Paul, Weiss has consistently maintained since striking its deal with Donald Trump that the agreement changed nothing about how the firm operates.
Managing partner Brad Karp assured partners internally that the deal would have “no effect on our work,” a position the firm has repeated publicly ever since.
When pressed directly by the New York Times on whether the firm’s independence had been compromised, a spokeswoman flatly denied it, calling any such suggestion “completely false.”
Now, newly reported details are putting significant pressure on that narrative and raising serious questions about the firm’s day-to-day decision-making since the agreement was reached.
The New York Times published a lengthy investigation into Paul, Weiss this weekend, revealing several internal details that had not previously been made public.
Among the most striking disclosures is an internal exchange among partners concerning the firm’s Center to Combat Hate, a dedicated section of its website.
The page documented Paul, Weiss’s legal work against the organizers of the 2017 Charlottesville rally and against the Proud Boys, several of whose leaders were convicted of seditious conspiracy in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack.
Around the time the Trump deal was finalised, the Center to Combat Hate page quietly disappeared from the firm’s website, with no public announcement or explanation from leadership.
When partners eventually turned to the question of how to restore the page, one of the options apparently discussed was consulting with the White House before doing so.
The suggestion that a leading global law firm might seek approval from a presidential administration before republishing its own public interest legal work has prompted significant alarm among legal observers and within the broader profession.
Paul, Weiss has long positioned itself as one of the most prominent pro bono and public interest practices in Biglaw, making the reported internal debate particularly difficult to reconcile with its stated values.
The firm became the first major law firm to reach an agreement with the Trump administration, a move that was defended by leadership as a pragmatic step to protect clients and preserve the firm’s ability to operate effectively.
Critics argued at the time that the deal set a troubling precedent for the independence of the legal profession, concerns the firm has repeatedly sought to dismiss.
The newly reported details are likely to intensify scrutiny of Paul, Weiss and of the broader pattern of law firm agreements with the administration that have followed in its wake.