Biglaw Is Under Attack. Here’s What The Firms Are Doing About It.; Above The Law, April 4, 2025

Kathryn Rubino , Above The Law; Biglaw Is Under Attack. Here’s What The Firms Are Doing About It. Introducing the Biglaw Spine Index.

"The President of the United States is using the might and power of the office to attack Biglaw firms and the rule of law. It’s pretty chilling stuff that is clearly designed to break major law firms and have them bend a knee to Trump or extract a tremendous financial penalty. This is an assault not just on the firms in the crosshairs, but on the very rule of law that is the backbone of our nation, without which there’s little to check abuses of power. 

But in the face of financial harm, too many firms are willing to proactively seek out Trump’s seal of approval and provide pro bono payola, that is, free legal services on behalf of conservative clients or causes in order to avoid Trumpian retribution. So we here at Above the Law have decided to track what exact Biglaw firms are doing in response to the bombardment on Biglaw and the legal system. Some have struck a deal with Trump, some are fighting in court, some have signed an amicus brief in the Perkins Coie case, but the overwhelming majority have stayed silent. 

Introducing the Biglaw Spine Index. Every firm in the Am Law 200 (based on the 2024 ranking, which is the most readily available one as of this publication) is listed with what they’re doing — or not — in the face of Trump’s attack on Biglaw. We’ve included each firm’s gross revenue and profits per equity partner, which we think highlights the greed involved."

Law Firm Bends in Face of Trump Demands; The New York Times, March 20, 2025

Michael S. Schmidt, The New York Times ; Law Firm Bends in Face of Trump Demands

[Kip Currier: This law firm's capitulation and transactionalism epitomizes the definition of craven: 

contemptibly lacking in courage; cowardly

It's also a terrible precedent to set for the rule of law, the legal profession, and democracy.]

[Excerpt]

"President Trump and the head of the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP have reached a deal under which Mr. Trump will drop the executive order he leveled against the firm, Mr. Trump said on Thursday.

In the deal, Mr. Trump said, the firm agreed to a series of commitments, including to represent clients no matter their political affiliation and contribute $40 million in legal services to causes Mr. Trump has championed, including “the President’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and other mutually agreed projects.

It’s unclear how the money will be used to help the task force. The firm, Mr. Trump said, also agreed to conduct an audit to ensure its hiring practices are merit based “and will not adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies.”"

‘Anticipatory obedience’: newspapers’ refusal to endorse shines light on billionaire owners’ motives; The Guardian, October 26, 2024

Lois Beckett, The Guardian; ‘Anticipatory obedience’: newspapers’ refusal to endorse shines light on billionaire owners’ motives

"When two American billionaires blocked the newspapers they own from endorsing Kamala Harris this month, they tried to frame the decision as an act of civic responsibility.

“I think my fear is, if we chose either one, that it would just add to the division,” Patrick Soon-Shiong, the biotech billionaire who owns the Los Angeles Times, said. He emphasised that though some might assume his family is “ultra-progressive”, he is a registered “independent”.

At the Washington Post, which reported that its billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos, was behind the decision, publisher William Lewis described the retreat from making presidential endorsements as “a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds”.

Veteran journalists and media critics are using a very different phrase to describe Soon-Shiong’s and Bezos’s choice: they’re saying the two billionaires, among the richest men on the entire globe, are performing “anticipatory obedience” to Donald Trump.

Yes, “cowardice” has also been a popular way to describe the choice by the billionaire owners of two of the country’s major newspapers to not to risk angering Trump by allowing their papers to endorse his opponent.

But “anticipatory obedience” is more specific. The term comes from On Tyranny, the bestselling guide to authoritarianism by Timothy Snyder, a historian of eastern and central Europe. The phrase describes, in Snyder’s words, “the major lesson of the Nazi takeover, and what was supposed to be one of the major lessons of the twentieth century: don’t hand over the power you have before you have to. Don’t protect yourself too early.” It’s a way of describing what Europeans did wrong as totalitarians came to power: by “mentally and physically conceding, you’re already giving over your power to the aspiring authoritarian”, Snyder explains."

The Guardrails Are Already Crumpling; The Bulwark, October 25, 2024

JONATHAN V. LAST , The Bulwark; The Guardrails Are Already Crumpling

"ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON, the Washington Post announced that it would not be making an endorsement in the presidential race. After that, a number of things happened very quickly.

First, the paper’s former executive editor Marty Baron called the decision “cowardice.”

Second, at least one senior Post opinion writer resigned.

Third, it was leaked that the editor of the editorial page had already drafted the paper’s endorsement of Kamala Harris when publisher Will Lewis—who is a new hire, hailing from the Rupert Murdoch journalism tree—quashed it and then released a CYA statement about how the paper was “returning to its roots” of not endorsing candidates. The Post itself reported that the decision was made by the paper’s owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

Everything about this story feels like a tempest in a teapot, a boiling story about legacy media fretting over itself in the mirror.

It’s not.

It’s a situation analogous to what we saw in Russia in the early 2000s: We are witnessing the surrender of the American business community to Donald Trump.

But this isn’t a journalism story. It’s a business story.

Following Trump’s 2016 victory, the Post leaned hard into its role as a guardian of democracy. This meant criticizing, and reporting aggressively on, Trump, who responded by threatening Bezos’s various business interests.

And that’s what this story is about: It’s about the most consequential American entrepreneur of his generation signaling his submission to Trump—and the message that sends to every other corporation and business leader in the country. In the world.

Killing this editorial says, If Jeff Bezos has to be nice to Trump, then so do you. Keep your nose clean, bub."...

These guys can hear the music. They’ve seen the sides being chosen: Elon Musk and Peter Theil assembling with Trump’s gangster government in waiting. They see Mark Zuckerberg praising Trump as a “badass.” And now they see Bezos getting in line, too.

What’s remarkable is that Trump didn’t have to arrest Bezos to secure his compliance. Trump didn’t even have to win the election. Just the fact that he has an even-money chance to become president was threat enough.

Or maybe that’s not remarkable. One of Timothy Snyder’s rules for resisting authoritarians is that “most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given.” People surrender preemptively much more often than you might expect.

Two weeks ago, Ian Bassin and Maximillian Potter wrote what might be the most prophetic essay of the year. They warned about “anticipatory obedience” in the media.

Seventeen days later, Bezos made his demonstration.

In case you needed reminding: The “guardrails” aren’t guardrails. They’re people.

And they’re already collapsing. Before a single state has been called."