ADVERTISEMENT

For you lawyers -- what would you do if targeted by Trump?

BradStevens said:
The article I linked had no mention of access to govt. buildings. And I think you're wrong about these law firms not doing anything wrong--I'm guessing they didn't want to litigate their hiring practices for a very good reason.

It wouldn't surprise me, though, if the admin was directed to go after these firms because they pursued litigation Trump/MAGA doesn't like, which sucks.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission targets law firms over DEI practices

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has sent letters to 20 top law firms demanding information about their employment practices, a sign it plans to target their diversity, equity and…
thehill.com
Click to expand...
Yes. Different method of extortion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
BradStevens said:
You could say the same thing about every single settlement ever made.

Do you know anything about the law firm's hiring practices at issue here? Trump could get hundreds of firms with these rules. They blatantly violate them:

Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices

Prohibited Practices
www.eeoc.gov
Click to expand...
Nope. I do know the President wants retribution and vengeance though. Couldn’t be more obvious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: largemouth and UncleMark
Aloha Hoosier said:
Nope. I do know the President wants retribution and vengeance though. Couldn’t be more obvious.
Click to expand...
Trump's actions and previous statements call these into question in this way, and that's on him. It hurts our institutions and their perceived ability to act justly, along with the legal process. All bad, bad stuff.

But I don't think these firms should get a pass on their practices, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't settle this quickly if they didn't think they had real exposure here. These particular settlements aren't extortion. This is the normal process.

So it's a bad guy going after bad guys. I won't lose any sleep over these firms' committing to do pro bono work for veterans, first responders, and combatting antisemitism.
 
  • Love
Reactions: mcmurtry66
UncleMark said:
And yet Perkins Coie caved, and Trump continues with these "illegal" EOs.
Click to expand...
Link?

Perkins Coie’s response to the unlawful Executive Order targeting the firm

The order violates core constitutional protections, including the rights to free speech and due process, and undermines all clients’ right to select counsel of their choice.
www.perkinscoiefacts.com

A Message From Our Managing Partner​

Show more
On March 11, 2025, we filed a legal action in response to a recent Executive Order that unlawfully targets Perkins Coie. The order violates core constitutional rights, including the rights to free speech and due process. At the heart of the order is an unlawful attack on the freedom of all Americans to select counsel of their choice without fear of retribution or punishment from the government. We were compelled to take this action to protect our firm and our clients.
Since our founding in 1912, Perkins Coie has built enduring relationships with our clients based on trust, dedication, and a shared pursuit of excellence. We have advocated for clients with a wide range of perspectives, beliefs, and needs. We take pride in a workplace culture grounded in a commitment to treating everyone, regardless of background, with fairness, civility, and respect. We are a firm of more than 2,400 people proudly working together across 21 offices in service to our clients. We represent clients from start-ups to market leaders across a wide range of industries and practice areas. We are known for representing some of the world’s most innovative companies on issues at the forefront of technological change.
We are grateful for the outpouring of support and offers of assistance following the issuance of the Executive Order. I have never been prouder to stand with my firm and others in the legal community in support of our people, our clients, and our profession.

‍
67d0cb1688f2cbbc4ff77d45_Bill_Signature.png

Bill Malley
Managing Partner
 
BradStevens said:
You're talking about the DEI issues. I'm talking about the national security issues, per my post 166.
Click to expand...
No, I’m talking about the firms with clearances and access removed. One paid a “bribe” of about $100 million in free legal work and the other paid like $400 million. These articles have been linked several times. I’m at an airport gate on my phone about to board. You’ll have to find the articles yourself. These firms did nothing but provide legal work to clients which the President doesn’t like. I find this outrageous and I’m not even a lawyer, but lawyers have worked for me and I’ve worked with others during my careers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
Aloha Hoosier said:
No, I’m talking about the firms with clearances and access removed. One paid a “bribe” of about $100 million in free legal work and the other paid like $400 million. These articles have been linked several times. I’m at an airport gate on my phone about to board. You’ll have to find the articles yourself. These firms did nothing but provide legal work to clients which the President doesn’t like. I find this outrageous and I’m not even a lawyer, but lawyers have worked for me and I’ve worked with others during my careers.
Click to expand...
Unless the linked article below is wrong, you're misinformed.

Here's where all the firms in the Trump-Big Law fight stand

President Trump has taken aim at law firms that he believes have wronged him. Here's how they've responded.
www.businessinsider.com

Only one firm settled that had a national security issue involved, Paul Weiss. And that firm also had a DEI claim against it; so it "caved" (read: settled because they had real exposure) on the DEI issue and got the clearance issue cleared up, too (note, they paid less than the other firms that had no clearance issue). No firm committed $400 million in time--that would be insane. And these firms that settled did, in fact, do something--they all had DEI programs they had instituted in their management and hiring decisions that arguably discriminated based on race.

Trump's executive orders against firms because of representing clients or issues he doesn't like is outrageous. The EEOC's letters and threat of suit to those firms regarding their discriminatory practices is not. You're getting them mixed up, no doubt, because the reporting out there is doing that, and slanting how people view these things.
 
BradStevens said:
Trump's executive orders against firms because of representing clients or issues he doesn't like is outrageous. The EEOC's letters and threat of suit to those firms regarding their discriminatory practices is not. You're getting them mixed up, no doubt, because the reporting out there is doing that, and slanting how people view these things.
Click to expand...

So lemme get this straight... you think the DEI claims against the firms are legit? That they're not pretenses being used against firms that have "wronged" Trump in some fashion?
 
UncleMark said:
What dichotomy? Trump is waging legal warfare on firms that he doesn't like for whatever reason. You and I both know the DEI angle is nothing more than a pretense.The law firms were violating EEOC regs. I already posted them.
Click to expand...
Large (and small) law firms have been violating the EEOC regs for a while now. Esp. since the SCt opinion its been clear and Trump's EEOC's reading of them nails these firms dead to rights.

Are you going to gaslight about DEI, affirmative action, etc. at large firms?


The false dichotomy is this: both things can be true--the claims are legit AND the EEOC targeted these specific firms first because Trump had a bone to pick.
 
Last edited:
BradStevens said:
Unless the linked article below is wrong, you're misinformed.

Here's where all the firms in the Trump-Big Law fight stand

President Trump has taken aim at law firms that he believes have wronged him. Here's how they've responded.
www.businessinsider.com

Only one firm settled that had a national security issue involved, Paul Weiss. And that firm also had a DEI claim against it; so it "caved" (read: settled because they had real exposure) on the DEI issue and got the clearance issue cleared up, too (note, they paid less than the other firms that had no clearance issue). No firm committed $400 million in time--that would be insane. And these firms that settled did, in fact, do something--they all had DEI programs they had instituted in their management and hiring decisions that arguably discriminated based on race.

Trump's executive orders against firms because of representing clients or issues he doesn't like is outrageous. The EEOC's letters and threat of suit to those firms regarding their discriminatory practices is not. You're getting them mixed up, no doubt, because the reporting out there is doing that, and slanting how people view these things.
Click to expand...

Trump Sued by Law Firm Behind $787.5 Million Fox News Case

Susman Godfrey is the latest major law firm to take the Trump administration to court over an executive order aimed at its attorneys.
www.bloomberg.com
 
BradStevens said:
Link?

Perkins Coie’s response to the unlawful Executive Order targeting the firm

The order violates core constitutional protections, including the rights to free speech and due process, and undermines all clients’ right to select counsel of their choice.
www.perkinscoiefacts.com

A Message From Our Managing Partner​

Show more
On March 11, 2025, we filed a legal action in response to a recent Executive Order that unlawfully targets Perkins Coie. The order violates core constitutional rights, including the rights to free speech and due process. At the heart of the order is an unlawful attack on the freedom of all Americans to select counsel of their choice without fear of retribution or punishment from the government. We were compelled to take this action to protect our firm and our clients.
Since our founding in 1912, Perkins Coie has built enduring relationships with our clients based on trust, dedication, and a shared pursuit of excellence. We have advocated for clients with a wide range of perspectives, beliefs, and needs. We take pride in a workplace culture grounded in a commitment to treating everyone, regardless of background, with fairness, civility, and respect. We are a firm of more than 2,400 people proudly working together across 21 offices in service to our clients. We represent clients from start-ups to market leaders across a wide range of industries and practice areas. We are known for representing some of the world’s most innovative companies on issues at the forefront of technological change.
We are grateful for the outpouring of support and offers of assistance following the issuance of the Executive Order. I have never been prouder to stand with my firm and others in the legal community in support of our people, our clients, and our profession.

‍
67d0cb1688f2cbbc4ff77d45_Bill_Signature.png

Bill Malley
Managing Partner
Click to expand...
Still waiting on the link to Perkins Coie caving . . .
Aloha Hoosier said:

Trump Sued by Law Firm Behind $787.5 Million Fox News Case

Susman Godfrey is the latest major law firm to take the Trump administration to court over an executive order aimed at its attorneys.
www.bloomberg.com
Click to expand...
That doesn't respond to the issue, Aloha, unless there is something deeper in the article. I don't have a subscription to Bloomberg.
 
BradStevens said:
Unless the linked article below is wrong, you're misinformed.

Here's where all the firms in the Trump-Big Law fight stand

President Trump has taken aim at law firms that he believes have wronged him. Here's how they've responded.
www.businessinsider.com

Only one firm settled that had a national security issue involved, Paul Weiss. And that firm also had a DEI claim against it; so it "caved" (read: settled because they had real exposure) on the DEI issue and got the clearance issue cleared up, too (note, they paid less than the other firms that had no clearance issue). No firm committed $400 million in time--that would be insane. And these firms that settled did, in fact, do something--they all had DEI programs they had instituted in their management and hiring decisions that arguably discriminated based on race.

Trump's executive orders against firms because of representing clients or issues he doesn't like is outrageous. The EEOC's letters and threat of suit to those firms regarding their discriminatory practices is not. You're getting them mixed up, no doubt, because the reporting out there is doing that, and slanting how people view these things.
Click to expand...
I’m not mixing them up. I mixed up one and now I’m on track. The EOs are outrageous, like the one against the firm that win the law suit against Fox News.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
Aloha Hoosier said:
I’m not mixing them up. I mixed up one and now I’m on track. The EOs are outrageous, like the one against the firm that win the law suit against Fox News.
Click to expand...
Your first two sentences are mutually inconsistent.

I already agreed with you about Susman Godfrey.
 
BradStevens said:
Still waiting on the link to Perkins Coie caving . . .

That doesn't respond to the issue, Aloha, unless there is something deeper in the article. I don't have a subscription to Bloomberg.
Click to expand...
The issue is EOs against law firms taking away clearances and access to government buildings merely because the President doesn’t like their clients or the actions they’ve been involved with. That article concerns one of those.

Had an emergency divert to another airport due to smoke in the cockpit. Rebooking. Busy.
 
BradStevens said:
Your first two sentences are mutually inconsistent.

I already agreed with you about Susman Godfrey.
Click to expand...
You really are confusing me. I actually linked the EOs against law firms which had absolutely nothing to do with EEOC issues. Nothing. I’m out, got to find a way to get home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
Aloha Hoosier said:
The issue is EOs against law firms taking away clearances and access to government buildings merely because the President doesn’t like their clients or the actions they’ve been involved with. That article concerns one of those.

Had an emergency divert to another airport due to smoke in the cockpit. Rebooking. Busy.
Click to expand...
No, that's not the issue I'm discussing. Maybe you should wait until you can read my posts again and think about what I'm focusing on.

For the third or fourth time, I agree that the EOs re clearances are bullshit. Only one firm, Paul Weiss, settled anything and they settled because they also faced real liability on DEI claims. All the other firms, from what we know now, are fighting the EOs, including Perkins Coie.

The EEOC claims are different issues entirely. Those would have challenged DEI policies, affirmative action, etc. within firms. It goes on, trust me. That's why these firms settled for all that money--because they had real exposure. But no firm settled for $400 million in pro bono hours.
 
BradStevens said:
No, that's not the issue I'm discussing. Maybe you should wait until you can read my posts again and think about what I'm focusing on.

For the third or fourth time, I agree that the EOs re clearances are bullshit. Only one firm, Paul Weiss, settled anything and they settled because they also faced real liability on DEI claims. All the other firms, from what we know now, are fighting the EOs, including Perkins Coie.

The EEOC claims are different issues entirely. Those would have challenged DEI policies, affirmative action, etc. within firms. It goes on, trust me. That's why these firms settled for all that money--because they had real exposure. But no firm settled for $400 million in pro bono hours.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t remember the actual numbers, but the second to reach a deal did it for far more hours of service than the first. Had nothing to do with EEOC. Still busy. Read this one and follow links or Google law the law firms mentioned. Many are about outrageous retribution and revenge. Nothing more.

Trump reaches deals with 5 law firms, allowing them to avoid prospect of punishing executive orders

President Donald Trump has announced deals with five law firms that will allow them to avoid the prospect of a punishing executive order.
apnews.com
 
Aloha Hoosier said:
I couldn’t remember the actual numbers, but the second to reach a deal did it for far more hours of service than the first. Had nothing to do with EEOC. Still busy. Read this one and follow links or Google law the law firms mentioned. Many are about outrageous retribution and revenge. Nothing more.

Trump reaches deals with 5 law firms, allowing them to avoid prospect of punishing executive orders

President Donald Trump has announced deals with five law firms that will allow them to avoid the prospect of a punishing executive order.
apnews.com
Click to expand...
Paul Weiss settlement and EO included DEI complaints. It's in the EO. You're right, though, that EEOC didn't send them a letter, too.
 
The President also continues his attacks on the media and Freedom of the Press:

Trump says CBS should lose license after ’60 Minutes’ segments on Ukraine, Greenland

President Trump railed against CBS on Sunday night, saying the network should lose its broadcast license after “60 Minutes” aired segments on Ukraine and Greenland that the president said cast him …
thehill.com

We've had some thin-skinned Presidents in the past, but this is next level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
Aloha Hoosier said:
The President also continues his attacks on the media and Freedom of the Press:

Trump says CBS should lose license after ’60 Minutes’ segments on Ukraine, Greenland

President Trump railed against CBS on Sunday night, saying the network should lose its broadcast license after “60 Minutes” aired segments on Ukraine and Greenland that the president said cast him …
thehill.com

We've had some thin-skinned Presidents in the past, but this is next level.
Click to expand...
Nah the press is a total disgrace. Cut npr funding. F em all. They aren’t living up to their end of the bargain
 

No president gets to decide who deserves a lawyer

Trump’s ongoing retaliation against law firms for representing clients or causes he opposes should concern all Americans, regardless of their political beliefs.
www.thefire.org

“President Trump’s ongoing retaliation against law firms for representing clients or causes he opposes should concern all Americans, regardless of their political beliefs. It not only violates the First Amendment but also undermines access to vigorous legal representation, especially for anyone up against those in power”

 
  • Like
Reactions: Baller23Boogie and Aloha Hoosier
Bowlmania said:
I don’t get it. You MAGAs have your guy back in the White House, with his executive power growing by the day. You’ve also got the relatively rare government trifecta and a regime leader who’s surrounded by loyalists who are more than happy to do his personal bidding. (No more pesky John Kelly, Jim Mattis or Mark Milley types to try to keep him on the straight and narrow). Yet there’s all this simmering anger. Seems like many/most of you are ready to blow at any time. Now Mark’s a jerkoff. Honest question: what’s wrong with you?
Click to expand...
UncleMark doesn’t stroke COH’s MAGinA.
 
Aloha Hoosier said:
Nope, more law firms have offered 100s of millions of dollars of legal services to the Trump administration to avoid the EO penalties of loss of clearances and no access to government buildings. These law firms did nothing more than provide legal services to clients President Trump doesn’t like. This retribution and revenge crap is among the most outrageous things I’ve ever seen a President do.
Click to expand...
If it’s wrong, all presidents do it. Just COH.
 
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan issued an injunction against the President's EO targeting Susman Godfrey law firm.

AliKhan said that the president’s executive order against the firm was “a personal vendetta” and a “shocking abuse of power.”

“The government is purely trying to control what private lawyers may do, which I do not think will withstand constitutional scrutiny,” AliKhan said.

She added that the order, which would prevent the firm’s employees from accessing federal buildings and strip its access to federal contracts held by its clients, “chills the firm’s speech and advocacy” and “threatens reputational harm.”

 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IUclover

What did John Roberts do for Trump?

Replies
0
Views
170
The Water Cooler
IUclover
IUclover
UTFO

Trump waited an hour on the phone for Putin the other day.

Replies
17
Views
719
The Water Cooler
IUfan1957
IUfan1957
MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

No Comment - Your Kids are Dumb and You Probably Won’t Finish This And There’s a Twist

Replies
213
Views
18K
The Water Cooler
BradStevens
BradStevens
UTFO

Prepare yourselves for the fall of Kiev or death of Zelensky.

Replies
18
Views
887
The Water Cooler
Mark Milton
Mark Milton
outside shooter

Most of what makes MAGA hate the Dept of Education is rooted in lies about what they do

Replies
203
Views
5K
The Water Cooler
BCCHoosier
B
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back