Paul Weiss agrees to demands from the Trump administration, as does Columbia University; law firms struggle to respond to a hostile and lawless administration; there's a new lawsuit about Signalgate.
Any chance you all could do something on the legal situation w/ research that has been targeted by this administration? For context, I work on a team that conducts non-profit public health research. So far in the last month:
1. The five-year NIH grant that we were awarded last year for a study was canceled, apparently because the study is focused on LGBTQ youth.
Initially, our funding was cut off in late Feb/early March, but then restored after a couple of days. My understanding is that funding was initially restored because of a federal injunction. But then last week, the primary institution named on our grant received a letter stating that the grant was canceled (and funding was stopped again, and I believe our project was removed from federal websites).
It appears that something similar has also happened to other NIH-funded studies -- and many of us who have lost our jobs because of this are not sure about the legal status of these cancellations or if there's anything we can do to challenge them?
2. Public Health Reports (official journal of the US Surgeon General and US Public Health Service) asked our research team to remove data on sexual orientation from a paper (related to a different study), with the explanation that "Per the Executive Order, we cannot include language surrounding gender." They also asked us to remove the words 'equitably' and 'cisgender' from the paper "in order to comply with the Executive Order."
(Note that this paper had already gone through peer review successfully, including a couple rounds of edits, and had been accepted for publication pending completion of their internal editing process for 'style' and 'clarity.')
We decided to withdraw the paper and submit it elsewhere, rather than comply. But I'm wondering about what exactly "the Executive Order" means in this context, since The Executive Orders that I've read seemed incredibly broad, but also vague. Have I missed a more specific directive, or do they not need to provide any more specific guidance?
Is there a clear holder of the title Most Evil Biglaw Firm? Based on years of listening to Ken, I thought it was Jones Day, but now it seems maybe Skadden is a contender. Would be grateful for clarification. Maybe run a March Madness-style tournament to pick a winner?
One thing I've learned these last couple weeks is how it's impossible to tell how much of a "fuck you" the author is making when they comment but leave out the comma from "Paul, Weiss". With Ken I'm guessing it's on purpose and therefore a giant one.
I agree with Ken's comparison of this situation to the Kobayashi Maru test. But it reminds me of Mr. Schumer and the senate Dems.
Last week Josh posted in Very Serious essentially defending Mr. Schumer, saying shutting down the government would do nothing to help the Dems. This situation is slightly different, as one could argue "the courts will stop the administration". But we all know that is not true. The courts will soften some blows, but there will still be damage. Hence the "no win" situation.
This is why I advocate for fighting, even if it might cause more pain in the near term. Besides, sometimes you Fight The Good Fight even when you know you will lose *because* it is The Good Fight.
Plus, as many others have said: Courage is contagious. "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
So just like I think Mr. Schumer should have fought, even though the short term damage may have been worse, I think Big Law needs to fight - for their very lives. Hopefully managing partners can see past next quarter's earnings and realize this is an existential threat.
Last week, in response to his Serious Trouble post, I told Josh the instead of slowing down to try and limit the immediate damage, Mr. Schumer should have taken Worf's advice: Accelerate to Ramming Speed.
I’m curious—how enforceable are these agreements? Of course, there’s the issue of how you measure compliance with subjective standards. But what if Trump just issues a new EO? Can’t Trump pull the security clearance of any individual lawyer there? Refuse to award contracts to particular clients? What does the firm do then?
Correct me if I'm wrong: this really seems like the Trump administration is effectively threatening any lawyer or law firm from bringing litigation against their government by locking these firms out of dealing with the government.
It really feels like they're trying to make peaceful change impossible
The attack on law firms could be "totally lunatic" or it could be a perfectly rational shakedown. Trump is getting lots of free legal support for his friends and an image as a mighty leader. That means there is no reason to take your business to another law firm, because they'll be targeted next week. There is lots of precedent for this in America, except it has never been done publicly before.
A question that popped into my head while listening concerns not the law firms themselves, but the companies doing business with the government who are represented by these firms. If they were to get one of their contracts cancelled or not renewed, would they be able to sue the government?
Regarding the Skadden associate, I would be surprised if she sees a lot of offers from comparable biglaw firms. Her decision to send her missive to "firm everyone" instead of the partners to whom she reports (or at least the executive committee) shows a appalling lack of judgment. It seemed like career suicide to me. OTOH, maybe she's auditioning to work on the Trump NatSec team?
Looking forward to the new episode!
Any chance you all could do something on the legal situation w/ research that has been targeted by this administration? For context, I work on a team that conducts non-profit public health research. So far in the last month:
1. The five-year NIH grant that we were awarded last year for a study was canceled, apparently because the study is focused on LGBTQ youth.
Initially, our funding was cut off in late Feb/early March, but then restored after a couple of days. My understanding is that funding was initially restored because of a federal injunction. But then last week, the primary institution named on our grant received a letter stating that the grant was canceled (and funding was stopped again, and I believe our project was removed from federal websites).
It appears that something similar has also happened to other NIH-funded studies -- and many of us who have lost our jobs because of this are not sure about the legal status of these cancellations or if there's anything we can do to challenge them?
2. Public Health Reports (official journal of the US Surgeon General and US Public Health Service) asked our research team to remove data on sexual orientation from a paper (related to a different study), with the explanation that "Per the Executive Order, we cannot include language surrounding gender." They also asked us to remove the words 'equitably' and 'cisgender' from the paper "in order to comply with the Executive Order."
(Note that this paper had already gone through peer review successfully, including a couple rounds of edits, and had been accepted for publication pending completion of their internal editing process for 'style' and 'clarity.')
We decided to withdraw the paper and submit it elsewhere, rather than comply. But I'm wondering about what exactly "the Executive Order" means in this context, since The Executive Orders that I've read seemed incredibly broad, but also vague. Have I missed a more specific directive, or do they not need to provide any more specific guidance?
Sorry about the novel...
Is there a clear holder of the title Most Evil Biglaw Firm? Based on years of listening to Ken, I thought it was Jones Day, but now it seems maybe Skadden is a contender. Would be grateful for clarification. Maybe run a March Madness-style tournament to pick a winner?
I am totally here for this!
➕1️⃣
One thing I've learned these last couple weeks is how it's impossible to tell how much of a "fuck you" the author is making when they comment but leave out the comma from "Paul, Weiss". With Ken I'm guessing it's on purpose and therefore a giant one.
I have heard people ask "Who is Paul Weiss?"
I agree with Ken's comparison of this situation to the Kobayashi Maru test. But it reminds me of Mr. Schumer and the senate Dems.
Last week Josh posted in Very Serious essentially defending Mr. Schumer, saying shutting down the government would do nothing to help the Dems. This situation is slightly different, as one could argue "the courts will stop the administration". But we all know that is not true. The courts will soften some blows, but there will still be damage. Hence the "no win" situation.
This is why I advocate for fighting, even if it might cause more pain in the near term. Besides, sometimes you Fight The Good Fight even when you know you will lose *because* it is The Good Fight.
Plus, as many others have said: Courage is contagious. "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
So just like I think Mr. Schumer should have fought, even though the short term damage may have been worse, I think Big Law needs to fight - for their very lives. Hopefully managing partners can see past next quarter's earnings and realize this is an existential threat.
Last week, in response to his Serious Trouble post, I told Josh the instead of slowing down to try and limit the immediate damage, Mr. Schumer should have taken Worf's advice: Accelerate to Ramming Speed.
Perhaps today is a good day to die!
I’m curious—how enforceable are these agreements? Of course, there’s the issue of how you measure compliance with subjective standards. But what if Trump just issues a new EO? Can’t Trump pull the security clearance of any individual lawyer there? Refuse to award contracts to particular clients? What does the firm do then?
A Skadden attorney has resigned due to the deal they reached with Trump.
Correct me if I'm wrong: this really seems like the Trump administration is effectively threatening any lawyer or law firm from bringing litigation against their government by locking these firms out of dealing with the government.
It really feels like they're trying to make peaceful change impossible
The attack on law firms could be "totally lunatic" or it could be a perfectly rational shakedown. Trump is getting lots of free legal support for his friends and an image as a mighty leader. That means there is no reason to take your business to another law firm, because they'll be targeted next week. There is lots of precedent for this in America, except it has never been done publicly before.
Really? What is the precedent?
A search on "political shakedown" turns up dozens of hits, but here's a nice one: 'to Henry Zhao on July 30, 2017: “I’m sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment has not been fulfilled.” – Hunter Biden, July 30, 2017 … Just days later, $5 million flowed from an affiliate of the Chinese energy company, CEFC, to companies connected to Hunter.' https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2024/06/18/icymi-new-evidence-confirms-hunter-bidens-statement-to-congress-regarding-infamous-whatsapp-message-was-a-lie-doj-must-act/
A question that popped into my head while listening concerns not the law firms themselves, but the companies doing business with the government who are represented by these firms. If they were to get one of their contracts cancelled or not renewed, would they be able to sue the government?
Regarding the Skadden associate, I would be surprised if she sees a lot of offers from comparable biglaw firms. Her decision to send her missive to "firm everyone" instead of the partners to whom she reports (or at least the executive committee) shows a appalling lack of judgment. It seemed like career suicide to me. OTOH, maybe she's auditioning to work on the Trump NatSec team?
I don't know, PC or their firm for the fight against the EO might be interested.
You may well be right. But several lawyers on social media have already publicly said they would offer her jobs.
None of them are at top 100 firms, though. At least not that I have seen.