Recent Developments in Biglaw

Recently, firms such as Paul Weiss, Skadden, Willkie, and Milbank have entered into agreements with Donald Trump aimed at mitigating the impact of his executive orders. By engaging in these deals, these firms have attempted to shield themselves from potentially harmful legal outcomes arising from these policies.

Opposing Legal Action

In contrast, other prominent firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale have opted to engage in litigation, actively challenging the administration’s actions to defend the rule of law. This dichotomy in approaches highlights the varied responses within the legal community regarding Trump’s executive orders.

A Perspective on Ethical Dilemmas

In a recent anonymously published commentary in Law.com, a chairperson from an Am Law 200 firm reflected on these decisions. The chair expressed a nuanced understanding of the complexities involved, stating:

“I don’t know if I would do the same thing, but it is unfair to criticize their decisions. It was well within the bounds of a reasonable solution. When you have a potential death alternative, how do you criticize someone for choosing to live, even if it is painful?”

Internal Considerations

The commentary further noted that handling such situations is often complex, particularly when considering the implications for a firm’s internal workforce. The chair acknowledged that criticizing those who chose litigation was equally unwarranted, recognizing that each firm must weigh its strategies against its values and obligations to clients and employees.

Conclusion

The choices made by Biglaw firms in relation to the Trump administration’s executive orders illustrate the intricate balance between legal ethics and business pragmatism. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the debate over these approaches is likely to remain a significant issue within the profession.