Latham,
Simpson,
and
Cadwalader
Downplay
Multimillion-Dollar
Deals
With
The
Trump
Administration:
They
can
say
what
they
want,
but
the
internet
never
forgets.
No
One
Wants
To
Work
With
Quitters:
Capitulating
firms
are
losing
some
big
name
clients!
The
Money
Is
Trickling
Down!:
The
Am
Law
200
raked
in
big
cash
last
year!
Law
Schools
Won’t
Have
To
Worry
About
That
Diversity
Accreditation
Requirement:
It
looks
like
the
ABA
will
be
extending
its
suspension.
According
to
data
collected
by
ALM,
what
percentage
of
the
Am
Law
200
say
they
plan
on
increasing
billing
rates
7%
or
more
next
year?
Hint:
As
you
might
imagine
—
zero
firms
say
they
plan
on
decreasing
billing
rates
next
year
and
0.9%
say
they
plan
on
keeping
rates
where
they
currently
are.
Attorney
Mark
Zaid,
best
known
for
his
national
security
and
whistleblower
work,
filed
a
lawsuit
yesterday
(available
below)
in
federal
court
challenging
the
revocation
of
his
security
clearance.
Zaid
was
one
of
14
individuals
who
had
their
security
clearance
stripped
in
a
March
Executive
Order
(the
full
list
of
those
impacted
by
the
EO:
Antony
Blinken,
Jacob
Sullivan,
Lisa
Monaco,
Mark
Zaid,
Norman
Eisen,
Letitia
James,
Alvin
Bragg,
Andrew
Weissmann,
Hillary
Clinton,
Elizabeth
Cheney,
Kamala
Harris,
Adam
Kinzinger,
Fiona
Hill,
Alexander
Vindman,
Joseph
R.
Biden
Jr.,
and
any
other
member
of
Joseph
R.
Biden
Jr.’s
family),
in
a
move
the
lawsuit
criticizes
as
“improper
political
retribution.”
The
“immediate
effect”
of
the
EO
is
that
Zaid
is
prevented
from
accessing
materials
in
ongoing
matters,
“undermining
his
ability
to
continue
to
represent
[his
clients]
and
zealously
advocate
on
their
behalf
in
the
national
security
arena.”
By
implementing
the
Memorandum,
Defendants
have
strayed
far
afield
of
any
deference
granted
to
them
by
existing
case
law.
Instead,
they
have
launched
a
bald-faced
attack
on
a
sacred
constitutional
guarantee:
the
right
to
petition
the
court
or
federal
agencies
on
behalf
of
clients.
An
attack
on
this
right
is
especially
insidious
because
it
jeopardizes
Mr.
Zaid’s
ability
to
pursue
and
represent
the
rights
of
others
without
fear
of
retribution.
Zaid
is
represented
by
litigator
Abbe
Lowell
in
this
lawsuit.
Lowell
left
Winston
&
Strawn
when
it
was
reported
he
will
represent
New
York
Attorney
General
Letitia
James
in
the
probe
the
administration
started
over
James’s
real
estate
dealings.
Last
week,
Lowell
announced
the
launch
of
a
new
firm.
Lowell
&
Associates
will
represent
those
“unlawfully
and
inappropriately
targeted”
by
the
Trump
administration.
“This
firm
is
prepared
for
today’s
dynamic
legal
landscape,
offering
a
leaner
model
than
larger
firms
can
provide,”
Lowell
said.
“I
started
my
private
practice
career
in
my
own
firm
and
am
excited
to
once
again
lead
a
small
yet
nimble
team
ready
to
represent
companies,
non-profits
and
individuals
in
need
of
our
experience
and
dedication.”
Among
the
lawyers
that
are
joining
Lowell
in
his
new
firm
are
Rachel
Cohen
and
Brenna
Trout
Frey,
both
of
which
famously
quit
on
Skadden
when
Skadden
quit
on
the
rule
of
law.
As
Trout
Frey
said
of
the
move,
“I
am
honored
to
join
Abbe
and
continue
to
stand
up
when
it
counts.
We
are
not
here
to
make
statements,
we
are
here
to
litigate,
win,
and
help
reinforce
the
legal
guardrails
that
hold
our
democracy
together.”
Read
the
full
complaint
below.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
[The
ruling
shows]
how
weak
the
firms
that
capitulated
were
that
they
were
not
willing
to
fight
even
for
two
months
for
themselves
[or]
for
the
integrity
of
the
judicial
system.
Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
You
don’t
have
to
be
an
attorney
to
know
that
it’s
hard
to
follow
the
rules
when
they’re
in
conflict.
For
years,
the
ABA
required
that
law
schools
had
to
show
some
effort
in
admitting
women
and
other
members
of
historically
disenfranchised
groups.
But
after
the
Supreme
Court’s
decision
to
strike
down
affirmative
action,
schools
effectively
had
to
choose
between
being
accredited
or
running
afoul
of
the
Blum
brigade
and
Trump’s
executive
orders.
The
ABA
eased
up
the
burden
on
law
schools
by
suspending
the
DEI
accreditation
requirement
near
the
end
of
Black
History
Month.
Really
couldn’t
have
waited
until
March,
huh?
When
the
suspension
was
announced,
I
was
openly
suspicious
of
the
“temporariness”
of
the
decision.
As
it
stands,
that
take
is
aging
beautifully.
ABA
Journal
has
coverage:
The
suspension
of
ABA
accreditation
Standard
206,
originally
titled
“Diversity
and
Inclusion,”
should
be
extended
until
Aug.
31,
2026,
according
to
a
May
2
memo
from
the
standards
committee
of
the
ABA’s
Section
of
Legal
Education
and
Admissions
to
the
Bar. … “The
council
should
find
that
extraordinary
circumstances
exist
in
which
compliance
with
Standard
206
will
continue
to
constitute
extreme
hardship
for
multiple
law
schools,”
according
to
the
committee’s
memo.
Extraordinary
is
an
understatement.
The
row
between
Harvard
and
the
Trump
administration
cost
them
billions
of
dollars
in
future
research
grants
so
long
as
they
refuse
to
kiss
the
ring.
Harvard
enjoys
a
sizeable
amount
of
autonomy
given
its
$53B
endowment,
but
most
schools
don’t
have
nearly
as
much
money
in
their
coffers
for
softening
the
economic
hardship
of
rebellion.
As
bad
as
it
would
be
for
the
rule
of
law,
acquiescing
to
whatever
Trump
demands
could
be
the
only
way
that
many
schools
will
be
able
to
keep
their
doors
open.
With
that
in
mind,
the
push
to
not
enforce
the
diversity
standard
for
a
while
makes
sense.
Remember
when
a
handful
of
Biglaw
firms
committed
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
in
pro
bono
promises
to
the
Trump
administration
causes
hoping
to
trade
some
benign
charitable
work
for
a
reprieve
from
potentially
devastating
White
House
retaliation?
BECAUSE
THE
FIRMS
SURE
DON’T!
The
firms
involved
—
Paul
Weiss,
Skadden,
Willkie
Farr,
Milbank,
Kirkland,
Latham,
Simpson,
A&O
Shearman,
and
Cadwalader
—
thought
they
were
so
clever:
do
some
free
legal
work
for
veterans,
avoid
a
potentially
insurmountable
executive
order
and
protect
their
bottom
lines.
In
reality,
the
executive
order
proved
almost
comically
simple
to
defeat,
the
Trump
administration
publicly
explained
that
the
pro
bono
deal
would
include
representing
police
in
brutality
cases,
and
deep-pocketed
clients
started
dumping
the
firms
to
avoid
the
stench
of
cowardice.
It
turns
out,
they
might
be.
Congressional
Democrats
wrote
the
firms
asking
some
pointed
questions
about
the
nature
of
the
deals
and
firms
basically
responded
“What
deals?”
Sam
Stein
at
The
Bulwark
has
seen
the
responses
and
it
seems
the
hot
new
trend
this
summer
is
claiming
that
those
upwards
of
$125
million
deals
didn’t
really
mean
anything
at
all:
In
fairness,
you’ve
got
to
appreciate
the
work
here.
As
Homer
Simpson
would
say,
“weaseling
out
of
stuff
is
what
separates
us
from
the
animals…
except
the
weasel.”
“Complete
independence”
is
just
an
outright
lie.
Assuming
arguendo
that
the
firm
does
not
agree
with
the
Trump
administration’s
repeated
assertions
that
the
deals
functionally
deputized
the
firms
to
make
tariff
deals
or
negotiate
coal
leases,
the
firms
at
the
very
least
agreed
to
do
some
pro
bono
work
that
they
otherwise
hadn’t
formally
committed
to
perform.
Not
to
get
too
pedantic
about
it,
but
that
means
the
firm
no
longer
has
“complete
independence.”
Anyone
who
did
not,
in
fact,
fall
violently
from
the
back
of
a
turnip
truck
this
morning
can
see
through
these
sniveling
responses.
If
they
didn’t
want
to
sign
over
the
power
to
dictate
or
restrict
pro
bono
matters,
then
they
could
have
not
made
any
pro
bono
commitments
at
all.
Of
course
they
intended
to
sign
over
their
freedom
to
dictate
what
pro
bono
matters
they
take
on!
Granting
them
the
benefit
of
the
doubt,
they
presumably
did
so
in
a
limited,
negotiated
fashion
that
the
administration
has
shown
zero
interest
in
respecting,
but
it
was
a
sacrifice
of
flexibility
in
any
event.
While
technically
true
that
there’s
no
indication
that
they
agreed
to
“restrict”
any
pro
bono
matters,
Biglaw
firms
aren’t
made
of
money
(regardless
of
how
it
may
seem
when
reading
the
Am
Law
100
numbers)
and
when
they
commit
$125
million
in
free
services
to
bucket
A,
they
are
necessarily
restricting
it
from
bucket
B.
And
that’s
before
we
get
into
whether
their
pledges
to
vaguely
reject
“DEI”
functions
as
a
restriction
on
pro
bono
work.
I’d
imagine
the
White
House
would
argue
a
lot
of
classical
pro
bono
projects
would
violate
that
part
of
the
deal.
Even
if
the
firms
never
let
Trump
exercise
these
deals
as
a
budget
for
miscellaneous
agenda
items,
the
firms’
pro
bono
initiatives
are
already
altered.
The
letter
from
A&O
Shearman
was
perhaps
the
most
detailed.
It
notes
that
“the
Agreement”
requires
the
firm
to
provide
$125
million
pro
bono
and
other
free
legal
services
to
“three
specified areas”
(emphasis
ours).
Those
areas
are
assisting
veterans
and
other
public
servants,
ensuring
fairness
in
our
justice
system,
and
combatting
antisemitism.
“The
Agreement
does
not
call
for,
or
permit,
the
administration
or
any
other
person
or
entity
to
determine
what
clients
and
matters
the
Firm
takes
on,
whether
they
be
pro
bono
matters
or
otherwise,”
the
letter
reads.
Well,
“other
public
servants”
is
absolutely
going
to
be
the
White
House
justification
for
using
the
firms
in
police
brutality
cases
and
probably
its
hook
for
making
firms
serve
as
Pam
Bondi’s
junior
helpers
for
a
whole
host
of
other
tasks.
Trump
has
already
claimed
that
the
deals
including
defending
him
for
free
after
he
leaves
office
—
that’s
where
the
administration
sees
the
term
“public
servants.”
It
might
seem
nice
that
these
firms
are
willing
to
put
in
writing
that
they
don’t
agree
with
the
promises
the
White
House
very
clearly
thinks
they
made,
but
if
none
of
these
firms
really
believed
they
were
giving
any
skin
off
their
nose
in
these
deals
it’s
actually
worse.
It
means
that
they
willingly
agreed
to
be
used
as
props
for
the
administration
to
deploy
to
strongarm
even
more
firms
that
resistance
was
futile
and
that
they
needed
to
swear
fealty
fast
to
get
the
best
terms.
As
each
firm
gave
in,
they
made
it
just
a
little
bit
harder
for
the
next
firm
to
stand
up.
And
now
that
they’re
willing
to
say
they
don’t
believe
in
the
deals,
what
happens
if
they
actually
try
to
act
that
way.
“It
doesn’t
take
much
to
imagine
Trump
going
nuclear
after
the
firms
he
browbeat
start
declining
to
take
on
cases
like
police
officers
accused
of
excessive
force
or
ICE
officials
sued
for
not
following
proper
procedures,”
Stein
writes.
When
that
happens,
the
firms
making
up
the
Order
of
Obsequious
will
just
have
to
hope
Perkins
Coie
and
Jenner
&
Block
have
done
all
the
necessary
work
to
protect
them
from
a
future
retaliatory
order.
Let
those
firms
burn
resources
fighting
to
protect
our
rights!
And
then
they’ll
try
to
play
this
off
like
it
never
happened
and
say
that
they
knew
they
weren’t
really
making
a
deal
the
whole
time.
But
hopefully
we’ll
remember.
How
well
are
law
departments
and
law
firms
working
together
today?
What
are
the
biggest
challenges
to
collaboration?
What
emerging
skills
are
becoming
must-haves?
Above
the
Law
and
our
friends
at
iManage
are
looking
for
insights
from
private
practice
law
firms
and
in-house
lawyers.
HARARE
–
The
ministry
of
health
has
snapped
back
at
youth
minister
Tinoda
Machakaire
after
he
publicly
drew
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s
attention
to
what
he
called
“serious
challenges”
in
Zimbabwe’s
public
hospitals.
The
ministry,
in
a
statement
on
Tuesday,
said
Machakaire’s
comments
about
the
state
of
the
country’s
health
system
was
“part
of
a
broader
pattern
of
unwarranted
and
mischievous
attacks.”
“These
comments
seem
to
be
well-orchestrated
efforts
aimed
at
selectively
highlighting
challenges
within
the
public
healthcare
system,
while
deliberately
overlooking
the
critical
services
still
being
provided—often
under
resource-constrained
conditions—and
the
significant
progress
made
in
recent
years,”
the
ministry
charged.
Machakaire,
writing
on
X,
said
he
visited
a
relative
at
a
public
hospital
but
“left
deeply
concerned
by
the
conditions
I
witnessed.”
“What
I
saw
was
deeply
moving—a
clear
indication
that
many
of
our
people
are
facing
serious
challenges.
The
growing
public
outcry
over
our
healthcare
system
is
not
an
exaggeration;
it
reflects
the
difficult
experiences
of
many
citizens,”
Machakaire
said.
The
minister
also
made
a
direct
plea
to
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa,
writing:
“Please
find
time
from
your
busy
schedule
to
visit
these
institutions
yourself.
There
is
no
substitute
for
seeing,
listening
and
understanding
firsthand
what
our
citizens
are
going
through.”
The
forthright
comments
admitting
government
failings
by
a
minister
surprised
many,
and
they
appear
to
have
angered
his
colleague
at
the
health
ministry
Douglas
Mombeshora.
The
health
ministry
said
while
it
“recognises
and
respects
the
public’s
right
to
express
concerns—and
we
welcome
constructive
engagement
from
all
citizens
and
leaders—it
is
vital
that
such
discourse
remains
fair,
balanced,
and
based
on
verified
facts.”
The
ministry
insists
the
criticism
is
blowing
the
health
crisis
out
of
proportion,
even
as
nurses
this
week
voiced
similar
concerns
as
Machakaire.
“The
ministry
is
open
to
meaningful
dialogue
and
informed
critique;
however,
we
strongly
reject
narratives
that
unfairly
undermine
the
tireless
efforts
of
our
healthcare
professionals
and
ignore
the
notable
achievements
underway
across
the
country,”
the
statement
went
on.
The
Zimbabwe
Nurses
Association
on
Monday
decried
“dire
working
conditions
in
public
health
institutions.”
“There
is
a
severe
lack
of
medical
resources,
equipment
and
essential
drugs,”
the
union
said
in
a
statement.
“In
the
absence
of
these
tools,
nurses
are
unfairly
being
blamed
by
the
public
for
delays
and
inefficiencies.
They
are
overburdened
by
improvisation
leading
to
long
queues,
slow
service
delivery
and
increased
suffering
of
patients.”
The
nurses
accused
the
government
of
freezing
nursing
jobs
while
hospitals
are
severely
understaffed.
“The
chronic
shortage
of
staff
is
worsening
the
situation,
with
the
nurse-to-patient
ratio
as
high
as
1:20
or
even
1:30
in
some
wards,”
they
said.
“This
is
unmanageable
and
endangers
both
patient
care
and
nurse
wellbeing.”
In
apparent
response
to
Machakaire’s
comments,
health
minister
Mombeshora
and
finance
minister
Mthuli
Ncube
on
Monday
toured
Natpharm,
the
state
company
that
supplies
medicines
and
sundries
to
the
country’s
public
hospitals.
In
a
statement
following
the
visit,
Natpharm
said
the
two
ministers
were
on
a
mission
to
“assess
operational
challenges
affecting
service
delivery.”
“Their
visit
underscores
a
commitment
to
strengthening
Zimbabwe’s
healthcare
supply
chain,”
Natpharm
said.
HARARE
–
The
High
Court
on
Tuesday
ended
journalist
Blessed
Mhlanga’s
two-month
pre-trial
detention,
releasing
him
on
$500
bail.
Justice
Gibson
Mandaza,
after
hearing
arguments
from
the
HStv
reporter
said
he
was
“of
the
view
that
he
is
entitled
to
bail.”
The
journalist
was
arrested
on
February
24
on
charges
of
inciting
violence
after
allegedly
broadcasting
a
video
statement
by
war
veteran
Blessed
Geza
demanding
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s
immediate
resignation.
HSTv
has
also
been
charged.
Mhlanga
was
twice
denied
bail,
first
by
a
magistrate
and
on
appeal
at
the
High
Court
before
his
latest
bid
for
freedom.
Justice
Mandaza
shot
down
prosecution
arguments
that
Mhlanga
would
abscond,
ruling
that
this
can
be
addressed
by
imposing
conditions.
Said
the
judge:
“After
hearing
submissions
by
both
counsel,
this
court
is
of
the
view
that
the
appellant
is
entitled
to
bail.
“The
appellant
is
be
hereby
granted
bail.
He
is
ordered
to
deposit
US$500
bail
not
US$200
as
has
been
suggested
by
his
counsel.”
Mandaza
also
ordered
Mhlanga
not
to
interfere
with
witnesses
and
to
continue
residing
at
his
given
address
until
his
matter
is
finalised.
The
journalist
was
ordered
to
surrender
his
passport
with
the
clerk
of
court
and
to
report
at
the
police
once
every
Friday
at
CID
Law
and
Order.
Mhlanga’s
arrest
drew
worldwide
condemnation
and
activist
in
London,
United
Kingdom,
had
announced
plans
to
confront
first
lady
Auxillia
Mnangagwa
when
she
attends
a
conference
there
in
June.
The
past
year
was
wonderful
for
law
firms,
and
the
Am
Law
Second
Hundred
had
an
incredible
showing
when
it
came
to
all
things
financial.
The
American
Lawyer
recently
released
its
Am
Law
200
law
firm
rankings
—
a
closely
watched
list
of
the
smaller
yet
still
elite
law
firms
that
represent
the
very
best
of
what
the
legal
profession
has
to
offer.
The
highlights
from
the
report
reveal
that
in
2024,
Biglaw’s
Second
Hundred
had
much
to
celebrate,
with
overall
revenue
growth
(11.1%)
that
came
oh-so
close
to
that
of
the
Am
Law
100
(13.3%),
with
great
successes
in
every
other
metric.
In
fact,
the
Second
Hundred
outperformed
their
higher
ranked
competitors
in
almost
every
financial
metric
that
there
is,
including
revenue
per
lawyer
and
profits
per
equity
partner.
While
some
firms
came
out
on
top,
others
completely
exceeded
expectations.
How
did
the
Am
Law
200
stack
up?
Here’s
an
overview
of
how
Biglaw’s
Second
Hundred
performed
in
2024:
Average
profits
per
equity
partner:
$1,095,465,
up
12.8%
Gross
revenue:
$27,840,314,058,
up
11.1%
Average
revenue
per
lawyer:
$849,360,
up
8.5%
How
did
we
get
here?
As
it
turns
out,
higher
billing
rates
aren’t
just
for
the
Am
Law
Top
50
—
everyone
can
play
this
game.
That’s
part
of
the
reason
why
the
Second
Hundred
did
so
well
in
2024.
Here’s
more
from Am
Law:
Last
year,
industry
experts
pointed
to
the
comparatively
lower
profitability
metrics
of
the
Second
Hundred
and
described
it
as
an
“investment
story,”
where
those
firms
sacrificed
short-term
profitability
for
longer-term
success
through
investments
in
talent,
scale,
technology,
and
business
expertise.
This
year,
those
experts
say
it
is
the
harvest.
“It
is
payoff
and
profitability,”
Marcie
Borgal
Shunk,
president
and
founder
of
The
Tilt
Institute,
said
in
an
interview.
“I
think
the
firms
are
doing
a
really
good
job
in
a
couple
of
areas.
One
is
the
topline
growth,
and
we
know
from
other
research
that
a
lot
of
that
is
coming
from
increased
rates.
“But
what
they
are
doing
is,
they
are
translating
that
topline
growth
into
profitability,”
she
said.
“Profit
per
lawyer
and
leverage
have
gone
up
because
of
where
firms
are
investing
this
year
and
last.
They
are
not
making
a
lot
of
equity
partners,
keeping
them
to
small
single-digit
growth,
and
increasing
the
nonequity
and
associate
levels.”It
is
a
formula
that
has
worked
well
for
some
larger
firms.
Now,
the
moment
you’ve
been
waiting
for:
the
top
10
firms
in
the
gross
revenue
rankings,
and
the
top
five
firms
for
the
RPL
and
PPP
rankings.
Gross
Revenue
The
top
10
firms
by
gross
revenue
appear
below,
with
the
Second
Hundred
led
by
a
firm
that
slipped
out
of
the
Am
Law
100.
The
full
Am
Law
200
gross
revenue
chart
can
be
found here.
See
the
alphabetical
Am
Law
200
revenue
per
lawyer
chart here.
Boies
Schiller:
$2,129,000
Munger
Tolles:
$2,102,000
Choate
Hall:
$2,030,000
Kobre
&
Kim:
$1,951,000
Irell:
$1,769,000
Profits
Per
Equity
Partner
See
the
alphabetical
Am
Law
200
profits
per
equity
partner
chart here.
Cahill:
$5,268,000
Cole
Scott:
$5,133,000
Choate
Hall:
$4,367,000
Boies
Schiller:
$3,941,000
Lowenstein:
$3,124,000
We
will
undoubtedly
have
even
more
to
say
as
we
continue
to
dig
into
these
numbers.
But
what’s
clear
is
that
the
Second
Hundred
know
what
works
—
and
what
doesn’t
—
and
they’re
in
it
to
win
it.
Congratulations!
Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
Kathryn
