My oldest child sent me this article last night. My oldest is a partner at one of the largest firms and competes against the firms named in this article. I found a gift link so that everyone can read this article.
Amazing stuff in this article.
The Law Firms That Appeased Trump—and Angered Their Clients
www.wsj.com/us-news/law/...
— George Conway âš–ï¸ðŸ‡ºðŸ‡¸ (@gtconway.bsky.social) 2025-06-02T03:47:07.835Z
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/law-firms-trump-deals-clients-71b3616d?st=VgdnnB&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Support for the law firms that didn’t make deals has been growing inside the offices of corporate executives. At least 11 big companies are moving work away from law firms that settled with the administration or are giving—or intend to give—more business to firms that have been targeted but refused to strike deals, according to general counsels at those companies and other people familiar with those decisions.
Among them are technology giant Oracle, investment bank Morgan Stanley, an airline and a pharmaceutical company. Microsoft expressed reservations about working with a firm that struck a deal, and another such firm stopped representing McDonald’s in a case a few months before a scheduled trial.
In interviews, general counsels expressed concern about whether they could trust law firms that struck deals to fight for them in court and in negotiating big deals if they weren’t willing to stand up for themselves against Trump. The general counsel of a manufacturer of medical supplies said that if firms facing White House pressure “don’t have a hard line,” they don’t have any line at all......
Not long after Latham struck a deal in April, the firm’s chair, Richard Trobman, met with Morgan Stanley’s chief legal officer, Eric Grossman, people familiar with the meeting said. Grossman heard him out about the firm’s reasoning for striking a deal and acknowledged that companies have to do what is best for themselves.
Soon after that meeting, Grossman and other Morgan Stanley lawyers communicated to law firms targeted by the White House that hadn’t signed deals that they were looking to give them new business, the people familiar with the meeting said.....
The law firms named in this article declined to publicly discuss client matters. Leaders of firms that struck deals said their business have continued to thrive and that they have received calls from clients supportive of the deals. They have said the agreements won’t force them to take on pro bono work that would create conflicts with existing clients.
The firms that chose to sue over executive orders said in court filings that they had fielded calls from anxious clients and lost business because of the orders. Judges have struck down the orders against WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie, and the order against Susman Godfrey has been temporarily blocked. Judges have said the executive orders amounted to unconstitutional retaliation against the firms.
On a website touting the firm’s lawsuit, Jenner & Block said relenting to the White House would mean “compromising our ability to zealously advocate for all of our clients and capitulating to unconstitutional government coercion, which is simply not in our DNA.”
I suspect that more firms will refuse to cut a deal with trump and other firms may abandoned their "deals" with trump because such deals are not enforceable.
= new reply since forum marked as read
