333
Haha eat shit, should have thought of that before you got in bed with fascists.
Actually several of them made statements along the lines of “it’s cheaper to go along with it vs the business we’d lose from the media fallout”
So they actually went the wrong way on purpose not understanding public sentiment would change
Not that Microsoft is any better (they are a criminal oligarch organization), but they are not stupid!
Who wants to hire a law firm that caves under pressure? It's a fantastic litmus test of who's worth hiring.
Do you want Mr. Caves Under Pressure on your case?
I heard a lawyer describe it as something like, "If a law firm can't even defend itself, then why would anybody hire it to defend them?"
And Mr. I Cave Under Pressure is a creep.
I mean, the law firm executive orders read like they were written by a first-year who flunked Constitutional Law three times in a row. If a law firm can't appreciate how easy they would be to defend against, and what great PR a win would be, then they can't be helped - and worse, can't help anyone.
Good
Completely understandable reaction
One does not do business with Traitors
It's rather odd that they did not consider this consequence.
Do you imagine that the wimpy law firms will eventually need to rebrand? And, if so, I wonder if that thought has dawned on them yet.
Moreover, a similar consequence might await firms that caved-in and dropped support for DEI, I think.
Moreover, a similar consequence might await firms that caved-in and dropped support for DEI, I think.
I honestly think they might be at such a competitive disadvantage that they just fail as businesses. More diversity in the ways that fall under DEI also leads to diversity of perspectives, aka inventiveness, which leads to diversity of tactics, aka adaptability.
Markets are centralised enough that adaptability, inventiveness and other things like this don't really matter any more. In a free market, sure. On Wall Street?
If market dynamics mattered at all, Tesla would be bankrupt, and so would be Oracle, Microsoft and many others.
All they see is "high profile client = $$$" and nothing else, completely ignoring that trump famously never pays.
Treat this as untrustworthy anecdote since I can’t find the reference but I recall seeing an article recently where a few of the key partners have already split off and formed a new firm. I’d expect more like that based on my zero amount of expertise.
It’s rather odd that they did not consider this consequence.
People who are okay with doing bad things, are usually okay with it because they think most people are okay with, or even do, the same things.
Rebrand is tough. They're named after the top equity partners lol - these folks gonna lie in whichever bed they choose to make
It might be as simple as a conflict-of-interest check. If a firm has a contract with the government, it can usually not take cases that would pit it against it. That is actually quite normal, these firms obviously didn't think that part through.
Maybe some law firms just shouldn't exist.
Please forgive my potential whoosh, but I’m kinda out of the loop and also not American- what deals are these firms cutting with The Whitehouse? I can’t really gauge exactly what they are from the article. Can some kind person ELI5 for me?
Nine law firms have agreed to provide $940 million in pro bono work to efforts supported by the president and the firms. Basically free legal representation the Trump administration can assign how it likes.
Oh no how unfortunate.
this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2025
333 points (98.3% liked)
News
37194 readers
2050 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS