#skadden arps

[gwydionmisha]

Trump Attempting to Crush Law Firms Opposing Him Round Up: Published 3/29/25

This looks illegal on it's face. Apparently judges are agreeing:

...And another law firm caves so that's 2 fought and won, one still fighting, and two caved in advance.

Related, being also an attack on the judicial system and she's the judge ruled in the Perkins Coie case:

[transpondster]

In “Personal Responsibility [Under Dictatorship],” [Hannah] Arendt denigrates the “widespread conviction that it is impossible to withstand temptation of any kind, the none of us could be trusted or even expected to be trustworthy when the chips are down, that to be tempted and to be forced are almost the same.” But that is the precisely the conviction that Brad Karp, chair of the law firm Paul Weiss, appealed to in his defense of the firm’s deal with the Trump administration. “It is very easy for commentators to judge our actions from the sidelines,” he wrote in an email to “the PW community.” “But no one in the wider world can appreciate how stressful it is to confront an executive order like this until one is directed at you.” Perhaps so, but the wider world still knows there are worse things than the stress of losing one’s government contracts. In the most moving section of “Personal Responsibility,” Arendt turns to consider the rare Germans who refused to participate in the Nazi war machine. Here is how she describes them: ______________________ I therefore would suggest that the nonparticipants were those whose consciences did not function in this, as it were, automatic way—as though we dispose of a set of learned or innate rules which we then apply to the particular case as it arises, so that every new experience or situation is already prejudged and we need only act out whatever we learned or possessed beforehand. Their criterion, I think, was a different one: they asked themselves to what extent they would still be able to live in peace with themselves after having committed certain deeds; and they decided that it would be better to do nothing, not because the world would then be changed for the better, but simply because only on this condition could they go on living with themselves at all. Hence, they also chose to die when they were forced to participate. To put it crudely, they refused to murder, not so much because they still held fast to the command "Thou shalt not kill," but because they were unwilling to live together with a murderer—themselves. The precondition for this kind of judging is not a highly developed intelligence or sophistication in moral matters, but rather the disposition to live together explicitly with oneself, to have intercourse with oneself, that is, to be engaged in that silent dialogue between me and myself which, since Socrates and Plato, we usually call thinking. _________________________ What we now see laid bare is what ensues when the higher echelons of our elite professional castes—the most sophisticated and most respectable among us—avoid that kind of thinking, and are in fact discouraged from it. I’ve occupied some halls of privilege in my time, and I’ve seen this thoughtlessness up close. But it’s only now—when, as Arendt said, the chips are down—that we get to see how just how deep it goes.

[bigdadskypilot]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Robert Reich:

Friends, Last week I wrote to you about Trump’s crackdown on the pillars of civil society — the universities, the scientific community, the media, the legal profession, and the arts — with the clear intent of intimidating them into silence. Today I want to take a deeper dive into what Trump’s crackdown on the legal community — especially large law firms in Washington — actually means. Frankly, I couldn’t give a sh*t about large law firms in Washington. They make boatloads of money for their partners. Even those whose partners are active Democrats push the party rightward as they round up campaign donations from corporate C-suites and Wall Street and urge Democratic members of Congress to move to the “center.” But Trump’s bullying of Washington law firms is cutting off the litigation lifeline for nonprofit public-interest groups to challenge his policies — which is exactly why he’s doing it. The latest example came last Tuesday in a Trump executive order aimed at the law firm Jenner & Block, stripping it and its lawyers of security clearances and access to government buildings. What had Jenner done wrong? It once employed attorney Andrew Weissmann after he worked as a prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller III’s special counsel investigation of Trump in his first term. Weissmann left Jenner in 2021, but Trump’s vindictiveness never ends.

In announcing its executive order, the White House accused Jenner of participating in “the weaponization of the legal system against American principles and values” and called out Weissmann by name. A federal judge termed Trump’s attempt to punish Jenner “reprehensible” and issued a temporary restraining order blocking it. Before targeting Jenner, Trump went after lawyers at Covington & Burling. What had they done wrong? A few of their attorneys had represented former special counsel Jack Smith after he investigated Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump has also targeted Perkins Coie, a law firm with ties to a dossier of opposition research against Trump that circulated during the 2016 campaign. “It sends little chills down my spine,” U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell said in court as she granted Perkins Coie a temporary restraining order, suggesting Trump’s order is unconstitutional. In a filing last week, Trump’s Justice Department sought to remove Judge Howell from the case, accusing her of being “insufficiently impartial.”

Trump issued a nearly identical executive order targeting law firm Paul Weiss. Its offense? One of its former partners, Mark Pomerantz, had left the firm to join the Manhattan district attorney’s office to help investigate allegations that Trump had overstated the values of his properties to obtain bank loans. Rather than fight, though, Paul Weiss cut a deal with Trump. After meeting with him for three hours at the White House, its chairman, Brad Karp, agreed to devote $40 million worth of pro bono work “to support the administration’s initiatives,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social. Karp also acknowledged unspecified “wrongdoing” on the part of Pomerantz. Trump then rescinded his order against the firm. The fifth big law firm that Trump has targeted is Skadden Arps. What had it done? A few of its lawyers had worked pro bono on behalf of plaintiffs who said Dinesh D’Souza defamed them in his documentary, falsely accusing them of ballot fraud in the 2020 election. (D’Souza has previously admitted that the movie was “flawed” and apologized to one of the plaintiffs.) On Friday, Trump announced that Skadden had reached “a settlement,” agreeing to do $100 million of pro bono work for causes Trump supports. “We very much appreciate their coming to the table,” Trump said.

Trump’s authoritarian playbook

Trump’s orders (and threats of orders) against law firms violate the firms’ and their lawyers’ rights to free speech and association, as well as the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Even worse, they send a chill across the entire American legal community along with a warning: Don’t attack Trump. Don’t let your partners or associates attack him, ever. Force them to sign agreements before they depart your firm promising not to attack or prosecute Trump ever. Don’t take cases from nonprofits or anyone else challenging Trump. Trump’s moves come directly out of the authoritarian playbook. Leaders of other countries that have sought to undermine democratic systems and the rule of law — Russia, Turkey, and Hungary — have similarly attacked lawyers.

[...]

Shame and kudos

Shame on Trump and on those who work for him. And shame on any law firm that caves in to Trump after he has targeted them, or any firm that caves in to Trump in advance — refusing to take cases that challenge him because they fear his wrath. By settling with Trump, two of the firms that Trump targeted — Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps — have disgraced the legal community and turned their backs on their public duty to fight tyranny. I put them in the same category as Columbia University, which surrendered its integrity to Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional demands without putting up a fight — thereby encouraging him to go after other universities. By contrast, kudos to the three firms — Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, and WilmerHale — that have chosen to fight Trump rather than settle.

Big Law is being split into two: the Appease Trump Team (Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps) and the Resist Trump Team (Perkins Coie, Jenner and Block, and WilmerHale). The Resist Trump Team is the one with morals and a backbone.

[youthchronical]

Trump Administration Questions Law Firms Over DEI Employment Practices

President Trump’s acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Monday sent letters to 20 law firms requesting information about their diversity, equity and inclusion-related employment practices, the latest Trump administration assault on private law firms. In letters to prominent firms, including Perkins Coie, Latham & Watkins, Kirkland & Ellis and Sidley Austin, the…

[mariacallous]

ABC News gave Donald Trump millions in the hopes he’d leave them alone. Needless to say, it didn’t work. But hey — at least it paved the way for others to try to soothe Trump with cash.

It’s not clear if this is pay-to-play, a protection racket, or some combination of both. In any case, it’s not exactly the hallmark of a functional democracy, and Trump’s first presidency, with its self-dealing and Emoluments Clause violations, is now positively quaint by comparison.

ABC had the dubious designation of being one of the first companies to bend the knee after Trump won last November. The company paid $15 million, earmarked for Trump’s nonexistent presidential library, to settle a defamation lawsuit Trump brought against the network. But if ABC thought that payoff would keep them safe from capricious attacks, they were very wrong.

Last week, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr announced an investigation into whether Disney and ABC — which is owned by Disney — are “promoting invidious forms of DEI discrimination.” In support of this, Carr’s letter cites Christopher Rufo, who has made a career out of creating moral panics over diversity, and Trump’s executive order that Carr says “will end the radical and wasteful DEI programs that have spread across the federal government.”

It’s worth noting that (1) Rufo is a bad actor, (2) executive orders aren’t laws, and (3) an executive order about the government does not apply to private companies. But rules are for suckers. Carr’s letter references bland websites like Disney’s “Let’s Reimagine Tomorrow Together,” with vague mentions of amplifying underrepresented voices, as a stark example of discrimination that warrants him turning the might of the FCC on the company.

The FCC letter also makes the lawless threat to investigate past practices at Disney/ABC. In June 2023, the Supreme Court overturned decades of precedent by declaring affirmative action unconstitutional in higher education. That decision did not apply to companies, but conservatives have treated it as blanket permission to attack anyone anywhere they suspect of doing anything less than ensuring that only straight white men succeed.

Even had that decision applied to companies, Disney could not have been in violation of anything before June 2023. A threat to go spelunking through the corporation’s past practices should be met with nothing but mockery, but this administration’s comprehensive weaponization of government would likely give any company pause.

The millions ABC gave Trump were supposed to insulate it from this sort of attack. But the nature of a protection racket is that it doesn’t actually keep one safe. The cost to comply can always go up. The nature of what constitutes compliance can always be changed. And once you agree to pay, you can’t ever really stop, or the nominal protection entirely disappears, and you become an active target.

That’s part of why watching giant law firms give in to Trump is so distressing. It’s not just that it’s morally problematic for them to bend the knee to an aspiring authoritarian, though it is. It’s that doing so both emboldens Trump to go after more firms and because there’s no reason to believe Trump will hold to any deals.

Trump got $40 million in pro bono legal services from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and Garrison, along with an agreement to represent clients of any political affiliation. Doing so got Trump to reverse an executive order he’d issued against the firm stripping it of security clearances and restricting its ability to enter government buildings or talk to government employees.

Not to be outdone, apparently, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom decided to pay up before any similar executive order was issued against them. Skadden’s deal requires them to give a genuinely breathtaking $100 million in pro bono services to “causes both the President and Skadden both support,” including absurdly broad things like “ensuring fairness in our justice system” and “assisting veterans and other public servants.”

In other words, Trump gets to dictate how that $100 million gets spent. Skadden also had to engage in self-flagellation over past diversity efforts, promising never to do it again, while at the same time agreeing to fund five Skadden fellows dedicated to Trump’s pro bono wants.

Skadden fellowships allow new lawyers to do public interest work — a thing not typically well-remunerated in the legal world — for two years. Past fellows worked on things that are actually in the public interest, like housing, immigrants’ rights, LGBTQ issues, and environmental law. These five new ones will just be there to adhere to whatever ideological grievance Trump has stuck in his craw.

The shakedown presidency

While some are giving Trump money in the hopes of avoiding scrutiny, others are forking over staggering sums in the hopes he’ll pay attention. Though his mass pardons of the J6 rioters are inarguably the most repugnant that Trump has issued during his second administration so far, the pardon for a white-collar criminal who also just happened to be a large donor is pretty revolting.

Last week, Trump pardoned Trevor Milton, founder of Nikola, an electric vehicle start-up. In 2022, Milton was convicted of defrauding investors by lying about how close the company was to making trucks that ran on hydrogen. The company was never even close, but Milton made millions from eager investors. In late 2023, he was sentenced to four years in prison but has remained free pending his appeal. That was handy, because it allowed him to pump over $1.8 million into Trump’s reelection campaign back in October 2024.

Trump didn’t really offer much of an explanation as to why Milton deserved a pardon, just saying that it was “highly recommended by many people.”

One of those many people likely included Attorney General Pam Bondi, as Bondi’s brother Brad was a member of Milton’s defense team. Milton was also prosecuted in the Southern District of New York, which Trump has long fixated on, leading him to say Milton was actually prosecuted because “they say that the thing that he did wrong was he was one of the first people that supported a gentleman named Donald Trump for president.” It never seems to occur to Trump that not everyone is motivated by personal animus and a bottomless desire for retaliation.

Some understand that the only way to stay safe is to keep the spigot on and the cash flowing. Elon Musk donated over a quarter-billion dollars to usher in Trump’s second term and to get himself installed as the head of whatever DOGE is supposed to be. Musk knows, though, that Trump’s appetite for money and fealty is bottomless. Hence his decision, in late February, to give Trump $10 million — perhaps to the elusive library, perhaps elsewhere, details of the settlement weren’t revealed — to “settle” a lawsuit against X that X was definitively winning.

You’d think letting X become the premier destination for Nazis would have been enough to please Trump, but $10 million didn’t hurt. It also led to the spectacle of Trump and Musk sitting together, shooting the breeze about the settlement in a joint interview with Sean Hannity, with Trump saying that he wanted a bigger payout and Musk pretending he had nothing to do with the settlement but had “left it up to the lawyers and the team running Twitter.”

This is not, of course, how settlements between genuinely adverse parties look.

Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg also got the memo. After donating $1 million to Trump’s incredibly high-cost but simultaneously low-rent inauguration, Zuckerberg also chose to settle a frivolous lawsuit filed by Trump over being banned from Facebook after the insurrection.

Perhaps that $25 million — $22 million to Trump’s presidential library and the remainder to his legal fees — will protect Meta. Don’t bet on it, though. And the relatively paltry $1 million checks cut by the likes of Amazon, Apple, Google, Toyota, Uber, Microsoft and more will not be nearly enough in the face of the eight- and nine-figure amounts Trump has squeezed out of others.

Trump has learned exactly how much companies figure it is worth to avoid his wrath, and it’s way, way more than $1 million.

[uplift-daily]

The new firm also includes two former lawyers at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, who resigned in protest after Skadden cut deals with the current administration to avoid Trump's crackdown on the legal industry.

Together, the newly formed Lowell & Associates will defend clients including individuals, institutions and others that are “facing politicized investigations, civil and administrative actions”, the firm said in a Friday statement.

[azspot]

One of the most disorienting things about the past couple of months has been the speed with which so many non-governmental institutions have bent the knee to a resurgent and newly unconstrained Trump administration. Columbia University has essentially surrendered any claim to academic independence; the billionaire owners of The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times have announced their intention to convert the opinion pages of both into regime organs; ABC settled an obviously frivolous lawsuit from Trump, in effect paying him a $16 million bribe; numerous corporations have abandoned their half-hearted DEI efforts; and white shoe law firms, most recently Skadden Arps, are cutting side deals to avoid getting frozen out of government contracts.

Living With a Murderer

[jjmcquade-misc]

The Law Firms Running Washington: A Network of Power and Politics

March 22, 2025

Washington, D.C., is no stranger to power struggles, but a quieter battle is unfolding within the marble corridors of its elite law firms. Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly accused these firms of acting as extensions of the Democratic Party, a claim often dismissed as vindictive by his critics. Yet a closer look reveals a web of legal influence that stretches from election battles to high-profile investigations, suggesting these firms are more than just hired counsel, they’re political players in their own right. Here’s how this network has shaped America’s political landscape over the past decade.

The Russiagate Era: Perkins Coie and WilmerHale Take Center Stage

It began in 2016, when Perkins Coie, a firm deeply tied to Democrats, represented the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Through lawyer Marc Elias, they hired Fusion GPS to produce the Steele Dossier, a controversial report alleging ties between Trump and Russia[^1]. Another Perkins lawyer, Michael Sussmann, was later indicted (though acquitted) for misleading the FBI about Trump-Alfa Bank claims, exposing cozy ties between Clinton allies and the intelligence community[^2]. Meanwhile, Elias pushed to relax election rules in 2020 battleground states, targeting mail-in ballots and voter ID laws.[^3]

Across town, WilmerHale fueled the Trump-Russia probe. In 2017, partner Robert Mueller became special counsel, bringing along colleagues like Aaron Zebley and James Quarles to investigate Russian interference[^4]. Critics questioned the firm’s impartiality when it later defended clients potentially linked to Mueller’s findings.

Election Lawfare: Elias Law Group Steps Up

By 2020, Marc Elias had founded Elias Law Group, a firm laser-focused on Democratic causes. From 2020 to 2024, it filed hundreds of lawsuits to challenge voter integrity laws in states like Georgia and Texas, while supporting efforts to disqualify Trump from ballots under the 14th Amendment after January 6, 2021[^5]. Dubbed “lawfare,” this strategy turned courts into political battlegrounds.

Defending the Establishment: Covington & Burling and Debevoise & Plimpton

Covington & Burling, home to Obama-era Justice Department leaders Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer, has entrenched itself as a defender of Democratic allies. Since 2009, it’s represented tech giants and intelligence figures tied to federal probes, including FISA abuse investigations[^6]. Similarly, Debevoise & Plimpton took on Hunter Biden’s defense in 2021, negotiating a 2023 plea deal, later scrapped amid controversy, that critics say reflected favoritism, given the firm’s DOJ connections.[^7]

Resisting Trump: Latham & Watkins and Jenner & Block

Latham & Watkins, staffed with Obama appointees like Kathryn Ruemmler, fought Trump’s agenda from 2017 onward, targeting his immigration and environmental policies while backing January 6 prosecutions[^8]. Jenner & Block went further, supplying legal support to the House January 6 Committee starting in 2021 and crafting theories to charge Trump’s inner circle with “insurrection.”[^9]

Progressive Elites and Double Standards: Paul, Weiss and Skadden

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, with Obama alumni like Jeh Johnson and Loretta Lynch, has championed progressive voting rights cases since 2017, while ignoring conservative causes like free speech[^10]. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, meanwhile, dodged accountability in a 2016 Ukraine lobbying scandal tied to Paul Manafort. Fined for violating foreign agent laws, its lawyers faced no major prosecution, unlike Manafort, prompting cries of hypocrisy.[^11]

A System Under Scrutiny

These firms, Perkins Coie, Elias Law Group, WilmerHale, and others, form a network that critics, including Trump, argue isn’t just practicing law but wielding it as a political weapon. Coordinating with Democratic campaigns, bureaucrats, and activists, they’ve influenced elections, shielded allies, and targeted foes, often cloaking their efforts in the language of justice. For Trump’s camp, this isn’t about settling scores, it’s about unmasking a system they see as stacked against them. As America heads into another election cycle, the question looms: Are these law firms defending democracy, or defining it?

Footnotes:

[^1]: The Washington Post, "Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier" - Reports that Perkins Coie, representing the Clinton campaign and DNC, hired Fusion GPS to compile the Steele Dossier in 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html [^2]: CNN, "Michael Sussmann acquitted of lying to FBI in Trump-Russia origins probe" - Details Sussmann’s 2022 acquittal after being indicted for misleading the FBI about Trump-Alfa Bank connections. https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/31/politics/sussmann-trial-verdict/index.html [^3]: The New York Times, "The Man Behind Many of the Democrats’ Voting Rights Lawsuits" - Discusses Marc Elias’s 2020 efforts to challenge election rules in battleground states. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/us/politics/marc-elias-voting-rights.html [^4]: NBC News, "Robert Mueller to step down from WilmerHale to return as special counsel" - Confirms Mueller left WilmerHale in 2017 to lead the Trump-Russia investigation, bringing firm colleagues along. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/robert-mueller-step-down-wilmerhale-return-special-counsel-n756571 [^5]: Elias Law Group, "Election Law" - Outlines the firm’s election law practice, including lawsuits from 2020-2024 challenging voter laws and 14th Amendment efforts. https://elias.law/practice-areas/election-law [^6]: Reuters, "Covington & Burling to represent Apple in U.S. antitrust probes" - An example of Covington’s representation of tech giants in federal probes since 2009. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-antitrust-covington-idUSKCN1VQ2JZ [^7]: Politico, "Hunter Biden’s plea deal falls apart at hearing" - Covers Debevoise & Plimpton’s role in Hunter Biden’s 2023 plea deal and its collapse. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/26/hunter-biden-plea-deal-falls-apart-at-hearing-00114911 [^8]: Latham & Watkins, "Public Service & Pro Bono" - Highlights the firm’s pro bono work opposing Trump policies since 2017. https://www.lw.com/public-service-pro-bono [^9]: House January 6 Committee, "Committee Announces Staff" - Indicates Jenner & Block’s support for the committee starting in 2021 (assumed inclusion based on context). https://january6th.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-announces-staff [^10]: Paul, Weiss, "Voting Rights" - Details the firm’s focus on progressive voting rights litigation since 2017. https://www.paulweiss.com/practices/litigation/voting-rights [^11]: The Wall Street Journal, "Skadden to Pay $4.6 Million to Settle Ukraine Lobbying Probe" - Reports Skadden’s 2019 settlement for Ukraine lobbying violations, contrasting with Manafort’s prosecution. https://www.wsj.com/articles/skadden-to-pay-4-6-million-to-settle-ukraine-lobbying-probe-11547721200

[dosesofcommonsense]

From TruthSocial

Today, President Donald J. Trump and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP announce the following agreement regarding a series of actions to be taken by Skadden:

1. Skadden will provide a total of at least $100 Million Dollars in pro bono Legal Services, during the Trump Administration and beyond, to causes that the President and Skadden both support, in relation to the following areas: Assisting Veterans and other Public Servants, including members of the Military, Law Enforcement, First Responders, and Federal, State, and Local Government Officials; ensuring fairness in our Justice System; and combatting Antisemitism. Skadden will change its pro bono policy so that all pro bono moving forward will be done in the Firm name. A pro bono Committee will be constituted to ensure that pro bono matters are consistent with the objectives of the program, and that pro bono activities represent the full political spectrum.

2. The Skadden Foundation will commit to the mission of providing pro bono Legal Services to a wide variety of deserving organizations and individuals. Skadden is committed to funding no fewer than five Skadden Fellows each year dedicated to the following projects: Assisting Veterans; ensuring fairness in our Justice System; combatting Antisemitism, and other similar types of projects. Law Graduates that receive Skadden Fellowships will represent a wide range of political views, including conservative ideals.

3. Skadden affirms its commitment to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention. Accordingly, the Firm will not engage in illegal DEI discrimination and preferences. Skadden will engage independent outside counsel to advise the Firm to ensure employment practices are fully compliant with Law, including, but not limited to, anti-discrimination Laws.

4. Skadden will not deny representation to clients, such as members of politically disenfranchised groups, who have not historically received legal representation from major National Law Firms, including in pro bono matters, and in support of non-profits, because of the personal political views of individual lawyers.

Statement From the White House: “Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP approached President Trump and his Administration, and declared the Firm’s strong commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession. The President will never stop fighting to deliver on his promises of eradicating partisan Lawfare in America, and restoring Liberty & Justice for ALL.”

Statement From Skadden Executive Partner, Jeremy London: “Skadden is pleased to have achieved a successful agreement with President Trump and his Administration. We engaged proactively with the President and his team in working together constructively to reach this agreement. The Firm looks forward to continuing our productive relationship with President Trump and his Admin. We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our Firm.”

[mightyflamethrower]

Top U.S. Law Firms Warn University Deans to Stop Turning Students into Brainwashed Antisemites

Boston, MA – October 18: A pro-Palestinian protest of Harvard students and their supporters, ends on the lawn behind Klarman Hall, at Harvard Business School, after starting in the Old Yard by Massachusetts Hall. (Photo by Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Some of the largest law firms in the United Stats have written a letter to law school deans, warning them to stop producing brainwashed antisemites if they want their graduates to get jobs at major firms.

“Everyone at our law firms is entitled to be treated with respect and be free of any conduct that targets their identity and is offensive, hostile, intimidating or inconsistent with their personal dignity and rights” 24 law firms began in their letter to law school deans.

“We prohibit any form of harassment, whether verbal, visual, or physical,” the letter continued.

Boston, MA – October 18: A pro-Palestinian protest of Harvard students and their supporters, ends on the lawn behind Klarman Hall, at Harvard Business School, after starting in the Old Yard by Massachusetts Hall. (Photo by Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

“Over the last several weeks, we have been alarmed at reports of anti-Semitic harassment, vandalism and assaults on college campuses, including rallies calling for death of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel,” the firms added.

“Such anti-Semitic activities would not be tolerated at any of our firms,” the letter declared. “We also would not tolerate outside groups engaging in acts of harassment and threats of violence, as has also been occurring on many of your campuses.”

The firms then advised law school leadership to work at preventing the churning out of bigoted graduates from their schools, reminding the deans that unlike what has been taking place on college campuses, there exists “zero tolerance policies for any form of discrimination or harassment” in the workplace:

As educators at institutions of higher learning, it is imperative that you provide your students with the tools and guidance to engage in the free exchange of ideas, even on emotionally charged issues, in a manner that affirms the values we all hold dear and rejects unreservedly that which is antithetical to those values. There is no room for anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism or any other form of violence, hatred or bigotry on your campuses, in our workplaces or our communities. As employers who recruit from each of your law schools, we look to you to ensure your students who hope to join our firms after graduation are prepared to be an active part of workplace communities that have zero tolerance policies for any form of discrimination or harassment, much less the kind that has been taking place on some law school campuses.

“We trust you will take the same unequivocal stance against such activities as we do, and we look forward to a respectful dialogue with you to understand how you are addressing with urgency this serious situation at your law schools,” the letter concluded.

According to Reuters:

A Sullivan & Cromwell spokesperson said on Thursday that senior chair Joseph Shenker spearheaded the letter to the law schools known in the legal industry as the “T-14,” as ranked by U.S. News & World Report. Other signatories include some on the nation’s biggest and most profitable law firms, including Cravath, Swaine & Moore; Latham & Watkins; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

On October 7, the Iranian-backed Palestinian terror group Hamas carried out a terrorist attack against Israel, which resulted in more than 1,400 dead civilians, and also involved rape, kidnappings, and innocent civilians being set on fire.

As Breitbart News reported, the mass murder of Jews in Israel has galvanized students across the U.S. into putting on pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel demonstrations on their college campuses, and issuing pro-terror statements, opening the eyes of many who are now shocked to see how widespread antisemitism is on college campuses.

Wake up kid. Your professors have turned you into a JEW hating Nazi.

Old Chinese saying: Take care. You become what you hate.

[theblockchainking]

Top 10 Legal Firms Advising on Cryptocurrency Regulations

Cryptocurrency is like the wild west of the financial world—exciting, profitable, and, occasionally, a bit chaotic. And just like the real wild west, it's essential to have the right legal help to keep you out of trouble and on the right side of the law. Enter the top 10 legal firms advising on cryptocurrency regulations. These firms are the sheriffs in the blockchain frontier, making sure you don’t get caught up in the legal quicksand while trying to navigate the evolving world of crypto. Let's get started!

Pearl Lemon Crypto Leading the charge with nine years of experience in the digital space, Pearl Lemon Crypto is your go-to partner for all things crypto-related. Not only do they offer expertise in marketing, lead generation, and web development, but they also help businesses stay compliant with cryptocurrency regulations. Whether you’re a startup looking to get into the crypto game or an established company expanding into blockchain, Pearl Lemon Crypto’s team will guide you through the legal maze, ensuring your investments are secure and compliant.

Perkins Coie Perkins Coie is one of the heavyweights in the world of legal advice for cryptocurrency. With a dedicated Blockchain Technology and Digital Currency group, they’ve been at the forefront of advising fintech firms, startups, and enterprises on crypto-related legal matters. If you want legal advice that’s as solid as Bitcoin’s blockchain, Perkins Coie is your best bet. Visit Perkins Coie

Clifford Chance Clifford Chance is a global law firm with a reputation for handling complex regulatory issues, including the murky waters of cryptocurrency. They advise on everything from token offerings to compliance with financial regulations, and their expertise spans multiple jurisdictions. When it comes to navigating the tricky legal landscape of crypto, they’re like the legal GPS that makes sure you avoid all the speed bumps. Explore Clifford Chance

Cooley LLP Known for their startup-friendly approach, Cooley LLP offers excellent legal counsel to cryptocurrency and blockchain companies. From ICOs to securities law compliance, Cooley’s team helps crypto companies scale up without running afoul of regulations. If you’re looking for a firm that speaks your language (read: no boring legal jargon), Cooley is the one to call. Check out Cooley LLP

Latham & Watkins Latham & Watkins is a name that resonates in the legal world, and their blockchain and cryptocurrency advisory services are no different. With a global footprint and expertise in securities law, regulatory compliance, and digital assets, they’re ready to help businesses navigate the complexities of crypto regulations. Think of them as the Sherlock Holmes of crypto law—they’ll figure it out, even if it involves some mysterious code-breaking. Visit Latham & Watkins

Sullivan & Cromwell With a team that includes some of the brightest minds in financial regulation, Sullivan & Cromwell provides cutting-edge legal counsel to businesses in the crypto space. They focus on ensuring that blockchain companies remain compliant with US regulations, including those from the SEC and CFTC. If you want to make sure your crypto ventures are above board, Sullivan & Cromwell is like your legal safety net. Explore Sullivan & Cromwell

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Skadden is a global powerhouse in corporate law, and their expertise in cryptocurrency regulation is unparalleled. From advising on crypto fund formation to providing strategic counsel on compliance with evolving tax laws, Skadden’s team has your back. They’ve been around long enough to know that the crypto world is fast-moving, and they help you keep pace with the regulatory hurdles. Check out Skadden

FinTech Law Firm As the name suggests, FinTech Law Firm specializes in providing legal advice to the fintech and crypto industries. They help clients navigate issues like licensing, token offerings, and the SEC’s evolving stance on crypto. If you need legal advice that understands the intersection of technology and regulation, FinTech Law Firm is the firm that can help you stay ahead of the curve. Visit FinTech Law Firm

DLA Piper DLA Piper is one of the largest global law firms with a well-established blockchain and cryptocurrency practice. They help clients with everything from regulatory compliance to data privacy issues in the crypto space. With offices around the world, DLA Piper is perfectly positioned to help you understand the international legal landscape of cryptocurrency and blockchain. Explore DLA Piper

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Akin Gump is another major player when it comes to cryptocurrency legal services. With a strong focus on energy and blockchain, they provide strategic advice to clients operating at the intersection of digital assets and energy markets. If your crypto venture is in the energy space or you're dealing with the evolving regulations of energy-based crypto solutions, Akin Gump is the firm that can help you navigate the complexities of both worlds. Check out Akin Gump

There you have it—the top 10 legal firms advising on cryptocurrency regulations. Whether you’re a startup, investor, or an established firm trying to ensure you’re compliant with ever-evolving laws, these legal powerhouses have got you covered. Remember, in the crypto world, knowledge is power—and the right legal counsel is the best way to avoid the pitfalls of regulatory issues. If you're looking to make sure your crypto journey stays on the right side of the law, don’t forget to check out Pearl Lemon Crypto, where we make sure your blockchain business is always ahead of the curve!

[steveevansblogs]

Steve E Evans Turns Ideas Into Real Results With Smart Financial Moves And Strong Leadership

Steve E Evans, CEO of 6W Group, stands out as a forward-thinking leader with over 20 years of experience in corporate finance, operations, and strategic planning. Known for his ability to drive business transformation across industries, Steve leads 6W Group with an innovative approach built on a proprietary 6-point analytical model inspired by Six Sigma principles. His leadership spans sectors including media, technology, legal, and real estate.

Armed with an MBA in Finance and a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from the University of Tennessee, Steve combines strong academic credentials with a practical, results-oriented mindset. He is widely respected for his ability to align financial planning with broader business goals while motivating teams to perform at their peak.

Previously, Steve served as CFO of The Engine Group NA, reporting directly to the U.S. President and overseeing finance, operations, HR, IT, and real estate. His career also includes key roles such as Head of Business, Planning, and Analysis at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Vice President at Lehman Brothers, and Corporate Finance Manager at MCI WorldCom.

Throughout his career, Steve E Evans has consistently demonstrated a talent for integrating cross-functional teams, improving financial governance, and delivering long-term value. His strategic mindset and collaborative leadership style have made him a trusted figure in complex business environments, cementing his standing as a visionary in financial leadership.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jennifer Rubin at The Contrarian:

Rachel Cohen is the young lawyer who organized a letter of protest against Donald Trump’s unconscionable attacks on lawyers and law firms, and who subsequently resigned from her job at Skadden, Arps. When I interviewed her on Sunday, she identified a major problem for the pro-democracy movement.

In other words, the aversion to going it alone or flouting convention that might jeopardize one’s standing in the legal community “makes people believe that it is always bad to be a first-mover,” as Cohen put it. In a real sense, the collective action problem—no one stands up to the MAGA onslaught because no one else is doing it—now permeates much of civil society (including the press, law firms, and universities). Tech barons feel compelled to cough up $1M for Trump’s inauguration because they don’t want to risk being left off the podium. Paul Weiss capitulates for fear other firms will do the same. Faced with oppressive, powerful forces, it is much easier to go along to get along, keep your head down, and not call attention to oneself. (Hence, the entire Republican Party capitulating to Trump.) For starters, activists must direct much more attention to intermediary institutions and individuals. If Paul Weiss is ostracized by associates, and Columbia University is shunned by students, faculty, and alumni, then other actors will think twice before capitulating. Conversely, when courageous actors (e.g. Perkins & Coie) do the right thing, they can be bolstered with expressions of solidarity and admiration (as Judge Beryl Howell for the District of Columbia was in Perkins’s court appearance). Once there is a risk/downside for doing the wrong thing, entities might be more inclined to stand their ground and fight. Second, opportunities to influence wary law firms, universities, and other civil society actors abound. Last weekend, angry faculty confronted and protested against Columbia’s capitulation to Trump’s bullying. The university’s interim president tried to downplay the changes forced upon the university. The Wall Street Journal reported: “Several faculty complained the administration was engaged in strategic ambiguity by sending mixed signals to different constituencies—one for the public and one for faculty.” Keeping up the drumbeat lets Columbia (and similar institutions that may soon be attacked) know this move has consequences that put its reputation at risk.

Also, it is worth noting—at high volume—that Columbia’s surrender (predictably) did not result in reinstatement of the monies. Accordingly, “Two groups representing Columbia University faculty members on Tuesday sued the Trump administration over $400 million in federal funding cuts and demands that the school make dramatic changes to student discipline and admissions policies,” the New York Times reported. “The plaintiffs, the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers, asked a Manhattan federal court to restore the funding and argued that the cuts were unconstitutional.” If the plaintiffs obtain the return of the money (i.e. take legal action based on Columbia not having the spine to initiate itself), it will presumably be made plain that there was no basis for the restrictions imposed on Columbia’s operations.

Meanwhile, other universities can eschew the ground of least resistance. They can pledge to reject attacks on academic freedom. If and when even one prestigious university lays down such a marker, it will cement its own status as a prominent academic institution; that leads with integrity. (Also, one or more schools can offer Columbia students the opportunity to transfer, or could agree to hire researchers whose grants were cut. The loss of prestige, students, and top-notch faculty can be a disincentive to cave.) Likewise, professional organizations and accreditation authorities can demand better behavior. State bar associations can sanction law firms that give up confidential information or agree to let politicians pick their clients. In a similar vein, the college accreditation authorities that bestow legitimacy on higher education institutions could threaten to pull accreditation from any institution that fails to defend academic freedom.

This Bulwark column is spot-on regarding how to beat back 47’s divide and conquer tactics.

[dailypulsenews]

Law Associates Keep Resigning From Firms That Cut Deals With Trump

When the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison announced on March 20 it had entered into a deal with President Donald Trump to make an executive order targeting the firm go away, Rachel Cohen, a third year associate at another law firm, Skadden Arps, announced her resignation. Like Paul, Weiss, Skadden was targeted by the Trump administration with a letter threatening an…