WASHINGTON (AP) — The chairman of a leading law firm who struck a deal with President Donald Trump last week to avoid the fallout from a White House executive order informed colleagues in an email on Sunday that he did so because the order “could have easily jeopardized our firm” and led to its closure.
The communication from Brad Karp provides the most comprehensive public rationale thus far regarding the choice to make considerable concessions to the White House in response to an executive order that targeted his firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Garrison & Wharton.
This order, the most recent in a series of similar measures aimed at law firms whose attorneys have engaged in legal work that Trump opposes, threatened to suspend security clearances for Paul Weiss lawyers and terminate any federal contracts associated with the firm. It justified these actions by noting that a former Paul Weiss attorney, Mark Pomerantz, played a significant role in an investigation by the Manhattan district attorney’s office concerning Trump’s finances before he took office.
However, on Thursday evening, Trump announced the rescission of the March 14 order following a meeting with Karp at the White House. The administration indicated that the firm had agreed to provide $40 million worth of pro bono legal services to support various initiatives of the Trump administration, including efforts to combat antisemitism, to conduct an audit of its hiring practices, and to refrain from adopting any DEI policies, while also taking on clients irrespective of their political affiliations.
This resolution provoked a strong backlash within the legal community, as lawyers criticized the firm for yielding to Trump instead of resisting him, especially during a time when he leverages presidential power to threaten the livelihoods of legal professionals and businesses he perceives as adversarial. The deal also underscored Trump’s ongoing ability to secure concessions from a wide range of entities in both academia and private sectors, many of which have chosen to compromise rather than to confront.
In an email to Paul Weiss employees obtained by The Associated Press, Karp described the order as presenting an “existential crisis” for the firm. He indicated that it was highly probable the firm would not withstand a prolonged conflict with the Trump administration.
“The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm,” Karp stated. “It imposed the full force of the government on our firm, our personnel, and our clients. Specifically, it threatened our clients with the potential loss of their government contracts and access if they continued to engage us as their legal representatives. Moreover, it clearly aimed to intimidate both you and the firm by suggesting that our employees would be excluded from government employment.”
Karp mentioned that the firm was initially prepared to challenge the executive order in court, similar to what another law firm facing a Trump executive order, Perkins Coie, has done. However, as a group of attorneys began preparing a legal complaint, it became evident that even if they successfully managed an initial injunction against the executive order, it wouldn’t resolve the core issue: clients viewed our firm as being persona non grata with the administration.
He also expressed disappointment that support from other law firms did not materialize.
“Regrettably, instead of support, we found that certain other firms sought to exploit our precarious situation by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys,” he wrote.
In light of this environment, when the firm learned that the administration might be open to a compromise, they pursued it and achieved a settlement in a “matter of days.”
“I understand that many of you are uneasy with our decision to enter into any form of resolution. That is completely valid,” Karp communicated to his colleagues, emphasizing that “there was no right answer to the difficult situation we faced.”
He added: “It is easy for outside observers to critique our actions without understanding the intense pressure faced when a decree like this is directed at you.”
The firm is among several targets of Trump’s administration that have recently opted to reach agreements to avoid further provoking the president’s ire.
On Friday, for example, Columbia University consented to place its Middle East studies department under new management and revamp its policies regarding protests and student conduct, yielding to an ultimatum from the Trump administration to implement those modifications or risk losing billions in federal funding.
Additionally, Meta and ABC made settlement payments to Trump’s upcoming presidential library to resolve lawsuits initiated by Trump. Other tech and financial companies have also publicly rolled back DEI initiatives in accordance with Trump’s policy preferences.
____
Associated Press writer Zeke Miller in Washington contributed to this report.
