A major law firm has agreed to settle its feud with President Trump, committing to a staggering $40 million in legal services while simultaneously reviewing its diversity programs that Trump had criticized. The resolution marks another victory in the President’s ongoing battle against what he calls biased legal institutions.
At a glance:
• Paul, Weiss law firm settles dispute with Trump for $40 million in pro bono legal services
• The firm was connected to Mark Pomerantz, a key figure in legal actions against Trump
• Trump had issued an Executive Order against the firm, which he has now rescinded
• Paul, Weiss agreed to audit and potentially terminate its diversity, equity, and inclusion program
• The settlement highlights Trump’s strategy of challenging legal entities he perceives as biased
Trump Secures Major Victory Against “Lawfare” Firm
President Donald Trump has successfully settled a contentious legal dispute with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, a prominent law firm formerly associated with Mark Pomerantz, a central figure in legal actions against the President. The settlement requires the firm to donate $40 million in pro bono legal services and review its diversity practices.
The resolution comes after Trump signed an Executive Order targeting the firm due to its connections with Pomerantz, who has been described as an architect of “lawfare” strategies against Trump. Pomerantz had previously worked at the Manhattan District Attorney’s office under Alvin Bragg, focusing on building cases against the President.
Trump’s Executive Order had restricted Paul, Weiss from handling government-related legal work, essentially cutting off significant business opportunities for the prestigious firm. The President rescinded the order after the firm agreed to the settlement terms, which include provisions for impartiality in their pro bono work.
The Pomerantz Connection and “Lawfare” Tactics
Mark Pomerantz’s role in this saga cannot be understated, as he resigned from Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office after criticizing Bragg for not being aggressive enough against Trump. Following his resignation, Pomerantz published a book advocating for Trump’s prosecution, further cementing his position as an adversary of the President.
Despite Pomerantz’s initial criticisms, DA Bragg eventually brought 34 felony counts against Trump, charges that many legal experts questioned for their legitimacy. Critics have pointed out the unusual application of state court jurisdiction for what would normally be handled as federal matters, suggesting political motivations behind the prosecution.
When called to testify before House Republicans about his involvement in the Trump prosecution, Pomerantz invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. This move raised eyebrows among Trump supporters who viewed it as further evidence of politically-motivated legal actions against the president.
Settlement Details and Implications for Law Firms
The settlement requires Paul, Weiss to audit and potentially terminate its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) program, a practice that President Trump has consistently criticized throughout his administration. This requirement represents a significant concession from a firm deeply embedded in progressive legal circles.
Trump has made it clear that his actions against Paul, Weiss stem from concerns about lawyers engaging in partisan decision-making rather than upholding their ethical obligation to represent all clients fairly. The President emphasized that law firms should not discriminate against unpopular or politically disfavored clients, including conservatives and Republicans.
While Pomerantz has denied any wrongdoing, The New York Times has characterized the settlement as part of Trump’s broader strategy of retribution against top law firms that have opposed him. The resolution sends a clear message to the legal establishment about the consequences of perceived political bias in legal proceedings involving the former president.
The $40 million settlement demonstrates just how easy it is for the media to be convinced that lawsuits against Trump have merit – even when they don’t.
