Paul Weiss Leader Warns of Existential Crisis Behind Trump Deal Amid Criticism from Alumni

Concerns of an ‘Existential Crisis’ Prompt Controversial Agreement Between Paul Weiss and Trump

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 24, 2025, 1:49 pm CDT

In a recent statement, Brad Karp, the chairman of the law firm Paul Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, elaborated on a concerning scenario the firm was facing due to a March 14 executive order from President Donald Trump. Karp warned employees that this order posed an “existential crisis,” one that might have had devastating repercussions for the firm.

The executive order suspended security clearances for many within Paul Weiss, constrained access to government facilities, and mandated disclosures for government contractors regarding any business relationships with the firm. Furthermore, it prompted federal agencies to consider terminating contracts with Paul Weiss and its clients.

However, on March 20, Trump announced through a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, that the contentious executive order would be revoked following a deal reached with Karp. Major components of the agreement include:

• No refusal to represent clients based on the political opinions of lawyers.
• A commitment to undertake a diverse range of pro bono cases reflecting various political perspectives.
• An allocation of $40 million in pro bono services to align with the administration’s initiatives, which encompass support for veterans, justice system fairness, and combating antisemitism.
• A reaffirmation of merit-based hiring and promotion practices without the inclusion of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies.

Karp later clarified that contrary to Trump’s statements, the agreement he shared with employees did not mention DEI policies but confirmed the firm’s dedication to merit-based hiring and the intention to engage an external auditor to review these practices.

Additionally, Karp specified that under the terms of the deal, the administration would not oversee the types of cases the firm takes on. The executive order’s fallout included the acknowledgment of former Paul Weiss partner Mark Pomerantz’s actions in a criminal case against Trump, with Karp’s agreement notably omitting any reference to this matter.

This deal was forged during a precarious juncture for the firm, especially following Karp’s recovery from a heart attack just months prior. While Karp indicated that the majority of partners supported this course of action, he remarked that initial hopes for solidarity from the legal community in challenging the executive order were quickly dashed. Instead, rival firms began pursuing Paul Weiss’s clients and talent.

Although the firm initially considered legal action against the executive order, Karp concluded that a successful lawsuit would not mitigate underlying client concerns regarding perceptions of the firm’s standing with the administration. He emphasized that the firm’s responsibility to client interests ultimately guided their decision to reach an agreement.

Despite the rationale supporting the deal, it has attracted criticism from a group of 141 alumni who condemned the firm’s actions in a letter dated March 24. The authors expressed disappointment that Paul Weiss did not take a definitive stance in defense of legal ethics and democratic values, instead labeling the collaboration with Trump as complicity in a broader threat to the independence of the legal profession.

Conversely, legal scholars like Stephen Gillers from New York University School of Law defended the firm’s decision, arguing that Paul Weiss had a duty to its clients, who regularly engage with the federal government as both adversaries and regulators.