on race, color and national origin in education programs receiving federal funding.

Allocating opportunities and recognition based on race, rather than merit, is unacceptable, the press release said.

Reuters, Bloomberg Law, ABC News and the Harvard Crimson have coverage.

The civil rights offices of the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services are conducting investigation.

“Harvard Law Review’s article selection process appears to pick winners and losers on the basis of race, employing a spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission,” said Craig Trainor, the Education Department’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights, in the press release.

The investigation follows a report by the Washington Free Beacon concluding that race “plays a far larger role in the selection of both editors and articles” than previously acknowledged by the Harvard Law Review. The Washington Free Beacon article was based on leaked internal documents.

The press release cited alleged statements by editors at the Harvard Law Review in which they appeared to favor minority writers. In one instance, an editor allegedly voiced concern that four of the five people who wanted to reply to an article about police reform “are white men.” In another alleged incident, an editor suggested that an article should get expedited review because the author was a minority.

The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization that is legally independent from the Harvard Law School, according to a statement by a Harvard Law School spokesperson cited by publications covering the investigation.

The school is “committed to ensuring that the programs and activities it oversees are in compliance with all applicable laws and to investigating any credibly alleged violations,” the statement said.

The investigation was launched amid the federal government’s decision to freeze more than $2 billion in grants and contracts with Harvard University, which has sued in response.

See also:

Lawsuits target law reviews at Harvard and NYU, saying they favor women and minorities

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Law students sue EEOC over investigative…

Law Students

Law students sue EEOC over investigative letters sent to 20 BigLaw firms

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 17, 2025, 9:43 am CDT

Three law students have filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to order the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to withdraw investigative letters sent to 20 BigLaw firms and to return and delete information that it gathered from them.

The April 15 suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, says the EEOC acted beyond its authority when it demanded that law firms turn over sensitive personal information about their applicants and employees dating back six to 10 years.

The law students, who filed the suit using pseudonyms, are represented by Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal services organization, according to a April 15 press release.

Law.com and Reuters have coverage.

Reuters called the suit “the latest pushback against President Donald Trump’s efforts to rein in major law firms and eradicate workplace diversity, equity and inclusion programs.”

The plaintiffs are three law students who either applied to or worked at one of more of the 20 targeted firms. Information sought from the firms includes “sensitive personal information about plaintiffs and their employment history: their name, sex, race, contact information, academic performance and compensation,” the suit says.

Now that the EEOC and Andrea Lucas, the acting EEOC chair, have demanded the information, the suit says, the plaintiffs “are deeply worried that their data will be divulged, and that they may be targeted as a result.”

The law creating the EEOC provides that an investigation can be conducted only after a specific charge has been filed, the suit says. The law also “imposed strict confidentiality requirements on those charges and investigations, as well as on efforts to obtain voluntary compliance,” according to the suit.

Those requirements have not been met, according to the allegations.

The EEOC sought the information in a March 17 letter and announced the action in a press release. The targeted firms are: Perkins Coie; Cooley; Reed Smith; A&O Shearman; Debevoise & Plimpton; Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Goodwin Procter; Hogan Lovells; Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; McDermott Will & Emery; Milbank; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; Morrison & Foerster; Ropes & Gray; Sidley Austin; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; White & Case; and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

Six of the targeted firms have since reached deals with Trump to avoid becoming a target of punitive executive orders that would withdraw their lawyers’ security clearances and could imperil their representation of government contractors.

According to Law.com, those six firms are: Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, A&O Shearman, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Milbank and Skadden. It’s unclear whether agreements reached with Skadden and Milbank resolve the EEOC request. The other four firms agreed to compliance monitoring as part of those deals, but it’s not known if they agreed to provide the requested information.

See also:

EEOC chair requested ‘extensive’ info from law firms on DEI practices and hiring; did it cross a line?

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Conservative group sues ABA over Legal Opportunity…

Diversity

Conservative group sues ABA over Legal Opportunity Scholarship Fund program

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 17, 2025, 12:36 pm CDT

A group led by a conservative activist has filed a lawsuit alleging that an ABA scholarship program engages in “blatant discrimination” in violation of federal law.

The April 12 suit filed by the American Alliance for Equal Rights, a nonprofit organization, says the scholarships are contractual in nature, and their restrictions on eligibility violate Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination in contracting.

The ABA is represented by Jenner & Block, one of the law firms targeted in a punitive executive order by President Donald Trump, Bloomberg Law reports. Jenner & Block has filed a suit challenging the order against it.

The suit by conservative activist Edward Blum’s group targets the ABA’s Legal Opportunity Scholarship Fund, which awards $15,000 scholarships to select incoming law students. Applicants must be members of underrepresented racial or ethnic minorities, such as Black/African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian/Pacific Islanders, according to the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

“Even if the scholarship did not flatly exclude whites on its face,” the suit says, “the scholarship discriminates against whites in application and by design.”

The suit seeks a declaration that the scholarships violate Section 1981, an injunction barring the ABA from considering race or ethnicity in the program, an order to reopen the application process using neutral criteria, and nominal damages.

Another organization that Blum created, Students for Fair Admissions, won a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June 2023 that struck down race-conscious admissions programs in higher education.

The American Alliance for Equal Rights is represented by Lawfair and Consovoy McCarthy.

The goal of the new suit, Blum said in a statement, “is not to eliminate ABA’s scholarships but to ensure they are based on legitimate criteria, such as financial need or merit, rather than race.”

The ABA does not comment on active litigation, according to Jim Walsh, the chief communications officer and associate executive director of the ABA.

Publications covering the suit include Law.com, Law360, Reuters and Bloomberg Law.

See also:

Activist who succeeded in ending affirmative action targets law firms’ diversity efforts

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. After Texas chief justice criticizes ABA,…

Law Schools

After Texas chief justice criticizes ABA, state supreme court reconsiders ABA accreditation for law schools

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 8, 2025, 3:54 pm CDT

The Texas Supreme Court is inviting comments on a requirement that law grads seeking bar admission in the state must have graduated from a law school accredited by the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.

In an April 4 order, the Texas Supreme Court requested feedback on whether to “reduce or end” reliance on the ABA as an accrediting agency and “alternatives the court should consider.”

The state supreme court is inviting comments from the Texas Board of Law Examiners, Texas law school deans, the bar and the public, the order said.

Law360 covered the story.

The Texas Supreme Court did not comment on the reason for its order. But Chief Justice James D. Blacklock criticized the ABA in his February State of the Judiciary address for “aggressively taking sides in the fight going on in Washington about the scope of the president’s executive power.”

ABA President Bill Bay has criticized the Trump administration’s “wholesale dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress,” as well as “efforts to dismiss employees with little regard for the law and protections they merit.”

The Texas Supreme Court’s order follows a similar move last month by Florida’s top court. It has created a subgroup to reconsider the requirement that law grads taking the Florida bar exam must have graduated from an ABA-accredited law school.

The Florida Supreme Court took action because of “reasonable questions” about an accreditation standard on diversity and “the ABA’s active political engagement,” according to a press release. The Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has suspended enforcement of its diversity standard as it works on revisions.

The Association of American Law Schools is making the case for national accreditation of law schools in an April 8 open letter that has also been submitted to working groups considering the accreditation issue in Texas and Florida.

Thirty-three law schools, most of them in California, don’t have ABA accreditation. Most have “extremely low bar exam pass rates, poor job outcomes and high attrition rates,” the letter said.

The letter said national accreditation is critical for ensuring “a minimum baseline of quality in legal education and practice.” Most states don’t have the resources to sufficiently evaluate law schools, and “piecemeal, fragmented or overlapping regulation would increase costs on law schools, their students and the profession,” the letter said.

Creating different barriers to a law license that vary by state would also hamper lawyer mobility and add to lawyer deserts, the letter said.

The letter also clarified that the ABA does not accredit law schools. Instead, that job is handled by the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, “a national accrediting entity that is separate and independent from the bar association.”

Jennifer L. Rosato Perea, the managing director accreditation and legal education for the ABA, issued a statement to the ABA Journal.

The council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar “understands the [Texas] Supreme Court’s need to thoughtfully consider the council’s continued role in accreditation and hear from a variety of perspectives to ensure that this accreditation continues to serve its admission requirements,” the statement said.

“The council’s primary purpose in accreditation has been and continues to be contributing meaningfully to the production of effective and ethical lawyers, as well as serving the interests of the public in Texas and all other states throughout the United States.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. After 4 BigLaw firms reach deals with Trump,…

Law Firms

After 4 BigLaw firms reach deals with Trump, their future may include coal industry pro bono, DEI caution

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 9, 2025, 10:41 am CDT

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he has some work for BigLaw firms that made pro bono pledges to avoid punitive executive orders.

Trump told coal miners at a White House event that he will direct the law firms to help the coal industry with leasing and also said he would use the firms to negotiate tariffs, report Bloomberg Law, Law.com and Law360.

Four firms have reached deals with Trump. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono services to mutually supported pro bono projects. Three others each pledged $100 million in pro bono work. Those firms are Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

The deals called for pro bono work in areas that include assisting veterans and public servants, ensuring fairness in the justice system and fighting antisemitism. Milbank’s deal also mentions its work with an exoneration and resentencing project.

Another pledge made by firms was to commit to merit-based employments practices and to refrain from illegal discrimination and preferences related to diversity, equity and inclusion. Following its deal, Skadden removed future events for its employee affinity groups from its calendar, Bloomberg Law reports in a story based on emails and unnamed sources.

During the event Tuesday, Trump signed four executive orders to help the coal industry, the Washington Post reports. One order directs the Department of the Interior to prioritize coal leasing on public lands.

Others tell the attorney general to block enforcement of state laws that impede coal production, tell the Environmental Protection Agency to delay a federal pollution rule that burdens coal-fired power plants, and direct the Department of Energy to prevent the closing of coal and other power plants in regions with an insufficient supply of electricity.

Law360 recounted Trump’s comments.

“Have you noticed a lot of law firms have been signing up with Trump? A hundred million dollars, another $100 million, for damages that they’ve done,” Trump said.

“But they give you $100 million, and then they announce that, ‘But we have done nothing wrong,’” he said. “And I agree, they’ve done nothing wrong, but what the hell, they give me a lot of money considering they’ve done nothing wrong.”

“We’ll use some of those people. We’re going to use some of those firms to work with you on your leasing and your other things,” Trump said. “I think they’re going to do a fantastic job.”

Coal miners and executives were among those attending the event.

Trump began issuing executive orders penalizing disfavored firms in February, beginning with a Feb. 25 order targeting Covington & Burling. Three other firms sued in response to the orders. They are Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie.

The executive orders typically called for suspension of lawyers’ security clearances, restricted employee access to government buildings, blocked government hiring of firm employees, and required agencies to take steps to terminate contracts with the firms and their clients—if the firm provided services in connection with the client contract.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer alleges BigLaw firm fired her 11 days…

Disability Law

Lawyer alleges BigLaw firm fired her 11 days after she disclosed epilepsy diagnosis, violating disability law

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 10, 2025, 9:00 am CDT

A former lawyer at Ballard Spahr has filed a lawsuit alleging that she was fired for taking medical leave after suffering gastrointestinal problems and a seizure.

Kimberly Steefel, a former of counsel for Ballard Spahr, filed the April 8 suit in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York, Law360 reports in a story noted by Above the Law.

Steefel learned that she was being fired in October 2022 on the day that she returned to the law firm’s New York office from medical leave, according to her suit. Only 11 days before she had disclosed her epilepsy diagnosis and her medical provider’s recommendation for an accommodation in the form of a flexible work schedule, the suit says.

Steefel suffered from gastrointestinal problems and what she thought was her first seizure before beginning the medical leave. She later sought “16 reasonable accommodations for her epilepsy,” the suit says.

The accommodations stemmed from the effect of epilepsy on stamina and concentration and the need to “avoid environments pervaded by anxiety and hostility,” which can lower the seizure threshold, according to the suit.

There was no attempt to discuss accommodations, the suit says. Steefel was initially told that her employment would end no later than mid-January 2023, but the date was later pushed back to mid-April 2023.

Before she learned of her firing, Steefel had “received nothing but praise and positive feedback” for her work, the suit says.

Her suit alleges discrimination, retaliation, hostile treatment and wrongful termination on the basis of Steefel’s disabilities and gender in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and state and local anti-discrimination laws.

The suit alleges that the firm has a history of discriminating against disabled people, pointing to Ballard Spahr lawyer job ads with “nonsensical physical requirements” that include the ability to “stand, walk, bend and stoop,” to sit for long periods of time, and to “lift up to 40 pounds.”

Steefel also alleges that her practice group, the employee benefits and executive compensation group, created a hostile work environment on the basis of sex.

The group had a “systematic practice” of “replacing the junior- or mid-level female attorneys with other female attorneys at the same or lower level, thus keeping the cycle of maintaining females at lower-level positions only, and at the same time, hiring into and promoting to more senior-level positions only males,” the suit says.

Ballard Spahr provided this statement to the ABA Journal: “The firm disputes the allegations contained in Ms. Steefel’s complaint, and in particular, that she was terminated due to an alleged disability or her gender. The firm will defend the case vigorously.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Diversity references scrubbed from BigLaw…

Diversity

Diversity references scrubbed from BigLaw websites amid DEI probes; informal guidance issued

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 20, 2025, 11:57 am CDT

BigLaw firms are scrubbing diversity mentions from their websites and reexamining policies amid the Trump administration’s attack on diversity, equity and inclusion programs that it considers to be illegal.

Many law firms began changing their websites even before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asked 20 firms to supply information on their DEI practices. Publications covering the changes include Law.com, Above the Law and Bloomberg Law.

The EEOC has published informal guidance on DEI measures that can constitute illegal discrimination in a document and a website Q&A, Bloomberg Law reports.

The document, issued jointly with the U.S. Department of Justice, said DEI programs may be illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if they involve an employment action “motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s race, sex or another protected characteristic.”

Prohibited conduct may include exclusion from fellowships, training, mentoring and employee affinity groups, the document said.

According to media reports, these firms are reacting:

  • DLA Piper has disbanded minority organizations and affinity groups. It also removed preferred pronouns from signature blocks on employee emails. (Bloomberg Law, Above the Law)

  • Kirkland & Ellis took references to a diversity and inclusion fellowship offline and has a new webpage touting a “Welcoming Environment.” (Law.com)

  • K&L Gates removed references to “diversity” from its website, changed the name of its Diversity and Inclusion Committee to the Opportunity and Inclusion Committee and has an “Opportunity and Inclusion” webpage. (Above the Law, ABAJournal.com, Law.com)

  • A Proskauer Rose webpage describing affinity groups is now titled “Inclusion.” Articles referring to diversity efforts now have URLs that go to the “Inclusion” page. (Above the Law)

  • Hogan Lovells has renamed “diversity, equity and inclusion” to “HL inclusion.” A DEI video has also been removed. (Law.com)

  • Latham & Watkins has redirected a DEI webpage to a page entitled, “At Latham & Watkins, you belong as you are.” The firm also removed a paragraph referring to “institutional racism.” And the firm apparently changed the name of its “diversity scholars program” to “pathways scholars program.” (Law.com)

  • Squire Patton Boggs highlights “inclusion” on the firm landing page and apparently renamed its “Global Office of DEI.” It has been replaced with a reference to “Global Workplace Culture and Development Leadership.” (Law.com)

  • Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Sidley Austin have apparently updated their landing page to reference “inclusion.” (Law.com)

See also:

EEOC chair requested ‘extensive’ info from law firms on DEI practices and hiring; did it cross a line?

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Paul Weiss leader cites potential ‘existential…

Law Firms

Paul Weiss leader cites potential ‘existential crisis’ as 1 reason for Trump deal; critics include 141 firm alumni

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 24, 2025, 1:49 pm CDT

An executive order targeting Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison “could easily have destroyed our firm,” the law firm’s chairman, Brad Karp, told employees in a March 23 statement defending the deal that he reached with President Donald Trump.

Karp’s message, printed by Original Jurisdiction, said Paul Weiss was facing an “existential crisis” as a result of a March 14 executive order by Trump. The order had suspended security clearances held by people at the firm, restricted their access to government buildings, required government contractors to disclose whether they do business with the firm, and required agencies to take steps to terminate contracts with Paul Weiss or its clients.

The executive order is being revoked as a result of the deal, Trump announced in a post on Truth Social, his social media platform, March 20. According to Trump, the deal provides that Paul Weiss:

  • Will not deny representation to clients because of lawyers’ personal political views.

  • Will take on a wide variety of pro bono matters that represent the full spectrum of political viewpoints.

  • Will dedicate $40 million in pro bono legal services “to support the administration’s initiatives, including: assisting our nation’s veterans, fairness in the justice system, the president’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism and other mutually agreed projects.”

  • “Affirms its commitment to merit-based hiring, promotion and retention and will not adopt, use or pursue any DEI policies.”

Karp sent a copy of the agreement to firm employees that differs from Trump’s description, the New York Times reports. Karp’s version does not mention DEI, but it did affirm a commitment to merits-based employment practices and to hire an outside expert to audit those practices.

Karp also said under the agreement, “the administration is not dictating what matters we take on, approving our matters or anything like that.”

The Truth Social post also quoted a White House statement that said Karp had “acknowledged the wrongdoing of former Paul Weiss partner Mark Pomerantz,” who worked on a criminal case against Trump while he was with the New York district attorney’s office. But Karp’s copy of the agreement did not mention Pomerantz, who has denied doing anything wrong, according to the New York Times.

Karp negotiated the agreement just a few months after suffering a heart attack, the New York Times reports in another article. The deal was supported by “the vast majority” of the firm’s partners, the New York Times said, which relied on anonymous sources.

Karp said he was initially “hopeful that the legal industry would rally to our side” after Trump issued the executive order. Instead “certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys,” he said.

Paul Weiss initially planned to challenge the executive order in a lawsuit, but it soon became clear that a successful legal challenge “would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the administration,” Karp said. In reaching a deal, Karp said, “we were guided by our obligation to protect our clients’ interests” and the need to ensure that the firm would survive.

Critics of the deal include 141 Paul Weiss alumni who signed a March 24 letter protesting the firm’s decision, according to a March 24 press release.

“We expected the firm to be a leader in standing up for the legal profession, the adversary system and the right to counsel,” the letter said. “Instead of a ringing defense of the values of democracy, we witnessed a craven surrender to, and thus complicity in, what is perhaps the gravest threat to the independence of the legal profession since at least the days of Sen. Joseph McCarthy.”

Taking the other side is Stephen Gillers, a professor at the New York University School of Law, who told Law.com that Paul Weiss “had no obligation to fight Trump in court.”

The firm “has obligations to its clients, who must deal with the federal government regularly as an adversary or a regulator, and to its thousands of employees, including lawyers,” he said.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.