Trump Escalates Legal Firm Feud with Executive Order Targeting Paul Weiss

Former President Donald Trump has broadened his offensive against private law firms, issuing an executive order targeting the contracts and security clearances of employees at Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP. This action follows closely on the heels of a federal judge’s temporary restraining order that partially blocked a similar executive order aimed at another prominent firm, Perkins Coie.

The executive order singling out Paul Weiss explicitly references the firm’s previous association with Mark Pomerantz, a former Manhattan prosecutor. Pomerantz penned a 2022 letter, published in The New York Times, asserting Trump’s culpability in numerous felony violations. At the time of the letter’s publication, Trump had not yet been formally indicted on any charges. Subsequently, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg successfully secured an indictment and a conviction against Trump on charges of falsifying business records. Trump is currently appealing this conviction.

Paul Weiss has responded to the executive order, emphasizing the temporal distance between Pomerantz’s tenure at the firm and his later involvement in the Trump investigation. "The executive order is focused on the activities of Mark Pomerantz, who retired from the firm in 2012 and went on to work at the District Attorney’s office nearly a decade later," Paul Weiss Communications Director Laura Van Drie told USA TODAY in a statement. "Mr. Pomerantz has not been affiliated with the firm for years."

Adding to the intrigue, Trump’s executive order erroneously states that Paul Weiss hired Pomerantz in 2022. Van Drie did not immediately respond to a follow-up request for clarification on whether this statement in the order is factually incorrect.

This recent action against Paul Weiss is not an isolated incident. On February 25th, Trump also took the step of suspending the security clearances of lawyers at Covington & Burling, another prominent law firm. The rationale behind this decision was their assistance to former special counsel Jack Smith. Smith had secured two indictments against Trump before the 2024 election, after which the Justice Department dropped the charges.

Beyond the specific allegations related to Pomerantz and Smith, Trump’s orders targeting both Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie include accusations of "racially discriminatory policies." These policies, according to Trump, are widespread throughout "nearly every other large, influential, or industry leading law firm." This assertion appears to be a direct reference to firms’ diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, designed to increase the representation of underrepresented groups within their ranks.

The executive orders represent a significant escalation in Trump’s ongoing conflict with the legal establishment. He has repeatedly attacked lawyers and law firms he views as adversaries, accusing them of political bias and improper conduct. These actions raise concerns about the potential for abuse of power and the chilling effect such actions may have on the independence of the legal profession.

The legal community has largely condemned Trump’s actions, arguing that they are an attempt to intimidate and punish those who have dared to challenge him. Critics also point out that the executive orders could have a detrimental impact on the ability of law firms to attract and retain talent, as well as their willingness to take on cases that could be politically sensitive.

The executive order’s focus on past associations, rather than current conduct, is particularly troubling. Paul Weiss rightly argues that Pomerantz’s actions while working for the Manhattan District Attorney’s office are separate and distinct from his previous affiliation with the firm. Imputing responsibility to a law firm based on the past actions of a former employee sets a dangerous precedent and could open the door to widespread political retaliation.

Moreover, the broad accusations of "racially discriminatory policies" lack specific evidence and appear to be a thinly veiled attempt to undermine DEI initiatives. These initiatives are designed to address historical inequities and promote equal opportunity, and they are widely supported by legal and business leaders across the country. To characterize them as discriminatory is a distortion of reality and a dangerous attempt to divide and polarize.

The timing of these executive orders, following the partial blocking of the order against Perkins Coie, suggests a deliberate strategy of attrition. Even if the courts ultimately strike down these orders, the legal battles will consume significant resources and create a climate of uncertainty and fear within the legal community. This, in turn, could discourage lawyers from taking on cases that challenge Trump or his allies.

The implications of these actions extend beyond the immediate impact on the targeted law firms. They raise fundamental questions about the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the independence of the legal profession. A system where the executive branch can arbitrarily target and punish law firms based on political disagreements is a system ripe for abuse and incompatible with democratic principles.

The legal challenges to these executive orders are likely to be protracted and complex. The courts will need to balance the president’s authority to manage government contracts and security clearances with the constitutional rights of the affected law firms and their employees. The outcome of these cases will have far-reaching consequences for the legal profession and the future of American democracy.