Related Posts
Additional Posts in Big Law
Community Builder
Subject Expert
Anonymous User
Enthusiast
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
That was just a preview…
Sign Up to see all discussions
Sign Up to see all discussions
- Discover what it’s like to work at companies from real professionals
- Get candid advice from people in your field in a safe space
- Chat and network with other professionals in your field
Sign up in seconds to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
"" is an unusual email domain. If correct, please proceed to the next step
Messaging rates may apply
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Share
Embed this post
Copy and paste embed code on your site
Preview
Download the
Fishbowl app
Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile
Sign up for free to view this conversation on Fishbowl
Sign up for free to continue using Fishbowl
Messaging rates may apply
They are going to do a bunch of pro bono that they 95% would do anyway, with maybe a couple conservative-tinted new matters thrown in. They will not do DEI, or pretend not to, until the next Democratic administration. They will continue to vacuum up money.
Above comment misses the big point. The government gets 100mm in free legal services and Skadden has to get behind conservative causes in the Skadden fellowship. Look at the excerpt of the POTUS’s statement I shared as an attached picture on this comment.
See the inclusion of “and other similar kinds of projects”?
See how this is the verbiage, instead of saying something like “one fellow will be for veterans, one for ensuring fairness…” and so on before going “or these fellows may be reallocated to other similar projects but only if [conditions go here]” ?
See how there’s actually no requirement a minimum amount of funding that has to go to any of the listed items— meaning it could all go to “other similar kinds of projects”? And there is no elaboration as to what those projects are?
Lawyers use, or don’t use, words for a reason. These are very particular words. This lets the government use the Skadden non-profit’s fellows for… what? They don’t say. Why?
Is “ensuring fairness in the justice system” also “stopping the 2028 steal”? We don’t know. They didn’t say. We do know the president feels courts are biased against him and unfair when they rule against him. What kind of “fairness” is he buying?
Maybe this isn’t the case. I hope so. I would really hope so. Bc as I read it these fellows can be used to advance BS if the government decides to take a run at an ‘unfair’ judiciary. And that could happen while vets or anti-semitism victims don’t get the help they were promised. Maybe others have a better read of this. I’d be happy to be wrong if there’s anything I’m missing out on (this is just my opinion based on the language, but that language seem unambiguous from my POV).
I think you are way off in assuming that the vague scope of the pro bono and fellowship commitments favor the Trump administration. A1 has it right that these are largely empty commitments that will be covered by existing firm activities. Skadden already has Skadden fellows; now 5 of them will focus on causes that sound Trump-aligned in a press release but are already acceptable causes in Skadden’s eyes.
The price tag to buy/bribe your firm out of an EO has now gone up from $40M to $100M, and we expect it to continue going up with efforts and dedication from fellow biglaw firms. We will see who’s paying $160M next :)
it isn’t like a press statement is enforceable. You’re acting like this is a normal settlement. It isn’t.
If they president wants to raise his price or complain about your services, are you gonna go to the court & request they enjoin the executive’s right to issue EOs based on non-compliance with a press release? Game the time/fees, run the risk. You have no lawful recourse if the risk materializes. Think through this. Even if they have a contract that’s not publicly released (may not be the case!) non-compliance with it won’t stop another EO from being issued. The executive cannot have a court lawfully strip their right to issue EOs based on contractual non-compliance.
The bully shook its fist at Paul Weiss and Paul Weiss turned over their lunch money. Skadden didn't even wait for the bully to make a threat.
Mentor
Big Daddy got mad at Skaddy. Skaddy is giving Big Daddy $100M in stuff. Big Daddy is now content.
Big Daddy now makes Daddy call him "Big Daddy.."
It is ironic given how the original Skadden lawyers were outcasted purely for being Jewish - you would think they know a thing or two about inclusivity and DEI - original founders would be rolling in their graves