The chairman of Paul Weiss sought to reassure employees at the giant law firm that the deal it reached with President Trump was consistent with principles that the 150-year-old firm has long stood by.
On Thursday evening, Brad Karp sent a firm-wide email, detailing the agreement he had reached with Mr. Trump, which allowed the firm to escape an executive order that could have cost it significant business.
The order, part of a broader retribution campaign against law firms, threatened to suspend the law firm’s security clearances, which would have made it virtually impossible for Paul Weiss to represent clients in cases involving the federal government.
In the email to the firm, which was viewed by The New York Times, Mr. Karp said that in reaching an agreement with Mr. Trump, he really just “reaffirmed” the firm’s statement of principles outlined in 1963 by one of Paul Weiss’s original named partners, Judge Simon H. Rifkind.
“The commitments reaffirmed today are consistent with Judge Simon H. Rifkind’s 1963 Statement of Firm Principles,” which states, among other things, that “we believe in maintaining, by affirmative efforts, a membership of partners and associates reflecting a wide variety of religious, political, ethnic and social backgrounds,” Mr. Karp wrote in the email.
Despite Mr. Karp’s assurances, the deal between Paul Weiss and the White House was causing concern among the broader legal community that large law firms were capitulating to Mr. Trump’s demands instead of fighting them in court.
At a meeting at the White House, Mr. Karp reached a deal with Mr. Trump in which the firm agreed to do $40 million worth of pro bono work on causes supported by the Trump administration, such as working with veterans and fighting antisemitism.
“Thank you all for your patience during this time,” Mr. Karp told the roughly 2,000 lawyers and support staff at the firm. “With this behind us, we can devote our complete focus — as we always do — to our clients, our work, our colleagues and our firm.”
Paul Weiss, formally known as Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison L.L.P., is one of three big law firms that Mr. Trump has targeted with executive orders that essentially restricted their security clearance — something that is often needed to review government contracts for corporate clients — and barred lawyers from federal buildings. The three firms represented either lawyers or prosecutors in the criminal cases that had been brought against him before the election.
Paul Weiss, based in New York, is one of the nation’s biggest law firms; it has offices around the world and represents some of the biggest corporations.
In the email, Mr. Karp included an attachment that outlined the five main points of the agreement with Mr. Trump. At the top of the list was an understanding that “the bedrock principle of American justice is that it must be fair and nonpartisan for all, including my representing clients across the political spectrum.”
Under the agreement, Paul Weiss reiterated its commitment to “merits-based hiring, promotion and retention.” The firm also said it would hire an outside expert, within 14 days, to conduct “a comprehensive audit of all its employment practices.” The agreement also outlined that Paul Weiss would contribute “$40 million in pro bono legal services over the course of President Trump’s term.” That sum represents a fraction of the roughly $200 million that the firm spends annually on pro bono work, according to a partner familiar with the matter.
Mr. Trump’s executive order had already begun rattling the law firm’s clients. Lawyers for Paul Weiss told a federal judge in New Jersey that Steven Schwartz, a former corporate general counsel who the firm was representing in a foreign corrupt practices case, had terminated Paul Weiss as defense counsel. Several lawyers at other big firms said Paul Weiss had no choice but to strike a deal with Mr. Trump as it risked losing big clients and some top moneymaking lawyers to other firms.
Paul Weiss had considered mounting a legal challenge to the executive order but felt the risk to its business were too great, said a person briefed on the matter.
