Last week, one of the biggest stories in Biglaw was Microsoft’s change in attorneys. In a key piece of litigation, they ditched Simpson Thacher (a firm that capitulated to Donald Trump and promised $125 million in pro bono payola for whatever causes Trump fancies) for Jenner & Block (a firm that is fighting Trump vindictiveness in court). It seems when your firm is in the news for “fail[ing] the American people” and backing down from a legal fight, confidence in your ability to fight on behalf of your clients waivers.
And Microsoft isn’t the only company steering work away from the yellow-bellied nine.
According to reporting by Law.com, several general counsels have a dim view of those in the “order of obsequiousness.” One energy company GC said, “I have pulled firms off of prospective new work. I had Skadden on one, and I had Willkie on another, and I pulled them off because of their settlement. I’m literally in a thread with other GCs, and those two firms have been pulled from other people’s panels as well.” The energy GC continued, “more than a dozen companies are actively [issuing requests for proposals] for new work, and they’ve just changed the panel. Firms that they would normally have gone to, they’ve just pulled them out.”
A tech GC took a similar position.
“I don’t have a ton of work right now; I have work only with one of the firms, and it’s a very small project, but it’s highly sensitive. I can’t move it yet, but I will move it when I can, and for any new work, I absolutely will not send it to any of the firms that capitulated,” said one general counsel with expertise in tech, who would only speak under the condition of anonymity to protect client relationships.
Lawyers, both in-house and at other firms, are taking a keen interest in how other firms have responded to Trump’s demands.
“There’s a lot of spreadsheets being shared,” the tech GC said, containing data on “which firms have capitulated, which firms haven’t, and who are the partners to contact to put pressure [on] if you use the firm,” they added. “There was a lot of activism in the first few weeks.”
The public move by Microsoft is also a catalyst for others to make a change. Because, as the tech GC noted, though it’s “more of a struggle to move all your book of business away immediately, because you have relationships with those firms over a long period of time, and especially in corporate, it’s harder to move away.” But, “when somebody like Microsoft publicly does this, what it means is, if there is tension between the GC who wants to move work and the executive team who may not know or care, it gives the GCs evidence and backup. … It’s not just validating for me as a GC, it’s ammunition for me to go to my executive team and board and say, ‘no, this is a big deal, and even Microsoft is doing it.’”
Yeah, there’s just something about “actively volunteering the firm to an administration that is doing things that are inherently oppositional to the rule of law. … It doesn’t feel like a smart business move to associate ourselves with a firm that is donating its time to an administration that many find repellent,” as the energy GC said.
Turns out, bending a knee to a bully is also a bad business decision.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @[email protected].
