Tuesday, April 15, 2025

Big Law's Self-Serving Claims

What are the most self-serving claims of those lawyers advocating against Trump's war on Big Law? Which of Big Law's claims in the media about their devotion to the rule of law as opposed to self-interest are most worthy of scrutiny by people who want to be fair?

Grok says:

The debate surrounding Donald Trump’s actions against Big Law firms in 2025—through executive orders targeting firms like Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, and others—has sparked a lot of rhetoric from lawyers and firms claiming to defend the "rule of law" against what they call Trump’s "tyranny." Some of these claims, though, come off as more self-serving than principled, and others deserve a hard look to separate genuine concern from posturing. Let’s break it down.
Most Self-Serving Claims by Lawyers Against Trump’s Actions
  1. "We’re Pure Defenders of Justice"
    Big Law firms often paint themselves as selfless guardians of constitutional rights, arguing that Trump’s orders threaten the very foundation of the legal system by punishing them for representing clients. While it’s true that targeting firms for their clients raises serious issues (more on that later), this high-minded rhetoric can gloss over their less noble motivations. These firms are businesses, often prioritizing profits over principle. For example, Paul Weiss’s quick deal to provide $40 million in pro bono work to align with Trump’s initiatives suggests a willingness to compromise rather than fight for abstract ideals when the bottom line is at stake. The claim of being pure defenders feels self-serving when you consider how many firms stayed silent to avoid Trump’s wrath, only speaking up when their own interests were directly threatened.
  2. "This Is Unprecedented Tyranny"
    Lawyers have called Trump’s orders an unprecedented attack on the legal profession, comparing them to tactics used by autocrats like Erdoğan or Putin. That’s a dramatic leap. While Trump’s moves—like yanking security clearances or barring firms from federal buildings—are aggressive and constitutionally shaky, they’re not exactly rounding up lawyers for prison. Big Law’s history of navigating political pressure, like during McCarthyism or post-9/11 security crackdowns, shows they’ve faced government overreach before and adapted. The apocalyptic framing seems designed to rally sympathy and deflect scrutiny from their own vulnerabilities, like their reliance on government contracts or their selective outrage when it suits their client base.
  3. "We Represent Everyone Equally"
    Some firms argue that Trump’s targeting undermines their ability to represent all clients impartially, a cornerstone of the adversarial system. But Big Law’s client lists often lean heavily toward corporate giants, political elites, or causes that align with their partners’ ideologies. Perkins Coie, for instance, has deep ties to Democratic campaigns, including the Steele dossier controversy. Claiming they’re neutral champions of justice ignores how their choices—like taking high-profile cases against Trump—can be strategic for branding or political clout. It’s less about equal representation and more about who pays or boosts their profile.
Claims Most Worthy of Scrutiny
If you’re trying to be fair, here are the claims by Big Law about their devotion to the rule of law versus Trump’s alleged tyranny that need a closer look:
  1. "Trump’s Orders Violate the First Amendment and Due Process"
    Firms like Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, which sued over Trump’s orders, argue these actions infringe on their First Amendment rights to represent clients and petition the government, as well as their due process rights by imposing sanctions without a fair hearing. This claim has legs—courts have already issued temporary blocks, citing likely constitutional violations. But scrutinize the scope: Are these firms truly worried about broad legal principles, or are they protecting their ability to operate lucrative practices tied to government access? For example, Jenner & Block noted that nearly half its business could be gutted by Trump’s restrictions. The rule-of-law argument might be a convenient shield for financial self-preservation. A fair observer should ask whether smaller firms, less reliant on federal contracts, would get the same vocal defense.
  2. "We’re Upholding the Adversarial System Against Tyranny"
    Big Law insists that Trump’s moves threaten the adversarial system by scaring lawyers away from challenging his administration. There’s truth here: if lawyers fear retaliation, it could chill representation for controversial clients, which is bad for justice. But let’s be real—Big Law isn’t always rushing to defend the little guy. Their pro bono work, often touted as proof of their virtue, is a fraction of their revenue, and many firms dodged Trump’s first-term battles unless it burnished their rep. Scrutinize whether their current stand is about systemic integrity or a reaction to being personally targeted. If Trump went after scrappy public defenders instead, would these firms be as loud? Probably not.
  3. "Trump’s Retaliation Is Purely Personal"
    The narrative that Trump’s orders are just vendettas—punishing firms for past work against him, like Covington & Burling’s link to Jack Smith or Perkins Coie’s Clinton ties—dominates Big Law’s defense. It’s plausible; Trump’s history of grudges is long, and the orders name specific firms and lawyers tied to his legal woes. But fairness demands asking whether there’s more to it. Trump’s team claims these firms engage in “frivolous” litigation or unethical conduct, like coaching asylum seekers to lie. There’s no hard evidence of systemic abuse, but the accusation isn’t baseless—immigration law has seen questionable practices, and Big Law’s not above bending rules for clients. Dismissing it all as personal revenge might oversimplify a messier reality.
Digging Deeper
To get to the truth, look at incentives. Big Law’s devotion to the rule of law often tracks with their financial and reputational interests. Firms that fought, like Perkins Coie, had no choice—clients were fleeing. Others, like Skadden, cut deals for $100 million in pro bono work to dodge sanctions, showing pragmatism over principle. Meanwhile, Trump’s claim of cleaning up a corrupt legal system plays to his base but falters under scrutiny—his orders lack evidence and reek of overreach.
A fair take? Big Law’s not wrong that Trump’s actions threaten legal independence, but their sanctimonious tone ignores their own baggage—profit-driven decisions, selective advocacy, and cozying up to power when it suits them. The rule of law matters, but so does calling out posturing on both sides. Check primary sources like court filings or Trump’s own statements on Truth Social to cut through the media spin. That’s where the real story lies.

LF: Big Law claims to put their clients first. Please scrutinize that claim. How often is Big Law enriching themselves at the expense of their clients, of America, and of the American legal system?

Grok says:

Key Points
  • Research suggests Big Law firms often prioritize financial gain over client interests through overbilling and managing conflicts of interest.
  • It seems likely that these practices, such as inflated bills and representing conflicting clients, enrich firms at clients' expense, with studies showing legal bills inflated by 10-30%.
  • The evidence leans toward these actions also undermining trust in the American legal system, with potential economic and societal impacts.
  • There is controversy around whether firms' political capitulation, like deals with the Trump administration, prioritizes profit over principles, affecting both clients and the legal system.
Overview
Big Law firms, the largest and most prestigious law firms, claim to put their clients first, but evidence suggests they often prioritize their financial interests, sometimes at the expense of their clients, America, and the legal system. This response explores how often these practices occur, focusing on overbilling, conflicts of interest, and broader implications.
Overbilling Practices
Big Law firms are frequently criticized for overbilling, which directly enriches them at clients' expense. Common practices include block billing, double-billing, and charging for unnecessary work, leading to inflated legal fees. Studies indicate that legal bills are often inflated by 10-30%, with some estimates reaching 33%, and large companies report going over budget by about 37% annually due to overbilling (Legal Bill Review: 10 Ways That Legal Firms Disguise Overbilling).
Conflicts of Interest
Firms use advance conflict-of-interest waivers to represent multiple clients with adverse interests, potentially compromising loyalty to individual clients. While legally permissible with consent, this practice can prioritize the firm's ability to serve high-paying clients over client welfare, as seen in cases where courts upheld waivers for firms like Kirkland & Ellis (Bloomberg Law: Big Law Firms, Clients Battle Over Advance Conflict Waivers).
Political and Social Impacts
Some firms have made deals with the Trump administration, like offering pro bono work to conservative causes, to avoid sanctions, which may prioritize financial stability over client interests or the rule of law (Above the Law: Biglaw Is Under Attack. Here's What The Firms Are Doing About It.). Representing controversial clients, such as in climate change cases, also raises questions about prioritizing profit over societal good (Bloomberg Law’s Nightmare: Ethics Issues Scare Away New Recruits).
Systemic Effects
These practices can erode trust in the legal system, with overbilling draining economic resources and conflicts undermining professional ethics. This erosion affects public confidence in institutions reliant on legal representation, potentially weakening the rule of law.
Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of Big Law Practices and Their Implications
Big Law firms, defined as the largest and most prestigious law firms with hundreds of lawyers and global offices, often represent large corporations, governments, and high-net-worth individuals. Their claim to put clients first is scrutinized through various criticisms, particularly in the context of overbilling, conflicts of interest, and broader societal impacts, as observed in recent analyses and reports, especially given the current political climate as of April, 2025.
Overbilling: A Direct Financial Burden on Clients
Overbilling is a significant concern, with Big Law firms employing practices that inflate legal fees, directly enriching themselves at clients' expense. Detailed methods include:
A specific case involved a BigLaw partner at Duane Morris who billed 3,173 hours in a year, leading to her suspension for overbilling, highlighting the prevalence of such practices (ABA Journal: BigLaw partner who said she worked 3,173 billable hours is suspended for overbilling). The industry has seen a growth in companies like SIB Legal Bill Review to help manage legal spend, indicating the scale of the issue.
Conflicts of Interest: Balancing Multiple Client Interests
Big Law firms, due to their large client bases, frequently face conflicts of interest, managed through advance conflict-of-interest waivers. These waivers allow firms to represent clients with adverse interests, provided there is informed consent, as per the ABA’s Model Rule 1.7 (Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients - Comment).
  • Advance Waivers in Practice: Courts have increasingly upheld these waivers when well-drafted, as seen in recent cases:
    Case
    Name
    Firm
    Involved
    Outcome
    SuperCooler
    Technologies
    Inc.
    v.
    The
    Coca
    Cola
    Co.
    (
    SuperCooler Technologies Inc. v. The Coca Cola Co.
    )
    Paul
    Hastings
    Denied
    Coca-Cola’s
    bid
    to
    bar
    firm
    from
    suing
    for
    >$100M
    on
    behalf
    of
    SuperCooler.
    IBM
    Corp.
    v.
    Micro
    Focus
    Inc.
    (
    IBM Corp. v. Micro Focus Inc.
    )
    Kirkland
    &
    Ellis
    Rejected
    Micro
    Focus’s
    motion
    to
    disqualify,
    citing
    informed
    consent.
    US
    v.
    Tournant
    (
    US v. Tournant
    )
    Sullivan
    &
    Cromwell
    Failure
    to
    advise
    on
    conflict
    didn’t
    negate
    confidentiality
    waiver.
  • Historical Context: Six years ago, courts were harsher on such waivers, but recent rulings show a shift, with firms like Sheppard Mullin and Winston & Strawn facing disqualification in 2018 for conflicts, and Quinn Emanuel in July 2024 for a case involving X Corp. (Bloomberg Law: Big Law Firms, Clients Battle Over Advance Conflict Waivers).
  • Criticism: Ashley London from Duquesne University argues in a paper that these waivers can shelve ethics like loyalty, feeding the myth of large-firm necessity until clients reach a "breaking point" and seek disqualification (Ashley London’s Paper on Conflict Waivers). This suggests firms may prioritize revenue by expanding client bases, potentially at the expense of client trust.
Political and Social Implications: Navigating Political Pressures
Recent political actions, particularly under the Trump administration, have highlighted how Big Law firms respond to pressure, often prioritizing financial stability:
Systemic Impact: Effects on the Legal System and Economy
The practices of overbilling and managing conflicts have broader implications for the American legal system:
Frequency and Prevalence
Quantifying how often these practices occur is complex, but evidence suggests:
While not all Big Law firms engage in these practices to the same extent, the patterns observed indicate they are sufficiently prevalent to warrant significant scrutiny.
Conclusion
Big Law firms’ claim to put clients first is often overshadowed by practices that enrich themselves through overbilling and managing conflicts of interest, with broader implications for the American legal system. These actions, while not universal, are common enough to raise concerns about trust, economic impact, and the rule of law, affecting both clients and society at large.
Key Citations

Posted by at