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.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Paul Weiss partner, ‘a skilled handler of…

Careers

Paul Weiss partner, ‘a skilled handler of high-ego politicians,’ is helping Harris with debate prep

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 10, 2024, 11:10 am CDT

A partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison helped Vice President Kamala Harris prepare for Tuesday’s presidential debate with former President Donald Trump, even as she prepared as lead attorney for Google in an antitrust trial based on alleged online advertising dominance.

Since 2008, partner Karen Dunn has helped prepare Democratic presidential and vice presidential candidates for debates, the New York Times reports. She helped Harris prepare for her 2020 debate with then-Vice President Mike Pence. And she also helped former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama prepare for presidential debates.

Dunn “is described by candidates she has coached and other people who have worked with her as a skilled handler of high-ego politicians,” according to the New York Times. “By all accounts, she possesses the rare ability to tell them what they are doing wrong and how to fix it—and how to inject humor and humanity to sell themselves to voters watching the debate.”

Dunn, co-chair of the Paul Weiss litigation department, is one of the attorneys who obtained a verdict for injured plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the organizers of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. A graduate of Yale Law School, she is a former clerk for now-U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland when he was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and a former clerk for then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

The New York Times credits Dunn for spurring Clinton during a 2016 debate to bring up a Trump comment disparaging a beauty pageant contestant’s weight. Here is a portion of the debate transcript published by the New York Times:

Clinton: “And one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman ‘Miss Piggy.’ Then he called her ‘Miss Housekeeping’ because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name.”

Trump: “Where did you find this? Where did you find this?”

Clinton: “Her name is Alicia Machado.”

Trump: “Where did you find this?”

Clinton: “And she has become a U.S. citizen, and you can bet … ”

Trump: “Oh, really?”

Clinton: “ … she’s going to vote this November.”

Trump: “OK, good. Let me just tell you … ”

(Applause)

In a 2019 interview with the New York Times, Dunn said debate contestants have to engage the other person in a way that challenges them if they want to win the debate.

“If somebody comes after you and you counterpunch effectively, you can win that moment,” Dunn said.

Dunn was in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, on Monday representing Google in a Department of Justice suit alleging that the online search company’s acquisition of DoubleClick, an advertising software company, gives it dominance in technology that auctions off online ads, allowing Google to crush the competition. Dunn countered that Google is “one big company among many others” that also sell advertising, the New York Times reports.

Critics have alleged that Dunn’s debate preparation creates a conflict of interest because helping Harris would make the presidential candidate reluctant to stand up to Big Tech, the New York Post reports.

But ethics experts who spoke with the New York Times and Law.com said there was no ethics problem.

“Of course, Ms. Dunn cannot reveal confidential client information concerning Google to anyone. But she is not precluded from giving Ms. Harris advice about how to conduct herself in the debate,” said Leslie Levin, a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, in an interview with Law.com.

“Lawyers in private practice volunteer on political campaigns all the time,” said Steven Lubet, a professor emeritus at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, in an interview with the New York Times. “There’s no conflict between coaching debate prep and representing a client in a case opposed to the government.”