To the Editor:
Re “An Uncomfortable Lesson From Trump’s Tactics,” by Robert S. Smith, a former partner at the Paul, Weiss law firm and a retired judge on the New York State Court of Appeals (Opinion guest essay, April 3):
Mr. Smith begins his essay by quoting Bertolt Brecht — “Unhappy is the land that needs a hero” — but spends most of the remainder of his essay excusing Columbia University and Paul, Weiss for capitulating without a fight. He describes rich universities being pressured and wealthy law firms being extorted, yet does not call for these powerful institutions to defend themselves and us, but suggests that “the only real answer” is for individual Americans to consider long-term structural reforms.
Ultimately, Mr. Smith misses the true peril we face when law firms capitulate to government coercion and fear to defend disfavored clients, or even themselves: We lose access to justice. The legal profession is what gives us access to the courts. Undermine that profession, and you don’t need to dismantle the courts directly. You simply make them inaccessible.
If Big Law, with its armies of litigators and immense institutional privilege, won’t stand up to government overreach and use the structural protections we already have, who will? The tools exist; the failure is in the will to use them.
Yes, unhappy is the land that needs heroes. But the land where the strongest among us collapse on cue is not merely unhappy.
It is crumbling.
Herb Sutter
Beavercreek, Ore.
To the Editor:
Robert S. Smith attempts to make the case that President Trump’s attack on his own personal enemies list is enabled by the Democrats who created a too large federal government. If only we had smaller government, he implies, President Trump would not be taking out his vengeance on his enemies.
Yet the author seems to have missed the fact that a lot of the federal government is devoted to ensuring that the rule of law applies to the behavior of government officials. President Trump is disregarding all of that and doing whatever he pleases.
The Republican Congress has decided to surrender. The executive bureaucracy, filled with the president’s loyalists, has done so as well. And the Justice Department is now demonstrating what it really means to “weaponize” the department against the American people.
Aside from protesting this administration and promoting Democratic candidates for the next election, the American people are left with hoping that the third branch of government, the judiciary, will be able to demand and successfully enforce the rule of law for those who contest the president’s unlawful actions.
Mary McCorry
New York
To the Editor:
Robert S. Smith’s argument that Paul, Weiss and other targeted law firms had no choice but to capitulate to President Trump’s demands rests on a ludicrously flawed analogy.
Even those who deem federal D.E.I. policies wholly unsuccessful must concede that they were democratically enacted through congressionally initiated programs, policies and agencies, for a public purpose — to increase inclusivity — and applied to all institutions. In contrast, President Trump’s witch hunt uses executive orders to skirt democratic processes for a private purpose — retribution and the fear it instills — and applies them selectively to law firms against which he bears a personal grudge.
These institutions absolutely do have a choice about whether to resist this attack on constitutional and due process grounds — and some are. Other firms absolutely do have a choice of whether to stand by the resisters on principle. The problem here is not the general coercive power of democratic institutions. The problem here is the unrestrained, undemocratic power of an individual.
Ann Mongoven
San Jose, Calif.
To the Editor:
Re “In Attacking Law Firms, Trump Has a Clear Goal” (news analysis, Business, March 31):
Federal courts have repeatedly rejected President Trump’s frequently frivolous arguments by pointing out that executive orders do not override the United States Constitution and that Mr. Trump must take his policy wishes to Congress.
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure makes it sanctionable conduct for any attorney to make frivolous arguments to a court. The judge to whom such arguments are made can refer an attorney to the federal Office of Professional Responsibility or the state Board of Professional Responsibility for review of that attorney’s conduct. Serious penalties can be imposed on an attorney found to be in violation.
Judges should start entertaining Rule 11 motions and make such referrals against Justice Department lawyers where appropriate. Lawyers who are instructed to make frivolous arguments defending these executive orders would then have to weigh the chance of having their law licenses suspended against Mr. Trump’s willingness to continue their employment when they are of no further use to the Justice Department. My guess is that calculation will be easy.
Larry Towers
Milwaukee
To the Editor:
Re “Our Law Firm Is Speaking Out Against Trump. Who Will Join Us?,” by senior partners at the law firm Keker, Van Nest & Peters (Opinion guest essay, April 1):
Until recently, I had proudly included my seven years as a Skadden associate on my résumé. I had often mused that having “Skadden” there was akin to having gone to Harvard Law School. I used to take immense pride in being part of such a prestigious law firm and in Skadden’s pro bono work policies. I feel none of these things anymore.
As a Delaware attorney, I fully understand how important corporate representation is to Skadden. But in caving to President Trump’s bullying, it has betrayed the interests of its clients and employees. And it has violated the autocracy scholar Timothy Snyder’s first lesson to resist tyranny: “Do not obey in advance.”
Cheryl Siskin
Rehoboth Beach, Del.
To the Editor:
As a retired public defender, assistant prosecutor and municipal court judge, I was never more proud to be a lawyer than after reading the opinion of the senior partners of Keker, Van Nest & Peters. It will finally be the lawyers, though often maligned, who will rescue us from President Trump’s chaotic attempt to shatter the delicate balance of the three branches of government, and return America to the country that once warmly offered freedom to “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Michael J. Noonan
Georgetown, Colo.
#Opinion #Trump #Law #Firms
