Bulwark Takes - Law Firms Who Folded To Trump EXPOSED as Cowards! (w/ Sen. Richard Blumenthal)

Episode Date: May 12, 2025

Senator Richard Blumenthal joins Sam Stein to expose how major law firms have capitulated to Donald Trump’s pressure campaign, agreeing to vague, billion-dollar pro bono deals after being threatened by executive orders and government retaliation. Blumenthal criticizes firms like Paul Weiss for surrendering without written agreements, calling it a disgraceful betrayal of legal ethics and constitutional principles. He contrasts them with firms that stood up to Trump and won in court, warning that appeasement never works and that clients are already walking away from firms seen as too beholden to Trump.

Now at Verizon, we're locking in low prices for three years, guaranteed, on MyPlan. And you can get a single line for just $45 a month when you switch and bring your phone. That's our best price ever on unlimited welcome, with autopay plus taxes and fees, guaranteed for three years. Because at Verizon, we got you. Visit your local DC Verizon store today. $20 monthly promo credits apply to over 36 months with a new line on unlimited welcome. In times of congestion, unlimited 5G and 4G LTE may be temporarily slower than other traffic. Domestic data roaming at 2G speeds. Price guarantee applies to then current base monthly rate. Additional terms and conditions

apply. Hey everybody, it's me, Sam Stein, managing editor at The Bulwark, and I am joined today by Senator Richard Blumenthal of my home state of Connecticut. We are going to be talking about law firms, those that have capitulated to Donald Trump and those that have not capitulated and the explanations that they're giving and also just sort of the morality around it. Senator, thank you so much. Thank you. I appreciate being on with you. Thank you, Sam, for having me.

Okay. So let's talk in sort of broad strokes to begin with. What was your original reaction when you saw Paul Weiss, which was the first firm really, to enter into negotiations with Donald Trump and then to decide to settle with Donald Trump after they were targeted by an executive order from Donald Trump? Sam, I'll be really bluntly honest with you. I was speechless. Literally, I was absolutely astonished that a law firm with the reputation and the storied history of Paul Weiss, standing strong for constitutional rights, the civil rights movement, would agree or even

consider agreeing to this shakedown from the president of the United States. And of course, it gave as an excuse that it was afraid of losing clients or even some of its leading partners. And I was equally appalled that other firms in the legal profession, reportedly Sullivan and Cromwell, would try to poach their business or their personnel. So I was then angry. I'll be really honest. I was angry because not only is the president violating the law and attacking the rule of law, extortionately shaking down this law firm. But the lawyers are submitting to it in a way that I think is absolutely shameful and disgraceful.

Now, the executive order, just to be clear, would have revoked some security clearances for lawyers at the firm. It would have prohibited some of them from entering government buildings. And then most significantly, I think it would have said that government contractors really couldn't have used the firm or would have been threatened if they had used the firm. Those do seem, frankly, to be existential threats to a firm. Do you disagree with that? I think that they would have been disadvantaging for the firm, but they are so plainly illegal, Sam. My view is the firm had an obligation to resist them. Let's focus on what the president of the United States was threatening to do, barring a law firm from accessing physically premises of the United States government, which belong to all of

us as taxpayers, and then threatening to terminate their clients' contracts with the government in retaliation for other clients or causes represented by Paul Weiss. I mean, it's almost unimaginable or would have been before the president did it. Well, while Paul Weiss was doing this, other firms obviously were talking. I mean, I know this because I know lawyers around town. I'm sure you know tons of lawyers around DC about what they could do to sort of preempt the next targeting of a firm. And what was shocking to me, and I'm curious if you could provide any insight into what you heard was going on, was the reluctance of other firms to go and represent those firms that are being targeted and, frankly, to just rally around in sort of a collective action

way, Paul Weiss's behalf or any other targeted firm. What we saw instead was a real reticence by these firms to put their names on any briefs or even to defend Paul Weiss in the court of law. What were you hearing behind the scenes with respect to those types of conversations? I was hearing a lot of hand-wringing, a lot of furrowed brows, a lot of worries about business and about the president's intimidation, what the retaliation might be. But let's be very clear. There were law firms that stood up to the president and those law firms are winning in court. Each of those law firms, and I want to name them, Sam, because I think they deserve to be elevated.

Perkins Coie, Jenner and Block, Wilmer Cutler, Sussman Godfrey, they all received the same threats that Paul Weiss did. They didn't receive executive orders, but it was the same kinds of threats. They have gone to court. Perkins Coie was represented by Williamson Connolly. You're absolutely right that law firms were reluctant to represent the victims here. Right. But what the president did was pretty unthinkable constitutionally. And I don't need to tell you, but folks should understand that these actions were blatant violations of the First Amendment rights of free expression, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the Fifth Amendment right to due process. The president of the United States was just shredding the Constitution with lawyers. And again, I can't say it too often, have an obligation to obey the law and resist these

kinds of concepts. Right. And I guess that's what I'm getting at is, did they not feel a sort of ethical, professional obligation to say, no, we're not going to do this, or to even just say, yeah, we'll send an amicus brief on behalf of Perkins Coie and defend them and come out into the defense. I didn't see as much of that as I had anticipated. The blunt truth is, Sam, they just rolled over. And by the way, they have rolled over even without an executive order. Yes, Perkins Coie received an executive or rather Paul Weiss received an executive order. But the others, in effect effect are obeying in advance. And I will just emphasize, because I'm a big fan of the book written by Tim Snyder, Professor at Yale, called On Tyranny, that the first lesson of tyranny among 20 lessons for the 20th century is do not obey in advance. These law firms

are obeying in advance. Now, you've put out letters with your colleague on the House side, Jamie Raskin, asking those firms that have entered into advanced settlements with Trump. And we'll just stress, they've handed over about a billion or so dollars or pledged a billion or so dollars in pro bono services on a variety of different issues. You've asked them for explanations as to what kind of commitments they have made. I've seen the letters they've sent you. What is your read of their responses? My read of it in perhaps non-legal language is blah, blah, blah. That's not legal language? That wouldn't suffice in the court? Okay. But it is essentially ducking and dodging, non-answers. Representative Raskin and I have

said to them that we're unsatisfied. The answers are inadequate. And by the way, Sam, you'll appreciate this point. We asked them for written agreements. We asked them whether there were any written agreements. Are there written agreements? I have not seen it. All I know is that Trump put a post out on Truth Social and they have been referring people to those posts and or their internal letters to their own staff. I've seen no formalized agreement. So far as we know, there are no formal written agreements, which is astonishing. We're talking about the biggest law firms in the world, supposedly the best. That's how they would count their reputations and abilities. And they enter into this agreement that commits them, each of them to $100 million in free legal services or more without specifying what the causes or clients might be that the president would direct them to do.

Suppose he wants them to sue a client that they already have. They've got to get rid of that client. Suppose he objects to a client that they are representing. You know, it's absolutely mind boggling. They would enter into these agreements without anything in writing. Their contention is that they've made no actual formal commitments to represent specific clients, but that they've made commitments to do pro bono work in specific areas. It's an important distinction, right? They may not want to represent a, they may scoff at representing, for instance, a coal company or a,

you know, a private prison. Let's just throw that out there. But they did say they would work in the areas of combating antisemitism, upholding fairness in the rule of law, and that they don't have to represent specific clients. Again, we don't know anything because we don't have actual written agreements, but I'm just sort of curious what your read of it is. Yeah. I mean, these agreements are whatever the president says they are. Right. He could turn around and say, no, I'm going to attack you again,

unless you do this. And that is a really important point, Sam. This kind of appeasement, history teaches us, never works with a bully. You know, whether it's Chamberlain in World War II or again and again, even with Ukraine and Putin, it just never works. And especially with Trump's history of bullying, not only law firms, but as we've seen, universities, others whom he regards as adversaries or competitors. The man knows no limits. And even if there were a written agreement, arguably it wouldn't be worth much. But certainly without something specifying what the costs or clients would be, they've opened themselves to unlimited possible demands. But let's take anti-Semitism, for example. Does that mean they're going to be required to sue universities and colleges? There's almost no limit to what they could be asked to do in the name of these very vague

causes, veterans, anti-Semitism, and so forth. Yeah. Now, the other side of this is, will this work for the firms? And there was a story about two weeks ago about Microsoft. Now, we don't know if it's causation, correlation, whatever. But Microsoft did drop a firm that had made an agreement with Trump and did pick up a firm that had fought Trump as the company enters into a suit or a legal matter with the government. The reasoning we surmise is that Microsoft couldn't trust the firm that made the agreement Trump because they felt like the firm had already acquiesced and couldn't represent them in good faith.

So it's possible that these agreements work against the firms that cut them. I would add as a question to you, would you advise, I don't know, companies or maybe not companies, but democratic causes to say, hey, we cannot work with these firms that made agreements with Trump because they are already beholden to Donald Trump? I don't think I need to advise them. right there in the open, fully disclosed that they are beholden to Donald Trump and he will come down on them if he doesn't like what he does for or the firm does for a client. And I just want to be very frank. I know people who have decided to leave those law firms as clients. So I think their apprehension about losing clients if they didn't succumb and surrender to this shakedown may actually backfire on them because, yes, there are the Microsofts of the world that say, you know, just as a matter of principle, why would I want to hire a law firm that is so uncourageous, so willing to surrender to Donald Trump and so fearful of its own shadow and will

not stand up? And again, I want to elevate the firms that decided to stand up. Again, Perkins Coie, Jenner Block, Wilmer Cutler, Sussman Godfrey, they're winning in court. I'd rather go with a firm that wins against the President of the United States than one that puts its tail between its legs and says, oh, I'll do anything you want, Mr. President. You know, you just say jump and I'll say how high. And I want to add one more point just on a personal note. You know, before I took this job as a U.S. senator, I was a trial lawyer. I was attorney general of the state of Connecticut for 20 years. I was the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, the chief federal prosecutor. If you ask me what I am, I'll tell you I'm a trial lawyer. I'm proud of being a trial lawyer. We take unpopular causes. We're willing to stand up and take a hit financially.

John Adams represented the soldiers who committed the Boston massacre. He was fearful about his reputation, but he said they deserve to be represented. That was pretty gutsy for him to do. And that's the tradition of trial lawyers. These guys who succumb to this kind of threat and bullying, in my before, that my sister works for GenderBlock. So there you go. Praise to that firm, I suppose. All right, Senator Richard Blumenthal, thank you so much for joining us. Keep us posted on any other correspondence you have with these firms and any other letters you get. We'd love to keep having you back on the show. Appreciate it and appreciate the viewers for tuning in and subscribing. We will talk to you soon. Thank you for having me. Great work.