GROK: "The Democratic Party’s indifference to contracting abuses in big cities doesn’t inherently justify ignoring issues with BigLaw, but it’s a fair question why one should care. BigLaw’s problems—excessive billing, conflicts of interest, or exploiting junior attorneys—impact clients, employees, and the broader legal system’s integrity. If you’re skeptical of both, that’s consistent: systemic corruption or abuse in any sector, whether public or private, erodes trust and fairness. But caring about BigLaw specifically depends on whether its issues hit you directly—through legal fees, workplace exploitation, or skewed justice—or if you just see it as another cog in a broken machine."
Comment: ""If people, including government officials, think they've spotted a lawyer misbehaving, they are entitled to call for a bar investigation. If their calls seem to lack legal or factual basis, they can be criticized. If a bar finds misconduct but its explanation is unpersuasive, then it can be criticized."
A distinction without a difference since the disciplinary committees themselves are stacked with ideologues. Referring a conservative lawyer to a disciplinary committee full of leftists is just as chilling for the legal profession. The committee can disbar him/her and take away their livelihood. Anyone who naively thinks these disciplinary committees are objective loses credibility in my mind.Letitia James and Raskin made an entire campaign out of getting Trump and his allies ("show me the man, I'll show you the crime"). Having failed to convince a majority of the electorate of their position, having lost the house and Senate too, they are resorting to lawfare. What goes around in D.C. always comes around.Clement may be right on paper, but the hypocrisy is palpable, and injunctions won't stop clients from leaving. Maybe current contracts have to be honored, maybe not, but firms can go bankrupt waiting for the check to clear after litigation, and in any case, there is no entitlement to future federal contracts.Will people learn their lesson on improprieties, gamesmanship, and lawfare? Doesn't look like it."
GROK: "You raise a serious concern about the potential for bias in disciplinary committees and the chilling effect on lawyers, especially when ideological imbalances are at play. The fear of losing one’s livelihood through a stacked process is real and can deter vigorous advocacy, which is bad for the legal system’s integrity. Your point about lawfare—using legal processes as a political weapon—also hits on a growing distrust in how power is wielded, especially when electoral losses shift tactics to the courtroom.
GROK: "You raise a serious concern about the potential for bias in disciplinary committees and the chilling effect on lawyers, especially when ideological imbalances are at play. The fear of losing one’s livelihood through a stacked process is real and can deter vigorous advocacy, which is bad for the legal system’s integrity. Your point about lawfare—using legal processes as a political weapon—also hits on a growing distrust in how power is wielded, especially when electoral losses shift tactics to the courtroom.
Clement’s argument might hold in an ideal world where processes are neutral, but you’re right that in practice, the threat of disbarment or client loss can punish before any ruling is made. Firms can indeed wither under pressure, regardless of contract obligations, because markets and reputations don’t wait for appeals.
As for learning lessons, history suggests people double down when cornered, not reflect. Lawfare and gamesmanship thrive in polarized times, and without structural fixes—like diversifying committees or tightening standards for complaints—it’s hard to see the cycle breaking."
LF: How does Biden's Operation Chokepoint help us understand Trump vs Big Law?
GROK: The term "Operation Choke Point" refers to a controversial initiative launched in 2013 by the Obama-era Department of Justice (DOJ), aimed at pressuring banks to cut off financial services to certain industries deemed "high risk" for fraud or money laundering, such as payday lenders, firearm dealers, and others. Critics argued it unfairly targeted legal businesses based on ideological biases, bypassing due process. The program was officially ended in 2017 under the Trump administration, with the DOJ and FDIC acknowledging it had harmed legitimate businesses. The term "Operation Choke Point 2.0" has been used by some, particularly in the cryptocurrency industry, to describe alleged Biden administration efforts to restrict banking access for crypto firms, though the administration denied such a formal program existed.
Regarding "Trump vs. Big Law," this likely refers to Donald Trump's contentious relationship with large law firms, often characterized by his legal battles, unconventional approach to litigation, and criticism of establishment legal institutions. Big Law firms—major, well-resourced corporate law practices—have represented Trump in some cases but also faced conflicts of interest, public backlash, or reluctance to take him on due to his polarizing persona and legal strategies that sometimes clash with their norms.
Connecting Operation Choke Point to Trump vs. Big Law
The connection between Biden’s alleged "Operation Choke Point 2.0" and "Trump vs. Big Law" is not direct but can be understood through themes of institutional power, ideological targeting, and legal pushback:
- Institutional Overreach vs. Resistance: Operation Choke Point (both original and alleged 2.0) exemplifies how federal agencies can wield regulatory power to marginalize industries or individuals without clear legal grounding, according to critics. Similarly, Trump’s battles with Big Law often highlight his perception of the legal establishment as part of a broader "swamp" that uses its influence to obstruct him—whether through reluctance to represent him, aggressive litigation from opponents, or judicial rulings he deems biased. Both cases raise questions about whether institutions (DOJ, FDIC, or elite law firms) prioritize fairness or act as gatekeepers for political agendas.
- Targeting Perceived Adversaries: Critics of Choke Point argued it singled out industries disfavored by Democratic administrations (e.g., guns, crypto). Trump, in his rhetoric, claims Big Law and the legal system disproportionately target him—through lawsuits, investigations, or refusal to take his cases—because of his outsider status and policy positions. For example, after the 2020 election, some major firms distanced themselves from Trump’s election-related lawsuits, citing reputational risks or ethical concerns, which he framed as abandonment by an elitist legal class.
- Legal and Financial Access as Leverage: Choke Point allegedly restricted banking access to choke off industries’ ability to operate. In Trump’s case, he has faced challenges securing top-tier legal representation at times, which he and his supporters argue is a form of "de-lawyering" to limit his ability to fight legal battles effectively. Both scenarios suggest weaponizing access—whether to banking or legal services—to weaken opponents.
- Trump’s Response and Policy Stance: Trump capitalized on ending the original Choke Point in 2017 to position himself as a defender of free enterprise against bureaucratic overreach, a narrative he extended to crypto during his 2024 campaign, promising to end "Choke Point 2.0." His friction with Big Law feeds a parallel narrative: portraying himself as a victim of a rigged legal system, which resonates with his base. This framing casts both Choke Point and Big Law as tools of establishment control, with Trump as the counterforce.
How Choke Point Illuminates Trump vs. Big Law
Operation Choke Point provides a lens to understand Trump’s broader conflict with Big Law by highlighting:
- Power Dynamics: Just as Choke Point showed how regulators could pressure banks to shun clients, Trump’s struggles with Big Law reveal how elite firms can shape legal outcomes by choosing whom to represent—or not. Both reflect tensions between institutional gatekeepers and those they marginalize.
- Ideological Fault Lines: Choke Point targeted industries seen as conservative-leaning (e.g., firearms, crypto). Trump argues Big Law sidelines him for similar ideological reasons, as many firms align with liberal-leaning clients or fear backlash from taking his cases.
- Resilience and Adaptation: Trump’s response to Big Law—relying on smaller firms, loyal attorneys like Alina Habba, or self-funding legal battles—mirrors how industries hit by Choke Point sought alternative financial channels (e.g., non-traditional banks or crypto solutions). Both show defiance against systemic exclusion.
Caveats and Nuance
- Evidence Gaps: While Choke Point 1.0 was documented, "Choke Point 2.0" remains debated, with some seeing it as a crypto industry exaggeration rather than a coordinated Biden policy. Similarly, Trump’s "vs. Big Law" narrative can overstate firms’ refusal to represent him, as some have taken his cases (e.g., Jones Day in past matters), and his legal woes often stem from his own strategies.
- Complexity of Motives: Big Law’s hesitation with Trump may stem from practical concerns (billing disputes, public relations) as much as ideology, just as Choke Point’s defenders claimed it targeted fraud, not politics. Disentangling intent is tricky.
- Biden’s Role: Linking Choke Point 2.0 directly to Biden oversimplifies, as regulatory actions often originate from agency heads (e.g., FDIC, SEC) rather than explicit White House directives. Biden’s broader regulatory stance, however, leaned skeptical of crypto, paralleling tensions with Trump’s legal adversaries.
Conclusion
Operation Choke Point—original or alleged sequel—sheds light on Trump’s clash with Big Law by illustrating how institutional systems (banking regulation, legal representation) can be perceived as tools to constrain outsiders. Choke Point’s legacy of regulatory pressure echoes Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by a legal establishment that gatekeeps access to justice. Both narratives fuel his image as a fighter against entrenched power, whether it’s Biden’s regulators or Big Law’s elite. However, the comparison hinges on perspective: supporters see systemic bias, while critics argue both cases reflect accountability, not persecution. Without clearer evidence on Choke Point 2.0 or Big Law’s coordinated intent, the parallel remains suggestive but not definitive.
Republicans say: "You toss Peter Navarro in leg irons for doing what Eric Holder did, we're going to fuck over Perkins Coie. That simple." (Volokh.com)
GROK: Peter Navarro, a former Trump aide, was convicted of contempt of Congress in 2023 for refusing to comply with a subpoena from the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. He was sentenced to four months in prison, which he served, and was notably arrested in a manner he described as involving handcuffs and leg irons, though reports clarify the leg irons were applied by U.S. Marshals at the courthouse, not during his initial FBI arrest. Navarro argued he was protected by executive privilege, but courts rejected this, finding no evidence Trump formally invoked it.
Eric Holder, former Attorney General under Obama, was held in contempt of Congress in 2012 by a Republican-led House for withholding documents related to the Fast and Furious operation. Unlike Navarro, Holder faced no criminal prosecution, as the Justice Department, under his leadership, declined to pursue charges, citing executive privilege and long-standing DOJ policy. This difference in outcomes fuels the perception of a double standard among some Republicans.
The reference to Perkins Coie, a law firm tied to Democratic campaigns (notably Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Steele dossier), seems to imply targeting it as a form of political retribution, possibly for its role in legal or investigative work seen as anti-Trump. However, there’s no evidence of concrete actions against Perkins Coie tied directly to this quote, and such a threat could be rhetorical posturing rather than a literal plan.
The sentiment captures a broader partisan divide: Republicans argue Navarro was unfairly targeted for loyalty to Trump, while Holder, a high-profile Democrat, faced no equivalent consequences. Critics of this view might point out differences in context—Holder’s case involved internal DOJ discretion, while Navarro’s defiance was seen as obstructing a high-stakes investigation into an attack on the Capitol. Both sides cherry-pick facts to fit their narrative, but the legal realities hinge on technicalities like privilege invocation and prosecutorial discretion, not just politics.
Comment at Volokh: "BigLaw shrieks when they are made to account for their society destroying behavior, and libertarian lawyers -- the outcasts of their own profession -- come running to provide succor."
GROK: The quote paints a vivid picture of tension within the legal world. "BigLaw" refers to large, elite law firms, often criticized for prioritizing profit over ethics, sometimes enabling corporate or societal harm. The "shrieks" suggest their defensive reaction when called out, implying guilt or discomfort with accountability. "Libertarian lawyers" as "outcasts" hints at a fringe group within the profession—likely valuing individual liberty and minimal regulation, clashing with BigLaw’s establishment. Their "running to provide succor" suggests they rush to defend BigLaw, perhaps seeing the criticism as an overreach or a threat to their own principles.
This dynamic could reflect broader ideological battles: BigLaw as a symbol of institutional power versus libertarians championing personal responsibility, even if it means excusing systemic issues.
