Ever since the elite law firms Paul Weiss and Skadden reached deals with President Trump to scuttle executive orders that could have crippled their businesses, the firms’ top partners have closed ranks in support of the agreements.
But there is discontent among the vast army of lawyers who may not have much sway in decision-making at the two firms but who do much of the work: their associates.
Some of these young lawyers are saying both privately and openly that their leaders betrayed their firms’ principles with deals that could undermine a commitment to provide free legal work to public interest groups and causes at odds with the White House.
In recent days, associates at Paul Weiss and Skadden have written emails to their leadership in protest, and a few have quit their jobs.
One Skadden associate who resigned is Thomas Sipp.
A Columbia Law School graduate, Mr. Sipp, 27, said in an interview that he had been attracted to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom because of its “pay and prestige,” but also because of the firm’s “commitment to pro bono work.” On Monday, he wrote an email to his colleagues about why he was leaving after less than two years.
“I am sure some of you will question my decision and chalk it up to me being a young attorney too eager to throw his career away,” he wrote. “I am sure there will also be those of you who will think of me as naïve.”
But he added: “Skadden is on the wrong side of history. I could no longer stay knowing that someday I would have to explain why I stayed.”
So far, it does not appear that the associates’ complaints are resonating with their firms’ leadership.
The decision-making at many large firms is controlled by a small group of partners who are annually paid as much as $20 million each because of their relationships with lucrative corporate clients. At large firms, starting associates tend to make more than $220,000 a year plus a bonus.
At Paul Weiss, the top partners have argued that their deal with Mr. Trump was necessary to keep the firm afloat. The executive order, they said, would have prevented the firm from representing clients before the federal government could have cost partners and associates their jobs.
Skadden appears to have taken steps to prevent the internal dissent from spreading. Mr. Sipp and another associate there, Brenna Frey, who quit on Friday, said they had been blocked from announcing their resignations widely on Skadden’s email channels.
Two other associates said Skadden’s email system had not allowed them to send messages about their concerns about the deal to broad groups of lawyers. Those associates spoke on the condition of anonymity because they still work at Skadden.
The lawyers had often used internal group email lists to circulate questions, such as asking about colleagues’ experiences with judges or mediators.
Skadden declined to comment, and a spokesperson for Paul Weiss did not respond to a request for comment.
Objections to the deals could have other implications for the firms as they try to retain talented associates and recruit new ones from top law schools. On Monday, a student-run group at Georgetown University’s law school sent a letter to Skadden saying it would not participate in a recruiting event the next day at the firm’s Washington office.
The letter, from several of the more than 150 members of the Georgetown Energy Law Group, said the organization had decided not to participate in response to Skadden’s “pre-emptive acquiescence to pressure from the Trump administration.”
At Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, a group of 43 associates emailed Brad Karp, the firm’s longtime chairman, in the days after the deal last month, asking for a staff meeting with senior leadership to address concerns about the “firm’s commitment to longstanding principles,” according to a copy of the note reviewed by The New York Times.
Some of the most vocal protests are coming from former Paul Weiss lawyers.
Elizabeth J. Grossman, a former Paul Weiss associate who is executive director of Common Cause Illinois, said she had chosen the firm after law school because of its commitment to democracy defense, among other issues.
“Paul Weiss recruited on the basis that they were different,” she said.
Ms. Grossman, who helped organize an open letter to Mr. Karp that called the decision to settle “cowardly,” said she was still fielding calls from lawyers interested in signing the letter.
Last month, one former Paul Weiss associate even organized a virtual shiva — the weeklong mourning period in Jewish tradition — where lawyers could gather to commiserate.
The deals focused heavily on Paul Weiss’s and Skadden’s pro bono programs, in which young lawyers provide many hours of free legal services to nonprofit groups that are often at odds with Mr. Trump’s policies. The deals require that the firms’ lawyers devote substantial work hours to causes favored by Mr. Trump.
Even before the president issued the executive orders, Paul Weiss had begun to take down some references to its public interest work that conflicted with the administration.
Last month, Paul Weiss removed a web page that had highlighted its “leadership in a court-ordered effort to find parents deported by the Trump administration and to reunify families.” Visitors to the page now get an error message, as do users looking for any mention of Paul Weiss’s pro bono work on behalf of L.G.B.T.Q. people.
Mr. Karp has long been a supporter of Democrats and their causes; he positioned Paul Weiss as a bulwark against many of the policies that the party objected to during the first Trump administration.
Other large law firms, like WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, have opted to go to court to fight Mr. Trump’s executive orders targeting them.
But Mr. Karp sought to strike a deal with the White House only hours after Paul Weiss was hit with an order, two people briefed on the matter said. He was prepared to offer pro bono work on causes supported by Mr. Trump, including helping the administration launch a sovereign wealth fund, one of the two people and another who was briefed on the matter said.
After meeting with Mr. Trump, Mr. Karp and a lawyer he had hired in Washington to deal with the executive order, Bill Burck, engaged in a back-and-forth with Mr. Trump’s advisers over the wording of the agreement.
Mr. Trump’s team wanted Paul Weiss to agree to not engage in “weaponization” of the law or “diversity, equity and inclusion” in hiring, two of the people briefed on the matter said.
Mr. Karp won the battle over the word “weaponization,” which was not mentioned in the version of the deal published on the White House website. But a general prohibition on policies that promote D.E.I. in the firm’s hiring did appear.
The agreement “will have no effect on our work and our shared culture and values,” Mr. Karp said in an email to his firm. “The core of who we are and what we stand for is and will remain unchanged.”
Susan C. Beachy contributed research
