After Donald Trump launched an unprecedented offensive against prominent law firms last year, four of the firms chose to fight back against the president’s authoritarian-style assault. It wasn’t long before the quartet filed separate lawsuits against the White House, and in court, the four firms went undefeated.
As The New York Times noted in May after one of the firms’ court victories, “The ruling seemed to validate the strategy, embraced by a minority of firms, of fighting the administration instead of caving to a pressure campaign and making deals with Mr. Trump to avoid persecution.”
Now, the strategy appears even smarter: My MS NOW colleagues Lisa Rubin and Jesse Rodriguez reported that the Trump administration has signaled its intention to withdraw its appeal of the earlier losses. Soon after, The Wall Street Journal similarly reported:
The Trump administration plans to abandon its defense of the president’s executive orders sanctioning several law firms, according to people familiar with the matter.
The Justice Department as soon as Monday is expected to drop its appeals of four trial-court rulings that struck down President Trump’s actions against law firms Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey.
For the four firms that already fought and won against the White House, the Justice Department’s apparent decision to throw in the towel leaves little doubt that they pursued the right and effective course. These firms saw unjust bullying; they saw other firms capitulate; they decided instead to stand their ground; and they’re in the process of winning the overall fight.
Those looking for evidence to bolster the “when you fight, you win” thesis need look no further than these developments.
As for the firms that decided instead to try to appease Trump, the consequences have been quite dramatic. Legal giants such as Paul Weiss, for example, which was the first firm to negotiate a deal with Team Trump, has lost a variety of partners over its strategy, as well as notable clients. Other firms that caved to the Republican administration have faced related challenges.
What’s more, some of these same firms have also come to realize that their deals with the president were worse than they first realized.
From these firms’ perspective, appeasement was supposed to guarantee relative tranquility and client satisfaction. Instead, these firms have lost clients, partners, associates and credibility within the industry. Indeed, the firms that tried to placate and pacify the president must be kicking themselves right about now: All they had to do was defend themselves, their profession, the law and the integrity of the system itself, and they could’ve avoided all kinds of problems.
Instead, they settled on a strategy that backfired spectacularly.
What’s of particular interest now, however, is what these appeasing firms will do now.
I keep waiting for at least one of the firms that went along with the White House to declare, “Upon further reflection, we’ve decided to fight back against the White House offensive and abandon the earlier deal that was reached under unjust circumstances. The president asked too much while threatening too much, and we’ve decided to take our chances.”
As things stand, if one these firms were to take such a step, they’d not just be better off within the industry — they’d also proceed with the confidence that they’d prevail over the administration, just as Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey already have. Watch this space.
This post updates our related earlier coverage. It also relies on reporting from MS NOW’s Lisa Rubin and Jesse Rodriguez.
