this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
313 points (99.7% liked)

News

37483 readers
2645 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

On the heels of Donald Trump’s executive order targeting several top law firms over ties to the president’s perceived enemies and decisions he opposes, Trump on Thursday announced that he had reached an agreement to drop his attack against one of the firms, Paul, Weiss. The deal, according to a Truth Social post, will renege Trump’s threat to suspend the security clearances of the firm’s attorneys in exchange for Paul, Weiss to dedicate $40 million in pro-bono services throughout his term.

The deal was widely seen as a remarkable act of capitulation by one of the most powerful law firms in the country. And now, an associate at Skadden Arps, another top firm, is speaking out.

In a company-wide email that was publicized online, Rachel Cohen, a third-year finance associate, condemned her employers for failing to speak out against the Trump administration’s retaliatory efforts. Cohen said that her letter should be considered a resignation unless any meaningful action emerged.

“This is not what I saw for my career or for my evening, but Paul Weiss’ decision to cave to the Trump administration on DEI, representation, and staffing has forced my hand,” she wrote. “We do not have time. It is either now or never, and if it’s never, I will not continue to work here.”

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 83 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do the Trump maneuver. Fire everyone, declare bankruptcy and start a new firm called Waul Peiss that isn't under this obligation.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 14 points 1 year ago

That's brilliant.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

I’d go for Pall Vice, but the concept is sound.

[–] peregrin5@lemm.ee 65 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

If your company caves to Trump/the republicans, don't quit in a grand statement. They don't care, they'll save money, they get rid of a possibly problematic employee, and you're out of a job.

Lie low, stay under the radar, continue to collect paychecks, meanwhile, destroy them with little acts of sabotage from the inside. You get your satisfaction, retain your income, meanwhile robbing them of income all the while actually working against them.

They have almost no defense against agents on the inside.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That’s not how it works in big law. Reputation means everything. If good lawyers decide to move, that affects partner profit.

A 3rd year associate might not make big waves but it does open the door for partner moves. It might not make headlines when it happens too.

[–] Shirasho@lemmings.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In addition any paralegals will generally follow the lawyer they work with, so if a single lawyer quits you end up losing a lot of workforce.

Partners can take entire departments with them to other law firms.

[–] wjrii@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Yup. Anyone other than an equity partner is literally a little money machine made of meat. A third-year will bill 2000+ hours (and most can bill maaaaybe 80% of their working hours) at $800-$1200 per hour and take home maybe $300k in salary and bonus.

In addition to what the other person said, you don't want to be sabotaging people who are upholding the laws. I don't think they'll be getting work from Trump anytime soon, so who exactly wins if they stay and the just do a worse job defending people or prosecuting people? Maybe if they worked for Rudy Giuliani or something, but they don't.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

During Trump 1 several of his cabinet members took that stance and all the liberals got mad at them for working for Trump.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 year ago

Why would anyone hire a lawyer from a firm that gives in like that? I don't want a lawyer who's a coward! I want one that will fight for me with everything they've got.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

One thing the lawyer on Opening Arguments (US conlaw/current events podcast, progressive-liberal perspective) says often that rings really true to me is that "Fascism requires lawyers", and lots of lawyers, to become established. We saw it in Germany and Italy as well - and in other fascist-lite regimes. You need people who know the law and know how to challenge and change those laws in order to take power. Usually, that means selling out & perverting the rule of law in destructive ways.

[–] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

This woman is awesome.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago

Jackass money obsessed owners: "See ya never! There are plenty of doors on this building, pick whatever one you like best!"

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 1 year ago

I mean if I ran one of these firms I would do it. Heck I would give him unlimited credit for my high quality legal services.