Earlier
this
month,
DLA
Piper
attorneys
in
the
U.S.
discovered
that
their
signature
blocks
had
been
edited,
without
any
warning
or
notice,
to
scrub
any
mention
of
personal
pronouns.
In
an
unintentionally
fitting
memorialization,
the
firm’s
“global
search
and
replace”
effort
apparently
failed
to
account
for
formatting,
deleting
the
pronouns
and,
for
some
attorneys,
leaving
empty
parentheses
in
the
blocks
to
mark
the
erasure.
It
appears
to
be
the
latest
“obey
in
advance”
streak
afflicting
the
legal
industry.
Already,
Biglaw
firms
have
deleted
diversity
language
from
their
websites
and
embarked
on
a
chilling
silence
campaign
in
the
wake
of
the
administration’s
retaliatory
strike
on
Covington.
With
Trump
raising
the
stakes
in
the
assault
on
lawyers,
weaponizing
the
EEOC
against
private
law
firm
diversity
efforts,
it’s
probably
not
the
end
of
the
cowering.
And
it’s
not
just
law
firms
because
for
every
inspiring
Georgetown
dean
letter
telling
the
administration’s
lackeys
to
pound
sand,
there
are
cowardly
administrations
like
Vanderbilt
or
Cornell
deleting
diversity
from
their
websites.
However,
this
seems
to
be
the
first
universal
effort
to
police
individual
email
signatures.
It
marks
a
bold
departure
for
DLA
Piper,
a
firm
that
historically
touted
its
pronoun
policy.
And
it’s
a
move
that
seems
tailored
to
appease
the
Trump
administration
because
tipsters
report
that
international
attorneys
have
not
seen
their
signatures
adjusted
behind
their
backs.
We
reached
out
to
DLA
for
comment
but
have
not
heard
back.
The
problem
with
a
strategy
of
preemptive
compliance
with
Trump
is
that
it
doesn’t
actually
matter.
Consider
Trump’s
cancellation
of
hundreds
of
millions
in
grants
to
Columbia,
ostensibly
over
pro-Palestinian
protests
on
campus,
even
though
Columbia’s
administration
invited
the
NYPD
to
make
a
brutal
public
spectacle
of
clearing
out
the
protest
and
all
they
got
in
return
was
vilified
by
attention-seeking
Federalist
Society
judges
and
its
funding
attacked.
If
this
game
of
avoiding
the
“Eye
of
Dumb
Sauron”
is
so
rarely
fruitful,
why
even
play?
Firms
may
argue
that
they
aren’t
even
trying
to
play
games
and
that
this
is
not
about
rolling
over
for
the
administration
as
much
as
an
adjustment
to
reflect
a
shifting
public
consensus
in
light
of
the
election.
Or,
perhaps
more
accurately,
to
reflect
what
their
business
community
clients
assume
is
a
public
consensus.
But
this
is,
as
they
say,
bullshit.
The
private
sector
doesn’t
have
to
care
about
the
electoral
college,
just
the
people.
Donald
Trump
has
run
for
president
on
this
platform
three
times
and
not
ONCE
managed
to
get
more
people
to
vote
for
him
than
vote
against
him.
Indeed,
until
last
year’s
49
percent
plurality,
he’d
never
even
managed
to
get
more
people
to
vote
for
him
than
for
his
highest
profile
opponent.
Law
firms
have
no
need
to
radically
alter
their
human
resources
to
meet
the
demands
of
49
percent
of
the
public
that
are
never
going
to
own
a
major
Wall
Street
bank.
In
fact,
law
firms
can
keep
billing
clients
like
fiends
while
standing
up
for
the
better
angels
of
our
nature.
Which
really
makes
you
wonder
why
so
many
of
them
aren’t.
Standing
up,
I
mean.
I
trust
they’re
still
billing
like
fiends.
Earlier:
Biglaw
Firm
Quietly
Begins
Purging
Diversity
Language
From
Website
Law
Schools
Respond
To
The
Executive
Threatening
To
Cut
Federal
Funding
Over
DEI
Trump
Signs
Executive
Order
Calling
Out
Top
50
Biglaw
Firm,
With
Intent
To
Wage
War
Against
Other
‘Leading
Law
Firms’
Over
Their
DEI
Policies
Covington
Must
Wait
Behind
Putin
To
See
Classified
Documents
Like
Everyone
Else
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.