President Donald Trump successfully pressured eight major law firms into capitulating to what were widely regarded as frivolous lawsuits during the early months of his second term, targeting firms ranging from Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey to the prominent Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. The executive orders Trump wielded against these firms revoked their attorneys' security clearances, restricted access to federal buildings and officials, and threatened their ability to represent clients with matters before the government — measures that, despite their questionable legal footing, carried immediate financial risk for firms dependent on corporate and regulatory work. A recent report from The New York Times has now detailed the internal deliberations behind Paul Weiss's decision to strike a deal with the White House — revelations that portray the firm as motivated by financial self-preservation and fear.

According to The New York Times' Michael S. Schmidt and Jessica Silver-Greenberg, who reported on Sunday: "When [firm chair Brad] Karp quickly surrendered to the White House and made a deal to resolve an executive order widely seen as illegal, it seemed like a dramatic pivot." They continued: "It was also consequential, foreshadowing how an array of institutions would bend to President Trump. Though four firms fought similar executive orders, eight others followed Paul Weiss's example and cut deals, agreeing to perform a total of nearly $1 billion in free legal work for causes Mr. Trump supported."

The four firms that chose to challenge the orders in court — including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — secured rulings from federal judges blocking the executive orders, with courts finding the measures likely unconstitutional on grounds including First Amendment retaliation. Those legal victories raised questions about whether capitulation was the only viable path, even for firms facing significant commercial pressure.

The Times report outlined how an internal division had long existed within the firm between its idealistic litigators — who championed pro bono civil rights cases — and its corporate attorneys, who argued the firm should prioritize profitability.

"As the corporate lawyers rode a wave of private equity growth and raked in more and more profits, their influence grew," the report noted. "They pushed against the pro bono civil rights litigation that had been at the center of Paul Weiss's culture." The report added: "So when Mr. Trump took aim at Paul Weiss, partly because of its activist history, a long-simmering identity crisis morphed into an existential one."

A central figure in the push toward settlement was attorney Scott Barshay, described by the Times as "a bona fide rainmaker." Barshay advocated for resolving the matter with the Trump administration even though the firm reportedly understood that the legal case against them lacked merit. Barshay also reportedly sought to remove a transgender attorney, Lex Korberg, from cases, believing their presence could alienate clients and harm business. Korberg was ultimately pushed out of the firm with a $3.5 million non-disparagement agreement.

"Among the leadership of Paul Weiss, there was broad support to resolve the executive order," the Times reported. "Even Karen Dunn, a top partner who had helped the Harris campaign, pushed to finalize the deal." The Times added: "'Let's get this done!!!!' Ms. Dunn wrote to Mr. Karp and other leaders in an email reviewed by The Times."

Despite internal pushback — including calls for the firm to take on high-profile cases against Trump to restore its reputation for independence — both Karp and Barshay refused to accept any cases challenging the Trump administration.

The firm also took additional steps to appease the White House. "It cleansed its website for the Center to Combat Hate of any references to its lawsuits against the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for their role in the Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021," the Times reported.

Elizabeth Grossman, a former Paul Weiss associate who now serves as executive director of Common Cause Illinois, told Politico last year that the decision has proven less beneficial than Karp and Barshay likely anticipated. "They made a calculated decision," Grossman said. "They were thinking about their bottom line… I think what we've seen is that they made the wrong decision."

The fallout has reportedly extended to recruitment. Top law students have lost interest in joining the firm. In the competitive market for elite legal talent, where prestige and perceived independence directly affect a firm's ability to attract both top associates and high-value clients, reputational damage carries long-term costs that are difficult to reverse. "Paul, Weiss used to be the gold standard for litigation," Bryson Malcolm, founder of legal recruiting firm Mosaic Search Partners, told Politico. "I think that reputation is waning." He concluded: "I don't really see a situation where a student would choose Paul, Weiss over any of its peers that didn't have a similar fallout. Even if you're just thinking pragmatically and you're not really tied to the morality of it all, it's just very clear Paul, Weiss is not a safe option compared to the others."