On Friday, federal judges sent to the reprisal campaign of President Trump by issuing temporary banning orders blocking a large part of his decrees targeting two major law firms that participated in investigations on him, Jenner & Block and Wilmerhale.
Decisions have prevented the administration from making sanctions described in decrees, such as prohibiting their lawyers from government, meetings or jobs.
Trump continued Jenner & Block because the cabinet once used a lawyer who became part of the special council team who investigated Trump during his first mandate. But judge John Bates of the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia challenged Mr. Trump’s order because he also punished the cabinet for his professional work, a common characteristic of many large law firms to provide legal representation to unpopular or poor customers.
Judge Bates said he had found that this “disturbing” and “disturbing” action.
Shortly after the decision of judge Bates, another judge of the same courthouse, Richard Leon, made a similar temporary ban order against a Trump decree targeting another company, Wilmerhale, where Robert S. Mueller III worked before and after being special advisor in the Trump-Russia investigation.
The judges allowed the parties of the President to be held to the orders of the President, the security authorizations of the lawyers’ lawyers.
Jenner & Block and Wilmerhale had prosecution by the Washington Federal Court earlier Friday. Now, they and a third company, Perkins Coie, won the first victories in court.
However, there is an emerging fracture in the legal industry, because it is faced with the way of responding to the multifaceted attack by Trump against the companies he accuses of acting not ethically. In particular, he sought to punish the companies that employed lawyers who have also worked on surveys and prosecution of him. Some have tried to conclude agreements with him, drawing the conviction of others on the ground.
Earlier Friday, President Trump said that the Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom firm would provide $ 100 million in work on the issues he supports, in the direction of an expected executive decree similar to those he was targeting other companies.
“It was essentially a regulation,” said Trump. “We appreciate that Skadden arrives at the table, as you know, other law firms have also settled the case. It’s a shame what happened. ”
The White House has indicated that more companies are in the president’s hair, in particular those who employ lawyers who have worked on investigations on Mr. Trump or on the causes to which his supporters oppose.
An executive partner of Skadden, Jeremy London, said in a statement that the company “was proactively committed to President Trump and his team to work together in constructively to achieve this agreement”, adding that he was impatiently awaiting a “productive relationship”. He continued: “We firmly believe that this result is in the best interest of our customers, our employees and our company.”
The president also published a declaration of the company, in which she declared a “strong commitment to end the armament of the judicial system and the legal profession”.
Skadden Arps has chosen to follow a path similar to that of another large company, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison to conclude an agreement, rather than fighting in court.
The president’s campaign against the main law firms, fueled by his anger against the lawyers whom he personally blame for his legal problems, sent shock waves through the profession and led to an intense debate among the lawyers for the struggle to fight in principle or negotiate.
The Skadden ARPS agreement suggests that negotiations could be more expensive. Paul Weiss said he would provide $ 40 million in Pro Bono work, while the Skadden ARPS Agreement has more than doubled this amount. Transactions were also concluded by scathing criticism from the legal community which considers them as an unnecessary capitulation in cases where companies have the law on their side.
On Thursday, after the news announced that Skadden sought to conclude an agreement with the Trump administration, a group of former students – all part of the prestigious scholarship program of the law firm – began to broadcast a letter. He urged the leaders of the cabinet to “take all measures to resist an illegal interference in the rule of law, to fight against unjust actions” and to “speak publicly about the critical role and not a supporter of lawyers in the defense of democracy”, according to a copy of the letter examined by the New York Times.
The letter, which the organizers hope to deliver to the leaders of Skadden, brought together nearly 400 signatures, according to two people familiar with the issue.
Trump said Skadden Arps would provide legal services to veterans, army members and the police, the first stakeholders and representatives of the States and local governments. Their professional work, said the White House, would also imply legal problems surrounding anti -Semitism, and that in general, its professional work “will represent the full political spectrum”.
For months, the president mocked against companies which, according to him, refused to represent the conservatives or their causes. His decrees are intended to force them to do so.
According to an information sheet published by the White House, Skadden Arps “will not refuse the representation of customers, such as members of groups politically deprived of their rights, which have not historically received a legal representation of large national law firms” due to the political opinions of lawyers.
On Wednesday, the president boasted of his history to bring the large law firms in Talon.
“They look and say all:” Sir, thank you very much “, said Trump, adding that they asked:” Where should I sign? Where should I sign? ” “”
Jessica Silver-Greenberg And Ben Prochure New York contributed reports.
