Loading summary
Transcript65 lines
- [00:01]
Quinta Jurecik
The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad free version of the Lawfare Podcast. Become a material supporter of lawfare@patreon.com lawfare that's patreon.com Lawfair also check out Lawfare's other podcast offerings, Rational Security Chatter, Lawfare, no Bull and the Aftermath.
- [00:32]
Madison H.
I don't know about you, but the number one thing I look forward to when I return from traveling is a good night's sleep in my own bed. That has never been more true than it is now that I have a Sleep number smart bed. I get so sore after traveling on planes, but after literally one night in my Sleep number smart bed, my body feels restored, rested and relaxed. The fact that my bed actually listens to my body and adjusts to my needs to keep me sleeping soundly all the way through the is worth it alone. Not to mention, my husband and I never need to argue over firmness because we can each dial in our own Sleep number setting. Why choose a Sleep number smart bed? So you can choose your ideal comfort on either side. And now for a limited time, Sleep number Smart beds start at $849. Price is higher in Alaska and Hawaii. Exclusively at a sleep number store near you. See store or sleepnumber.com for details.
- [01:23]
John Kecker
A Real Lemonade Pet Insurance Review by.
- [01:25]
Madison H.
Madison H. You know, I thought it was a little ridiculous to get pet insurance, but I really didn't want to not take my kitten to the vet because of money. In the last eight months I've taken him in six times because of ear infections and saved literally hundreds of dollars. He may even need to get surgery and I couldn't consider it without Lemonade's help. I recommend Lemonade to all my friends constantly and now I'm recommending it to you.
- [01:49]
John Kecker
Check it out@lemonade.com pet to me, the idea that you're going to make such a deal even if it's relatively cost free and get any benefit out of it is shocking. I mean, Trump just will ask for more and more and more. I can't see that any of these so called agreements will actually end up benefiting the firms other than they don't have to file a lawsuit which they will then win.
- [02:19]
Bob Van Nest
It's the Lawfare Podcast. I'm Quinta Jurecik, Senior Editor at LawFair with John Kecker and Bob Van Nest of the law firm Kecker, Van Nest and Peters.
- [02:31]
Jon Koecher
The way a dictatorship gets formed is for independent voices to not be independent and kowtow to the powerful executive. And if that happens to lawyers and the rule of law, we're doomed.
- [02:49]
Bob Van Nest
We're talking about the Trump administration's efforts to extort law firms by threatening retribution unless they do the president's bidding. Over the last month or so, the president has begun targeting law firms by releasing these executive orders purporting to address dangers posed by the firms that limit their business with the federal government and potentially even bar lawyers with those firms from entering government buildings. By my count, I believe about 10 big law firms so far have reached agreements sort of capitulating to the administration to try to avoid orders like that. And four have chosen to file lawsuits challenging executive orders targeting them them. And I'm talking to you now because the two of you, along with another partner at your firm, wrote an op ed in the New York Times in March arguing that firms should fight this kind of bullying and push back. Why, in your view, is it so important that firms not capitulate?
- [03:45]
Jon Koecher
Well, I'll start. This is Jon Koecher. It's important because these executive orders are completely unconstitutional, are almost a joke. The four times that they've been tested by the four firms that stood up, the district court judges said that they were a joke and have issued temporary restraining orders. And the problem with agreeing with this president's bullying like this is multifold. One is you're creating a conflict of interest, but for everybody in your firm in dealing with the government. So if you show up in a criminal case, you have two masters. One is that Donald Trump owns you and his prosecutors own you. And then the other is you're trying to represent a client that's completely against the rules and the way we've always operated. The second is that now Donald Trump is immune from prosecution, but these firms are offering something of value for an official act, which is called bribery. And you really sort of shouldn't, if your lawyers shouldn't be committing these overt crimes so publicly. And the third is that if you make a deal with Donald Trump, he's going to know how weak you are. He's going to know that you're going to roll over and he'll be coming back for more. You'll never get him off your back.
- [05:16]
Bob Van Nest
Bob, anything you'd like to add to that?
- [05:18]
John Kecker
Yeah, this is Bob Van Nest. I want to add to all those good points another key point, which is that these orders are intended basically to intimidate law firms like ours from representing people that Trump opposes. So, for example, our firm and many of the firms on the list that you went down, Quinta, do A lot of asylum work, immigration work, environmental work. We are doing pro bono work for clients the Trump administration is opposing. And the first time that we went public with our letter, it was in response to a Trump general executive order, not directed at any one firm, but directed at all firms that represent immigrants, asylum seekers, and others, intending really overtly to intimidate firms and discourage them from taking on this work. I think the Trump administration realizes that it's a lot easier to win if there's no one on the other side. And I think one of the most egregious problems with what the large firms are doing is emboldening him to go forward and take more firms out of action. I'm not sure these firms that have signed deals with Trump, how active they're going to be able to be in the pro bono world that we live in. Right. I mean, they were all big providers of pro bono services, many of them to asylum seekers, immigrants, environmental causes and the like. He's trying to take those people out. And that's what I think really generated. The first letter that we wrote was in response to that first executive order after Perkins Coie that was attacking us and other lawyers like us that do these things. I'll just note that yesterday, Judge Ali Khan in the Sussman case said, quote, I think the framers of our Constitution would see this. She's referring to the executive orders as a shocking abuse of power, unquote. I couldn't agree more. That was really well put. That was yesterday in court in Washington, D.C. yeah, absolutely.
- [07:32]
Bob Van Nest
And I should note for listeners, so recording this on April 16, that hearing was on April 15, and I was listening to that, and I completely agree. It was very striking. I mean, Judge Ali Khan said outright that she admired Sussman Godfrey for standing up and admired the other firms. I haven't been able to listen to all of the hearings, but in the hearing before Judge Bates, I believe that was the Wilmer Hale case. Judge Bates referred to the executive order and the language toward Wilmer Hale as reprehensible, which is pretty strong language from a judge who is usually pretty even keeled. And so I have been really struck by how offended the judges actually in these cases seem to be. One argument that I thought was interesting, Judge Ali Khan touched on this in her ruling from the bench. And Don Varilli, who was representing Sussman Godfrey, made this point during the hearing that in a sense, you can understand these executive orders not only as an attack on law firms, but as an attack on the judiciary in that it limits sort of the ability of the court to serve as a space where there's equal representation, where arguments are hashed out, you know, that the judge can get the benefit of, you know, good representation on both sides. I'm curious what you both think of that argument.
- [08:52]
Jon Koecher
I think it's right on one of the things that, in addition to these executive orders against law firms that the President has been doing is saying really nasty things about judges in a way that's almost unheard of. Calling Jeb Boasberg, who's the chief judge of the District of Columbia, a. I can't even remember. Left wing, radical, left wing, radical, blah, blah, blah. I mean, it is. He is. He's attacking judges. It's all out of the dictator's handbook, which has been repeated over and over and over again. You, first of all, get the oligarchs to cozy up to you and intimidate them and get them to do whatever you say. He's done that. Then you go after any independent voice, which includes the press, which includes lawyers, which includes universities, which includes other intellectuals, and certainly includes judges. You get rid of them all, and you get to be king. And that's not something that we can stand or should ever tolerate in the United States of America. And that's where this guy is headed.
- [10:05]
Bob Van Nest
So I want to correct myself before we move further. The case before Judge Bates was the Jenner and Block case, not Wilmer Hale. That was before Judge Leon. It's hard to keep track, in part because the same characters keep showing up. I believe there's only one lawyer from the Justice Department who's actually been litigating all of this.
- [10:21]
Jon Koecher
Half a lawyer. Half a lawyer because he can't answer any questions.
- [10:24]
John Kecker
He's on his way to being fired, probably. Right. I mean, unfortunately, the other. The other group here that's been brought to heel is Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice. They're making some outrageous misstatements, false statements, or simply refusing to answer, which, again, is part of the playbook. I think that it's remarkable the degree to which DOJ lawyers, who for many years have been considered independent from the President and operating on behalf of the country, are now simply part of the game that Trump is playing. And the other thing that's remarkable is these executive orders are crude. They're crude. They're thinly veiled messages of pure, just retaliation. Which is why I think a lot of the judges have been shocked at the fact that there isn't really even any effort to hide the notion that what I am doing as president is trying to punish people that were adverse to me and my electoral activities. For example. That's been the key so far, at least, even with Sussmann. I think it was their representation of dominion against Fox and the fact that they secured a settlement that implied the claims that Trump won the election were absolutely false. I think that was the genesis for that one. And these things are. They don't even make an effort to provide some lawful, logical backup, which is why the DOJ lawyers stand there with their hands in their pocket, looking down at their shoes with nothing to say.
- [12:11]
Bob Van Nest
So, given that the litigation has been so successful, each firm that has filed a case has received a TRO, sometimes within 24 hours of filing. Why do you think it is that firms have still been reluctant to fight?
- [12:29]
John Kecker
You know, I don't know the answer. John and I aren't privy to the internal deliberations. I think that it must be fear that even if you win, which is clear, these four firms that are fighting are going to win. Fear that you'll be punished regardless. And I'm not saying that that fear is unfounded. I think what they've done is terrible, and it is encouraging more lawlessness by Trump. But the only possible explanation I can think of is that they. They believe that if they. If they don't agree, even if they win, they'll be punished in some way. And perhaps, perhaps that's true. I don't think that excuses what they're doing for a minute. But I can't think of any other reasonable explanation than. Than the idea that. That they won't survive and they won't thrive even if they prevail. Because I do think it's very clear, given what the four judges have said so far, that the four fighting firms, Wilmer, Jenner, Perkins, and Sussman, they're going to prevail. They're going to prevail on summary judgment, and these orders are going to be declared unconstitutional. So there must be something more to the concern than that, because it's a clear path that these guys have created for folks.
- [13:47]
Jon Koecher
I think, in addition, these firms are worried and scared about what their clients will think. So this ripple effect, they're scared. They think their clients will be scared pretty soon. You know, we just have this long line of people that are fearful and that, as Bob says, win or lose, you can't win against the government that hates you. And that's what they're worried about for their clients.
- [14:16]
John Kecker
Having said that, having said that, does anyone really think that these Agreements are going to benefit these guys. I mean, the part of it putting aside the disgust, to me, the idea that you're going to make such a deal even if it's relatively cost free and get any benefit out of it is shocking. I mean, Trump just will ask for more and more and more. I can't see that any of these so called agreements will actually end up benefiting the firms other than they don't have to file a lawsuit, which they will then win. To me, the biggest head scratcher is why you would do a deal with a person like this that doesn't respect agreements.
- [14:56]
Bob Van Nest
Anyway, I wanted to ask from your perspective as partners at a firm, if you could maybe elucidate some of the dynamics within big law firms that might be pushing firms to capitulate? Not to excuse that behavior, of course, but just to try to understand it. One thing that has come up in my conversations with folks about why these capitulations are happening is that the degree of exposure that firms might feel can vary a lot based on what kind of work they do. So, you know, firms with a big corporate practice are going to be really differently positioned here than firms that do a lot of litigation. Can you talk a little bit about that and how that might affect the dynamics here?
- [15:36]
Jon Koecher
I think that's exactly the problem. The corporate partners, the ones who represent private equity and hedge funds and banks and all these entities that want to make deals with the government are pushing for peace. And the litigators, who are much more used to adversarial proceedings, are pushing for fighting these executive orders. And I think that's what happened. I've heard from some people in these big firms that that's exactly what happened. That there are litigators who were very, very distressed. I know there's a lot of young lawyers who were very, very distressed. I've heard from a lot of people that many people in these firms wish that they were not working for a firm that could cave in so easily to the government and wish that they would fight. But the corporate influence is what has driven this. And I think it started with Paul Weiss.
- [16:41]
Bob Van Nest
And what is it about a corporate practice that might push you in that direction? Again, I think for lawyers who are listening to this, that might sound very obvious to them. But for folks who are listening who aren't familiar with kind of the business of law, what is it about that kind of work that might make you vulnerable or less inclined to fight?
- [16:59]
Jon Koecher
Corporate lawyers will be trying to figure out how to serve their clients by making peace. They don't want to litigate. They don't want litigation. They don't want fighting. What they want to do is make deals for the executive order to threaten that. Anybody that is a client of this firm that gets an executive order is going to lose all their government contracts and contacts. People don't want that. And I think that's what the corporate lawyers are so worried about. And I must say, I mean, I get it, I understand it, we all understand it, but we are appalled. And I hope these folks feel humiliated and disgraced because I think that's what they've done to themselves.
- [17:50]
John Kecker
The other aspect of it too is I think the corporate practices depend on the government to approve deals. Right. A lot of the corporate practice is not litigation. It's negotiating with the government to get a deal approved. And I think there's probably a big concern, not only among the firms but among their clients, that if they're not in favor with the government, it's going to be much harder, particularly with a president like Trump that doesn't care about the merits. It's just transactional. It's going to be a lot harder to get deals approved even if they're legit and on the merits, a good thing. Trump will say, well, these guys aren't playing ball. I'm not going to prove the deal. So I think there's a great fear, not just that they'll lose clients, but they'll not really be able to be effective at what they do. We, we can be effective once we get into the courtroom. So if you keep us, if you keep us out of the courtroom, of course no one's going to hear us. But, but for the dealmakers, they've got to not only get in the courtroom, but they've got the government with the power not to approve the deal. I think that has to be driving some. I learned, I think yesterday that a couple of partners have left one of the firms, one of the fighting firms because for whatever reason, but I think it's because they're worried that even if they win, their deals aren't going to get approved. So I really, you have to applaud the firms that are fighting. I mean, those four really deserve our respect and our admiration because they're fighting even though, even though they have the same bottom line concerns they have deal folks. All four of those firms are involved in not just litigation, but other areas of practice. So I really hats off to the guys that are fighting. They've done us all a big service and we appreciate it.
- [19:48]
Bob Van Nest
And there's been interesting reporting about tensions between people more on the corporate side versus more on the litigation side. I believe within both Paul Weiss, which as you say, was sort of the first firm to reach a deal, and then also Jenner and Block, which chose to file litigation, that the litigation folks within Paul Weiss were frustrated that a deal was reached. The corporate folks within Jenner were frustrated that a deal was not reached. I mean, I'm curious in your perspective as well about, you know, what those kind of internal fights might look like within firms right now. There's been reporting also, as we've mentioned here, about younger associates expressing real frustration. There were some open letters that went out, some resignations, not only from, you know, folks who are in more senior partner roles at these firms, but also from associates who are just starting their careers and are saying, you know, this isn't really what I, what I signed up for. So it seems like there's a lot of different tensions pulling in a lot of different directions within these firms. From the reporting that I've seen, we're.
- [20:55]
John Kecker
A small firm, 140 lawyers, as you know, Quinta, and we have our partnership is very united and collegial. So we don't have that sort of situation here. Everybody here was on board with the positions we've taken and the stances. But I do know that at the firms that have cut deals, we are hearing from mainly the younger lawyers. Young partners and associates are the most concerned. I think that the more senior people may reach out in time. But we haven't had that same experience here, fortunately, because we're a relatively smaller partnership with people are all paddling in the same direction. And so it's been good. But we have heard from a lot of younger lawyers, I think, that are questioning whether they want to stay at the firms that cut deals. I think for a younger lawyer, what I've said is it's not your, that you didn't make the decisions. You should make the decision that's best for your career because you weren't involved in the decision making here. But I know that many of the younger people are very upset and disturbed by what's going on and, and think it might have a longer term effect on them. So we'll see how all this shakes out.
- [22:10]
Jon Koecher
And the same for law schools, the law students are paying attention to and they now have a chart that shows who has caved in and who hasn't caved in and so on. So I think this is going to affect recruiting and the way people look at the legal profession.
- [22:30]
John Kecker
And the firms, you know, it's always been true that in the United States, to the victor go the spoils. We've all recognized over time that when a Democrat is the president, the Democratic leaning firms get the work. When a Republican is president, the Republican, we live with that. We're used to that. But this is far beyond that, right? This, this goes far beyond that. It's way outside any norm that any of us have been used to. It's, as John said, and the judges too completely unconstitutional to be retaliating against people for representations they took. So the people coming out of school always had to think about, sure, Republicans, Democrats, who's in power. But that was always a changing thing. Right. They've never had to consider firms that did what some of these firms have done to their reputations by acquiescing in this thing and capitulating to Trump. That's a very new and scary, I think, phenomenon for many people.
- [23:37]
Jon Koecher
I couldn't agree more. There's so much talk in the United States about liberty and freedom, including many of our friends who were Republicans. Everybody wants liberty and freedom. And to have liberty and freedom, there has to be an ability to be independent and have independent ideas in your own thoughts and not be kowtowing or under the thumb of the government, which is a sign of an authoritarian government. Trump wants the latter. He wants everybody under his thumb. And it is completely unacceptable to anybody who values the United States Republic.
- [24:18]
Bob Van Nest
You mentioned a bit earlier that the firms that have chosen to fight there are real risks here for them. They're winning these temporary restraining orders very easily. They seem likely to prevail on summary judgment, but they may still be in trouble after that. Can you explain that a little bit? I think to, again, to someone who's less familiar with this ecosystem, it might not be clear why a firm could be in danger if they prevail in the court. Let's say, you know, Perkins Coey wins on summary judgment and that holds up on appeal. Do you still see danger for them as a firm there or any of the firms that we're talking about?
- [24:56]
John Kecker
About? Sure. I think they, that's why I say I think they're very brave and courageous to do what they've done. But for example, Wilmer is a very large, multi faceted firm. They do deals, they have a big corporate practice. They are depending on getting approval from DoJ and FTC and FCC and various government agencies to get deals through. So the idea that Trump will be deciding things on the merits going forward is clearly not the case. He's put loyalists in position at all these agencies. And so these firms, to the extent, just one facet, to the extent that they have corporate partners who are depending on deals, they're at risk. They're certainly not going to get government work. But maybe that was a foregone conclusion anyway. Their clients could be retaliated against. Notwithstanding the judges saying, you can't do that, how are we going to enforce that? I think there's a risk for them that the clients decide, even though they won, they got a tro, then a preliminary injunction, then a permanent injunction, they're clearly out of favor. I'm hitting the road, so I don't think we should take lightly the, the, the courageous efforts of these firms and hopefully others to speak out and fight back, because I don't think it's costless. Even if you win, they face risks going forward. So again, hats off to them. Thank you for standing up for the rule of law. Somebody's got to do it and they have done it and they're. They're certainly not in a risk free position even if they prevail.
- [26:46]
Quinta Jurecik
Did you know Fast Growing Trees is the biggest online nursery in the United States? With thousands of different plants and more than 2 million happy customers, they have all the plants your yard needs, like fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs, and so much more. Whatever plants you're interested in, Fast Growing Trees has you covered. Find the perfect fit for your climate and space. Fast Growing Trees makes it easy to get your dream yard. Order online and get plants delivered directly to your door in just a few days without ever leaving home. Their alive and thrive guarantee ensures your plants arrive happy and healthy. Plus get support from trained plant experts on call to help you plan your garden. I've been redoing my cabin in the woods recently and gutting a house is pretty expensive. Instead of paying thousands more for expensive landscaping, I have a honey crisp apple tree. Coming from Fast Growing trees to plant, I couldn't be more excited about the shade and frankly the apples and the cost savings is really hard to beat. You don't have to drive around to nurseries and big garden centers and choose plants from a limited assortment. Fast Growing Trees makes it easy to order online and your plants are delivered to your door in just a few days. Whether you're looking to add privacy, shade or natural beauty or apples to your yard, Fast Growing Trees has in house experts ready to help you make the right selection. With plant experts on call to offer growing and care advice, you can talk to a plant expert about your soil type, landscape design, how to take care of your plants and everything else you need. No green thumb required. This spring they have the best deals for your yard, up to half off on selected plants and other deals. And listeners to our show get 15% off their first purchase when using the code Lawfair at checkout. That's an additional 15% off at fast growingtrees.com using the code lawfare at checkout fast growing trees.com code lawfair now's the perfect time to plant. Use Lawfare to save today. Offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply.
- [29:24]
F
This episode of the Lawfair Podcast is brought to you by Wildgrain Wildgreen is the first bake from frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, pastries and pastas. Wildgreen's boxes are fully customizable to your tastes and dietary restrictions. In addition to their classic variety box, they recently launched a new gluten free box and a plant based box that is 100% vegan. Best of all, they take the hassle out of baking since all items bake from frozen in 25 minutes or less with no mess or cleanup. I've been really impressed by how easy Wildgreen makes the whole experience, everything from online ordering to tracking deliveries, to unpacking and storing, and of course, the baking itself. Are you ready to bring all your favorite carbs right to your doorstep? Be sure to check out Wild Grain so you can begin building your own box of artisanal breads, pastas and pastries. For a limited time, Wild Grain is offering our listeners $30 off the first box plus free croissant in every box when you go to wildgrain.com lawfair to start your subscription. You heard me. Free croissant in every box and $30 off your first box when you go to wildgrain.com lawfair that's wildgrain.com lawfair or you can use promo code Lawfair at checkout.
- [30:49]
Bob Van Nest
Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home. Out Procrastination Putting it off Kicking the can down the road in plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done out Carpet in the bathroom like why in knowing what to do, when to do it and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today.
- [31:14]
John Kecker
Work management platforms Ugh. Endless onboarding it bottlenecks admin requests but what if things were different?
- [31:22]
Bob Van Nest
Different?
- [31:25]
John Kecker
Monday.com is different. No lengthy onboarding, beautiful reports in minutes, custom workflows you can build on your own. Easy to use prompt free AI huh. Turns out you can love a work management platform. Monday.com the first work platform you'll love to use.
- [31:44]
Bob Van Nest
If you're anything like us, you love attention. And my favorite way to get all eyes on me is with next level shiny, glossy hair.
- [31:51]
Jon Koecher
Which is why we're so excited to tell you all about the new Lamellar.
- [31:55]
Bob Van Nest
Gloss collection from the girlies at Tresemme and Gigglers. We've got you too, because Tresemme partnered with us to bring you 1-800-gloss, a special bonus episode of Giggly Squad, where Hannah and I give advice on all things hair and giving gloss. Check out the episode and grab the Lamellar Gloss collection today because I'm officially declaring this spring Gloss season One aspect of this, as you say, is the question of how clients are behaving. I was reading some of the reporting from the New York Times on why Paul Weiss decided to strike a deal, and part of the reporting was that clients had started to leave because they were nervous that the firm would be targeted and that actually other firms had swooped in and tried to pull clients away from Paul Weiss, seeing this as kind of an opportunity to get those clients. What role do clients have in this kind of dynamic? It seemed to me that part of this is that big corporate clients are sort of following the money, trying to avoid vulnerability for their own part, but that in doing so, behaving like you might expect a corporation to do, are really allowing this kind of harassment of law firms to persist.
- [33:16]
Jon Koecher
I mean, there's also the possibility of the opposite. I know of one billionaire who called me up and said they were disgusted with the firm that they were working with because they had caved in and wanted a recommendation for a different firm. And so I think that is a role for clients. Clients have to decide where. Yes, the immediate getting a deal approved is an important thing. But the world is going to go on. Firms lose, clients gain. Clients lose, lawyers gain lawyers all the time. It's part of the game. It's part of what's been going on for a long time. And if a client disapproves of a lawyer standing up to these unconstitutional executive orders and decides that they're going to take their business elsewhere, so be it, I think. But actually, courage and integrity used to be important in the legal world and in the government, and someday it's going to be important again. I don't care how long Donald Trump lasts. It's not important now. But the people who Care about integrity and courage at some point are going to prevail.
- [34:38]
John Kecker
I'll say also that it's ironic to have your firm, which is known for advocacy, fold like this. Our experience with our clients has been overwhelming positive feedback. Thank you guys for doing this. We appreciate it. Somebody's got to do it. And we appreciate you doing. I mean, we're adverse to the government all the time. White collar cases, FTC cases, antitrust cases. So we're used to fighting with the government. And that's one of the things that we are known for, is aggressive litigation. And that was true previously of some of these other firms too. So it's kind of ironic to have a firm that has a strong litigation reputation to capitulate like this. And I just really wonder what message that sends to the litigation clients. Right. The corporate clients are one thing, but your litigation clients are depending on you to stand up to the government and fight the government when, when the government comes to, to attack their businesses or their business models. We've had a lot of cases here in the last five, 10 years where the government effort was really a broad based assault on the business model of the, of the client. So our feedback's been 100% positive. But we're a litigation firm, advocacy and being adverse to the government as part of our brand, and was part of the brand for some of these firms that have cut deals too. So I think it reflects very poorly on you as an advocate. If you're not even willing to stand up for yourself, how would you be willing to stand up for a client?
- [36:29]
Bob Van Nest
Right before we started recording, the New York Times actually published a story about how the President seems to be pushing for more from these firms that had reached deals than they had necessarily bargained for, which he's been able to do. Because in a lot of cases, apparently it's not even clear if there are written agreements or if this is really just a handshake deal. But there's suggestions from the White House that the President might try to use these pro bono services that these firms have committed to for negotiating tariffs moving forward on various government policy proposals, rather than the sort of pro bono commitments that it seemed like these firms thought that they might be working on, you know, matters regarding services to veterans, that kind of thing. And the thing that really jumped out at me in that reporting is that there was a line suggesting that, oh, these firms felt that they had been protected in agreeing, we're going to work on pro bono matters that we might have supported anyway and that they would be able to push back and ensure that. But how much leverage do they have at this point given that they've already shown themselves to be able to negotiate? So I'm curious for your sense, is this a situation where the administration might cross a line past which some of these firms that have reached deals might say, we really can't go that far? Or would you expect them to say kind of, you know, in for a dime, in for a dollar?
- [38:03]
Jon Koecher
They have zero leverage. They have given up their pride and if you'll excuse me, cojones to the president and he can ask for more. He's already told fossil fuel coal miners that he is going to use some of these pro bono hours to help them get more fossil fuels, more coal burning plants and so on, which is kind of ironic in this era where we used to worry about climate change and now we have somebody pushing coal, but they have zero leverage. And it's going to take kind of a revolution within the firm, I think. And they may get it. I mean, the young lawyers may say, we ain't doing it. We're not gonna do what pro bono work you're asking us to do? One of the firms I know has sent out emails to all the associates and younger partners saying you don't have to do anything, any pro bono work that we ask you to do, because they're anticipating the president's gonna use this in a completely ridiculous way to say this is the pro bono work I want. One of the things that's particularly galling to me is that he says he cares about veterans at the same time he is slashing and destroying the Veterans Administration medical system. And it's just nauseating for this draft dodging president with bone spurs to be attacking veterans in that way. Hypocritically.
- [39:46]
John Kecker
There's another aspect of it that's really disturbing. And we've gotten a couple of calls from firms that have done deals or about firms that have done deals where they want to move pro bono work over to us. In other words, part of this whole program is to not only to get services, I suppose, for Trump, but to discourage and intimidate firms from providing cost free litigation support to immigrants, people seeking asylum, environmental groups. What I'm equally worried about, I could care less what the firms are forced to do. They made their bed, they'll sleep in it. But I do think it's very likely to have a very dampening effect on the amount of good pro bono, real pro bono work that firms do. We sort of take for granted that the large firms were among the folks who provided a lot of free service, pro bono service, we're in the network too. Our little firm, we're in the network providing it too. The big firms provided a lot. And I'm equally worried that they will feel that they can no longer provide the kind of good, necessary, critical pro bono service to the environmental organizations, the immigration organizations, asylum of seekers that they did for fear of pissing off the government. I mean, the whole point of some of these orders, one of the points was to discourage that. And I think, unfortunately, given the number of firms that have said, yes, okay, we'll go along whatever they're asked to do, they won't be asked to do the kind of work they were doing. And they may feel that doing that kind of work is no longer viable for them. So I think we're going to see a dramatic reduction in the availability of good pro bono of the kind that we were experiencing for years in this country because people are afraid to do it. That would be a real shame. But I think it's probably going to happen given the number of firms and the identity of the firms. There'll be a reduction in the willingness of those firms to do the kind of pro bono that needs to be done and that the organizations are constantly trying to expand.
- [42:34]
Bob Van Nest
Yeah, and I've seen reporting that would be plaintiffs who are looking for representation right now are finding it harder to secure pro bono representation than they did in past administrations, even under the first Trump administration. I think it might be helpful for listeners to understand why it is that, let's say you can't get a big firm to take on your case pro bono, that you can't just go down the road and hire another lawyer in a two or three person shop. What is the, what is the, the difference in terms of what a big firm can bring to a case? Like, why isn't this something that can be picked up by, you know, much smaller firms?
- [43:20]
Jon Koecher
Some of these big firms bring in more than $1 billion a year in revenues. They can afford much more than a small solo practitioner or a small firm to allocate 10% of their billable hours to free work. And so they're a great resource in that regard. And in addition, there's a lot of cases that require a tremendous amount of legal work. And they can, they're much better off. It's much easier for them to assign a number of lawyers, a few partners and a few associates to such a case and go after, you know, especially if they're suing the government. The government has unlimited resources. Well, so do they. And you can get a fair fight. And that's been done, and usually for years. Big firms go to law schools and they trumpet how they say, yes, we represent corporations, we represent all kinds of capitalists, but we also represent poor people, dispossessed people, civil rights cases, voting cases. And they attract law students who think that they can change the world in a favorable way, but at a comfortable salary. So that's something that they can offer and that's how they get recruits. And now they're not going to be able to do that.
- [44:50]
John Kecker
I don't think John and I are. And many of our partners are board members at various legal services organizations and veterans groups in John's case. And I know firsthand that these groups, some of which get federal funding from Legal Services Corp. Or state funding through aolta, they depend heavily on relationships with the large firms. Their work is often great as a training ground for younger lawyers. They get hearings, they have client contact, but it's a two way street. The organizations have limited budgets and they depend heavily on the sort of thing John's talking about with younger lawyers who are super smart young attorneys providing services as part of their organization. They leverage the money they get through pro bono partnerships with the firms. And I'm waiting to see and very concerned in the case of groups I'm affiliated with, whether we're going to continue to enjoy that from firms, including firms here in the Bay Area, that have signed on to these bad deals. I think there's going to be reluctance on the part of the pro bono managers in these firms necessarily, or reluctance from the management committee, you know, the executive committee, to continue these relationships. Certainly that's something that Trump is directly trying to impact and discourage. Right. He's trying to discourage the kind of work that has been done traditionally by these firms. And it's not a small thing. They have lots and lots of lawyers, lots of young lawyers that are providing these services for free. And the organizations really do depend on that.
- [46:46]
Bob Van Nest
One thing that's really struck me over the course of these last few months as the story has unspooled, is that this seems to really highlight a tension between, on the one hand, the ethical responsibilities of lawyers and the money making incentives of big firms. You know, I was thinking about this in comparison to say, stock traders, you know, thinking about the tariffs, for example. Those are not people who have, you know, a sort of, of ethical commitment to society as a whole, just because that's not what they're doing. Their job is only to make money, whereas lawyers, you know, the legal profession has a greater responsibility to society to uphold the rule of law. And yet, of course, law firms are also businesses. And this really seems to be putting a lot of pressure on that tension. Is this a sustainable situation? What would you expect this. This ends up looking like over the months and years to come?
- [47:47]
Jon Koecher
Well, I would hope it would go back to the way it always has been, which is those of us who were lawyers and those of us who are presidents swear an oath that they are. And those of us who are military officers. You're going to support the constitution of the United States. You are not going to try to destroy and turn into a dictatorship the government of the United States. And I'm hoping that very soon, as soon as possible, we can go back to that norm, to that ethic and defeat and get. And have gone. This president who is, with his minions, all of his little sycophants that run around running these departments and are mostly incapable. I hope they're gone.
- [48:39]
John Kecker
I'm hopeful, Quinta, that once we start getting some rulings, things might improve. Right. We can't wait four years for things to get better. That's not a viable option. So I'm optimistic in the sense that I think all four firms and all four judges have moved quickly to get to finality in their cases. They're waiving discovery. They're going right to summary judgment. I'm confident these district judges will follow through and find these orders highly unconstitutional. And therefore there's a clear path to follow for those that will. We all swore to uphold the constitution. It's not an optional thing. It's part of being a lawyer. Right. It's a privilege to practice law. And part of that privilege is with that privilege is responsibility. And we all swore to do it. Not all of us are following through on that. But I think establishing a viable path to scrapping these is critical. And asking the judges, which they have been doing, to act decisively and quickly is really important. And as far as I can see, in the four cases that are pending, judges are doing just that. They're acting decisively on these tros, and they're acting quickly to schedule preliminary or, you know, preliminary and permanent injunctions through summary judgment. I'm very encouraged by that. And I think I'll go out on a limb. I think the courts on this issue, the courts of appeal, even the Supreme Court, are going to find it hard to overturn these rulings. I think they'll be affirmed, and there'll be a path for Those that will follow it to stick up for the law and the rule of law and knock these things out.
- [50:37]
Bob Van Nest
Is there anything else that you would like to see in terms of how firms are choosing to stand up that might help kind of blaze that path?
- [50:47]
John Kecker
Yeah, yeah, there is. There is. I was shocked. We've all been shocked to see how few of the AmLaw 20 or the AmLaw 50 or the AmLaw 100 are taking even the minimal step of signing an amicus brief. This amicus brief is powerful, but it's pretty vanilla. It's essentially saying you've got to stand up for the rule of law and judges and lawyers have to be independent. It's not radical. It's basic bedrock. The brief that we signed on to was well and elegantly written, but very simple. And that doesn't say much more than that. So, yeah, I'd like to see a wall of the AmLaw100 signing on to the principle that you can't run around intimidating law firms or judges and attempting to skew the system. I mean, I think that's important. It should be done. It hasn't been done. Instead, the Amlaw hundred are running scared and, or cutting deals, and that's the opposite of what we need. So, yeah, you ask me what else needs to be done. That absolutely should be done and should be done soon.
- [52:01]
Bob Van Nest
And these amicus briefs, are they filed in all four of the cases? I know there's hundreds of firms that have signed onto them at this point.
- [52:09]
John Kecker
They, they will be. They have been filed in the Perkins case. 507 law firms signed that. But again, not a lot of AmLaw 100 were, were on board. And they, they will be filed, I believe, in all three of the other cases at some point. Yes.
- [52:27]
Jon Koecher
And there's also there, there are other friends of the court brief. In addition to these 500 law firms, there are former national security officials have filed an amicus brief. Some ethics professors, I think just yesterday, professors of ethics were writing about the conflict of interest, the bribery. And so the courts will be, I think, inundated by friend of the court briefs from people who care about this issue.
- [52:59]
John Kecker
Also states, the states, many, two dozen states filed an amicus brief. The bar associations have filed amicus briefs. Former judges have filed amicus briefs, former bar presidents have foiled. So there's a whole bunch, including a couple of dozen states that filed in the Perkins case recently. And I think most of these will be filed in all four cases. And put it this way, they're all out there and available for the judges to rely on whether they're filed in their cases or not.
- [53:33]
Bob Van Nest
So I think it's fair to say, you know, we have seen, as you said, we've seen some of the big firms standing up. We've seen various actors, firms, states, bar associations standing up, but perhaps not as much as we would like. I am curious to kind of bring us to a close, let's say, you know, we continue down the road that we're on. Firms, some firms capitulate, some firms fight. What kind of a landscape would you expect to see in the field a few years from now? Does this have the capacity to kind of reshape what we think of when we think about big law firms and the role of these firms, the sort of economic role, the pro bono role that they play? Because it seemed to me a lot of the things we're talking about here are putting real pressure on kind of the way that the legal field is currently organized.
- [54:28]
Jon Koecher
The way a dictatorship gets formed is for independent voices to not be independent and kowtow to the powerful executive. And if that happens to lawyers and the rule of law, we're doomed. It will affect judges, it will affect lawyers. If everybody knuckles under to a powerful executive branch, we're going to end up in a dictatorship. And that is something that I believe, and I Hope in my heart, 99.9% of Americans don't want. And so let's keep it from happening.
- [55:09]
John Kecker
I think it's already had a very deleterious effect on the willingness of firms to take on various representation. I think that's a big, a long term impairment that we're going to face. And of course, the more firms that capitulate, the worse that will be. As you say, there's lots of firms like ours that willing to take on more of this, but there's a limit to that. And I think it's already had an impact that we can't unring, where the firms that have agreed to these deals are going to be less willing to do the kind of work that the country needs to have done. I hope that doesn't continue, but I fear that it will because these deals will continue. They've already made their bed, as I said. I think that's going to reshape things and I think it'll be to the great detriment of the justice system and underrepresented people and underrepresented organizations in our country who need a voice. And I fear that these deals are undermining their ability to have a voice in the system. That's critical to maintaining our balance.
- [56:22]
Bob Van Nest
All right, on that somewhat somber note, we're going to leave it there. John Bob, thank you so much for joining us.
- [56:29]
John Kecker
Thank you so much for having us. It's an important discussion.
- [56:36]
Bob Van Nest
The Lawfair podcast is produced in cooperation with a Brookings institution. You can get ad free versions of this and other Lawfare podcasts by becoming a Lawfare Material supporter at our website, lawfairmedia.org support. You'll also get access to special events and other content available only to our supporters. Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. And look out for our other podcasts, including Rational Security, Allies, the Aftermath and Escalation, our latest Lawfare Presents podcast series about the war in Ukraine, and check out our written work@lawfaremedia.org the podcast is edited by Jen Patya and our audio engineer this episode was Kara Schillen of Goat Rodeo. Our theme song is from Alibi Music. As always, thanks for listening.
- [57:32]
Madison H.
I don't know about you, but the number one thing I look forward to when I return from traveling is a good night's sleep in my own bed. That has never been more true than it is now that I have a Sleep number Smart bed. I get so sore after traveling on planes, but after literally one night in my Sleep number Smart bed, my body feels restored, rested and relaxed. The fact that my bed actually listens to my body and adjusts to my needs to keep me sleeping soundly all the way through the night is worth it alone. Not to mention, my husband and I never need to argue over firmness because we can each dial in our own Sleep number setting. Why choose a Sleep Number Smart bed? So you can choose your ideal comfort on either side. And now for a limited time, Sleep Number Smart beds start at $849. Price is higher in Alaska and Hawaii. Exclusively at a Sleep Number store near you. See store or sleepnumber.com for details.