What a Scoop! Lawyers at Elite Law Firm Decide to Stay Rich

In recent days, The New York Times has published a series of articles detailing the purported “bending” and “bowing” by an elite Wall Street law firm to the improper and likely unlawful demands of the current president. You see, the president, because of the way he’s wired, wanted to punish certain elite law firms that had, at various occasions in the recent past, litigated against him personally. The president issued executive orders to this end, which orders among other things banned lawyers at these enemy firms from entering government buildings and threatened to prejudice business clients who retained these same firms.

Although legally dubious, these orders would have been devastating for these firms had they been allowed to stand, or even had they been allowed to linger for any length of time. Clients were starting to leave. Lawyers were starting to leave. One can only marvel at how quickly the rats scurry when the ship begins to list. The Times articles purport to report on the facts, but have also been quite judgmental, suggesting that one law firm in particular, Paul Weiss, somehow abdicated its responsibility to the Law and Justice and the Good because it elected to negotiate with the president instead of fighting with the president.

It is clear as day that The New York Times knows nothing about the mettle of lawyers at elite law firms. Namely, that they have none. Zero. Nada. Actually, that’s not fair, so let’s rephrase: unless elite law firms are getting paid a lot of money to demonstrate said mettle – in which case, sure, they’re great at demonstrating as much mettle as you’re willing to pay for – it is a fool’s errand to expect any mettle in a situation where exhibiting said mettle will end up putting the firm’s profits at risk.

How to explain the naivete on the part of The New York Times? The people who work at the publication seem to believe they are kindred spirits with the legal elite, perhaps owing to the fact that they went to the same schools and frolic in similar social circles. They also see themselves and these elite lawyers as part of a broader shared “resistance” to the current administration, which they both publicly and privately fear is demonstrating authoritarian behavior and presents as a threat to democratic institutions, values, and norms. The hopeful people at the Times apparently expect these lawyers to act as a critical line of defense against what both cohorts generally agree are problematic encroachments by the president, much like the people at the Times often relish in playing that role themselves. But the Times’ series of critical articles and columns do not seem to acknowledge that elite law firms are businesses – that they are in it first and foremost for the money. One would have thought that The New York Times with its best-in-class fact-finding resources would have figured this out on their own.

Fun fact: lawyers at elite law firms will tell you until they’re blue in the face about how their peers who became investment bankers and consultants make more money than they do, but this is all relative. The Paul Weiss law firm brought in over $2.6 billion in revenue last year, which equates to $7.5 million in profits per equity partner. Nonetheless, The New York Times is befuddled that these same lawyers didn’t personally risk $7,500,000 per partner per year to gear up for a fight to the death with the Trump administration to challenge the toxic executive order.

Instead, it seems as if the chairman of the firm, by some combination of immense influence and good fortune, was able to quickly obtain an audience with the president in the Oval Office, which audience he obviously handled masterfully. The chairman was able to get the executive order lifted in a matter of days in exchange for the firm making certain modest, largely ceremonial, concessions.

This is what one might call a surprisingly easy negotiation. This conversation ended up being well below the pay grade of any Paul Weiss lawyer, let alone its esteemed chairman. Even a fresh graduate coming out of the worst law school in America would have quickly figured out that giving up things you don’t really care that much about because they actually bring in zero money – like the allocation of pro bono time and certain DEI initiatives – are easy sacrifices when the alternative is the loss of $2.6 billion of revenue. The funny thing is that it’s not the concessions themselves that have generated the outrage. It’s the fact that there were any concessions at all. The response from the Paul Weiss partnership to this criticism should be clear. Let the scolds risk their pathetic livelihoods. We’re going to keep our East Hampton vacation homes, thank you very much.

This story so beautifully exposes the true nature of elite law firms, it’s almost too good to be true. These firms outwardly profess commitment to all the higher principles embraced by polite society, including, with respect to Paul Weiss, “a century-long legacy of courageously standing up for fundamental rights and liberties, for fairness in the justice system, and for our society’s most vulnerable individuals.” It’s not complete hypocrisy, as I’m sure many of their lawyers do embrace these principles. They just embrace them after the $7.5 million wire hits their bank accounts.

To be clear, I have no problem with the strategy of the firm’s chairman to protect the business he is charged to protect, as I have no problem with the implied criticism of The New York Times that this was a missed opportunity to fight against a probably-illegal executive overreach. The Times is also likely correct that this could have a chilling effect on future legal efforts to challenge similar overreach by this administration. My only point is to mock the naïve and frankly clueless expectation that any elite law firm in that situation would have ever acted any differently.

I have an acquaintance who happens to be a senior partner at one of the most prestigious law firms in the country. He bills his time out at a rate that is approaching $3,000 per hour, give or take, and rarely if ever allows for any discount, even to his most devoted clients. Yet – and I love this so much – he routinely publishes posts on social media in which he bemoans certain injustices out in the world, including (get this) income inequality. One may reasonably agree that income inequality is a significant problem in society, but I can’t help but laugh when the guy who charges $3,000 per hour openly complains about it. Hey, if you want to help eradicate income inequality, how about this as a first step: stop charging $3,000 an hour!!

Another opening shot from the greatest law firm movie of all time: Michael Clayton.

The lawyers at prestigious law firms are among the best legal minds in the world. Their talents and tenacity are real, and they get paid because they often deliver value that justifies their exorbitant fees. I am confident that many of the lawyers at these firms are not in it only for the money, and many might even be willing to take personal financial risks in service of a higher principle. The point here, and the point that the Times completely misses, is that law firms are businesses, and their existence is predicated on making money, which money is divided among the partners in the business. These lawyers owe duties to each other to not mess up the business, and the firm chairman’s most important job is to protect the business on behalf of the partnership and everyone who works there. The Times thinks elite lawyers should act like elite journalists, but they are wrong. This is why their coverage consistently minimizes the financial risk and personal sacrifice necessary for these lawyers to act like the Times wants them to act.

It may well be the case that lawyers, maybe even some who currently charge exorbitant hourly rates at elite firms, will end up playing meaningful roles in an existential fight to save democracy and stave off authoritarianism. I’m willing to be wrong on this, but I just don’t envision the firms themselves being on the front line of that struggle. Many lawyers have joined in the popular chorus to denounce the actions of the Paul Weiss chairman, but they know deep down that he did exactly what he had to do, and, whether they will admit it or not, exactly what they wanted him to do.