Elite Law Firms Capitulate to Trump
By Offering $1 Billion in Free Service

     President Donald Trump has secured deals in recent days worth nearly $1 billion with big law firms that risk being driven out of business if they do not cooperate with him.
     The elite firms were targeted by Trump to be shut out of federal courthouses and to lose government contracts after they represented clients who opposed his policies.
     Trump blames the firms for participating in the Biden administration’s “weaponization” of the legal system that led to criminal charges against him.
     Other sanctions directed at the firms are the possibility of Justice Department prosecutions and the revocation of security clearances for their attorneys. Without the clearances, they cannot represent many government contractors who provide the firms with large portions of their revenue.
     Five firms so far have agreed to do a total of $940 million in pro bono services for conservative causes if Trump agrees to lift his executive orders against them.
     Settlement negotiations with the firms led them to believe they would provide representation for uncontroversial causes, such as veterans who need assistance.
     In the past week, Trump has been hinting he believes the deals are a legal resource for his political agenda, possibly including trade deals with foreign countries trying to avoid tariffs, according to a New York Times report.
     For the settlement with Kirkland and Latham, Trump said on social media last week that the firm would provide free legal services for “causes that President Trump and the Law Firms both support.”
     In a separate social media post, he wrote, “The Law Firms will take on a wide range of pro bono matters that represent the full political spectrum, including Conservative ideals.”
     The first to settle with the president was the Washington, D.C., firm of Paul Weiss, which was a big donor to Democrats and former Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 election.
     The settlement requires it to provide $40 million of free legal services to support Trump administration policies. It also must audit its hiring practices to ensure it avoids diversity, equity and inclusion considerations and it must avoid taking clients because of their political affiliations.
     The political affiliations refers to Trump’s allegation that Paul Weiss demonstrated a preference toward liberal policies and clients.
     In similar settlements, the law firms of  Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; and Latham & Watkins LLP each agreed to dedicate $125 million in free legal work to the Trump administration.
     The firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft said it would offer $100 million in pro bono services in a separate settlement.
     At least four other law firms have refused to bend to Trump’s pressure. They are seeking injunctions to block any reprisals against them by the president. 
     They acknowledge they are losing clients and revenue, particularly among high-dollar government contractors, but they say their independence from political interference is a higher priority.
     While firms that signed the agreements are being criticized and ridiculed in some sectors of the legal community, firms that resist Trump administration pressure are being portrayed by colleagues as martyrs.
     The firms of Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration to block enforcement of executive orders against them.
     Hundreds of law firms joined the Perkins Coie lawsuit by signing on to an amicus brief that said the Trump administration’s orders threaten the rule of law.
     Another short-term victory against Trump administration influence was won last week by the law firm Susman Godfrey, which represented the voting machine company Trump accused of voter fraud in the 2020 election.
     U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan ruled to at least temporarily block Trump’s penalties against the firm.
     She said Trump’s orders punishing law firms were “based on a personal vendetta against a particular firm” and likely unconstitutional.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Meta Chief Exec Zuckerberg Defends
Against Allegations of Monopoly Tactics

     Meta Platforms Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg testified during a trial that continues this week in a Washington, D.C., court that his company has encouraged the growth of social media but not the anti-competitive dominance alleged by the Federal Trade Commission.
     The trial in the antitrust case is expected to last weeks as Meta tries to hang on to its Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp social media platforms.
     Federal Trade Commission attorneys argued during the opening day of the trial that Meta should be divested of Instagram and WhatsApp.
     They said Meta's near monopoly on social media that extends worldwide has prevented meaningful competition that could bring better service and more options to consumers.
     Federal Trade Commission lawyer Daniel Matheson said in his opening statement, “For more than 100 years, American public policy has insisted firms must compete if they want to succeed. The reason we are here is that Meta broke the deal.” 
     The evidence presented against Zuckerberg in the first days of the trial included emails indicating what Federal Trade Commission attorneys say demonstrates his strategy that "it's better to buy than compete."
     One of Meta’s biggest corporate conquests was the 2012 purchase of photo and short-form video sharing social networking service Instagram.
     Meta bought the company for $1 billion. Last year, its government regulatory filings show it was valued at $70.4 billion, making Instagram the world’s sixth most valuable media brand.
     Digital advertising revenue generated by Instagram and other Meta divisions are contributing to the parent company’s plan to be a leader in artificial intelligence. Zuckerberg said in January the company plans to spend as much as $65 billion this year on artificial intelligence infrastructure.
     Just before the purchase of Instagram, an internal email from Zuckerberg suggested Facebook buy the company to "neutralize a potential competitor," according to evidence presented at the trial in federal court. 
     A second Zuckerberg email explained his reasoning for buying Instagram by saying, “Instagram was growing so much faster than us that we had to buy them for $1 billion... that's not exactly killing it."
     Zuckerberg’s company acquired smartphone messaging service WhatsApp in 2014 for $19 billion. It now is valued at more than $100 billion with about three billion users worldwide, its regulatory filings show.
     Even with multi-billion dollar valuations, Instagram and WhatsApp are only a small part of Meta’s value.
     As of this month, Meta reported a market cap of $1.3 trillion, making it the world’s seventh most valuable company. Market cap refers to the total value of a company's outstanding shares of stock.
     Zuckerberg testified in U.S. District Court that he was not trying to engage in illegal antitrust strategies by squelching competition, merely trying to help his company by acquiring apps like Instagram and WhatsApp that already proved they could be successful.
     “Building a new app is hard,” Zuckerberg said. “We’ve probably tried building dozens of apps over the history of the company, and the majority of them don’t go anywhere.”
     Zuckerberg’s defense team has strong evidence in its favor. Some of it comes from the Federal Trade Commission.
     Meta’s acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp were approved by federal regulators before they were completed. Undoing them more than a decade later would set a dangerous precedent that places many corporate mergers at risk of government intervention, attorneys for Meta argued.
     Meta lawyer Mark Hansen said the Federal Trade Commission’s case is “at war with the facts and at war with the law.”
     He also denied that Meta represented a near monopoly, mentioning competition from popular social media platforms like TikTok. Other multi-billion dollar social media apps not owned by Meta include YouTube, X, WeChat and Reddit.
     If Meta is broken up by court order, it would be the first time for a major corporation since AT&T was split into separate companies 40 years ago.
     The Federal Trade Commission lawsuit against Meta is part of a bigger government push against Big Tech companies that some members of Congress say have become too dominant.
     Other federal antitrust lawsuits have been directed at Amazon, Google and Apple.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Trump’s Order on Environmental Policy
Anticipates Conflicts with State Laws

     State governments and climate activists are pledging a fight over an executive order from President Donald Trump this month that tells the Justice Department to take any action necessary to override local laws that conflict with his environmental policies.
     “Many States have enacted, or are in the process of enacting, burdensome and ideologically motivated ‘climate change’ or energy policies that threaten American energy dominance and our economic and national security,” the executive order says. 
     “These State laws and policies are fundamentally irreconcilable with my Administration’s objective to unleash American energy,” Trump wrote. “They should not stand.”
     State officials say the 10th Amendment grants them a right to control local pollution issues. The Amendment says any rights not reserved by the Constitution to the federal government are given to the states.
     Some of the strongest opposition is coming from environmentally-friendly Colorado.
     Gov. Jared Polis, who advocates for a policy to require Colorado to shift to 100 percent clean energy by 2040, said in a statement, “These orders that trample states’ rights, should they be enforced, and this backward-looking approach would cost Coloradans money and devastate our environment.”
     Trump says environmental policy is a federal issue because of the way it carries over to the national economy.
     His executive order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to identify state laws that might interfere with energy production and to “stop the enforcement” of them, apparently through lawsuits. A separate order this week relaxes regulations on aged coal-fired generating plants that would otherwise have been shut down.
     Legal environmental advocates say the Justice Department will have difficulty overcoming state authority in court action.
     “States have broad and bedrock authority to protect people from pollution and President Trump’s executive order … instructing the attorney general of the United States to interfere with foundational state prerogatives to protect people from harm cannot change that,” wrote Vickie Patton, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund, in a blog post.
     Make Polluters Pay, an organization that seeks climate accountability largely through litigation, said in a statement, “This is the fossil-fuel industry’s desperation on full display. They’re so afraid of facing evidence of their deception in court that they’ve convinced the president to launch a federal assault on state sovereignty.”
     In California, the state’s cap-and-trade program conflicts directly with Trump’s policy and order.
     The first of its kind state program sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions by various industries. It also allows them to trade environmental credits with other companies.
     Trump called out California in his executive order, writing, “California, for example, punishes carbon use by adopting impossible caps on the amount of carbon businesses may use, all but forcing businesses to pay large sums to ‘trade’ carbon credits to meet California’s radical requirements.”
     California Gov. Gavin Newsom responded with a statement saying, “This is the world the Trump Administration wants your kids to live in. California’s efforts to cut harmful pollution won’t be derailed by a glorified press release masquerading as an executive order.”
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Tort Reform Assn. Accuses D.C. Attorney General
Of Conflicts of Interest in Contract Awards

     D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb is being accused of conflicts of interest in his hiring practices by the American Tort Reform Association.
     The allegations are part of a letter the association sent last week to the House Oversight Committee and House Judiciary Committee.
     “Attorney General Schwalb has established a troubling pattern of awarding lucrative contracts to outside contingency fee counsel who are both political allies and former employees of his office,” the letter says. “This practice raises serious questions about the independence and integrity of the District's legal system.”
     Examples listed in the letter include:
     -- Edelson PC, which employs a former assistant district attorney, the letter says. The firm allegedly received contracts worth more than $195 million over two years to handle a variety of cases, including actions against Google and Meta.
     -- Sher Edling and Tycko Zavareei. They were awarded a $70 million contract to target the oil and gas industry with environmental claims and climate change litigation, the letter says.
     The organization also expressed concern over the hiring of a New York University School of Law State Energy and Environmental Impact Center fellow as a “Special Assistant Attorney General.” He was hired as part of a $5.6 million grant from Michael Bloomberg's philanthropic organization to litigate climate change issues.
     “Government litigation should serve the best interests of constituents, not the profit-seeking motives of the trial bar or the political aspirations of a select few,” the American Tort Reform Association letter said. “Many constituents in DC have expressed frustration that the AG isn't doing enough to address crime and improve public safety.”
     The organizations asked Congress to either ban D.C. attorney general contracts with outside counsel or to require new transparency measures.
     The D.C. attorney general’s office did not respond to an inquiry from Legal Forum News on the allegations.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Americans Sue Iran and North Korea
For Supporting Terrorist Attacks

     American victims of Middle East terrorist attacks and their families are suing Iran and North Korea in a new lawsuit filed in Alexandria, Va.
     The lawsuit says Iran and North Korea should be liable after they funded, trained and provided weapons to terrorists who attacked Americans.
     Normally, foreign nations are immune from lawsuits in American courts. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act creates an exception for terrorism.
     The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia mentions 48 victims. They were killed or injured in seven incidents, such as the December 2019 rocket attack that killed an American contractor in Iraq; the Oct. 7, 2023 hostage-taking attack in Israel that resulted in several American deaths and injuries; and other terrorist assaults in Syria and Kenya.
     It names groups such as al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah as being the terrorists who carried out the attacks with Iranian and North Korean support.
     “Together, these Iranian terrorist sponsors and their North Korean allies participated in a global terrorist alliance led by Iran—the ‘Axis of Resistance’ — that sought to use terrorism to undermine American foreign policy,” the lawsuit says.
     One victim named in the lawsuit was Stephen Troell, who worked at an English language institute in Baghdad.
     In November, 2022, a group of operatives associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard allegedly surrounded Troell’s car as he drove home from work with his wife. The gunmen forced the car to a stop near the Troells’ home.
     As they approached Troell, one of them shot him with an assault weapon as his wife watched from the passenger seat, according to the plaintiffs.
     “He died on November 7, 2022, as a result of injuries that he sustained during the attack,” the lawsuit says.
     A second American victim listed in the lawsuit was Dustin Harrison, who was killed on Jan. 5, 2020 by Al-Shabab extremists at a military base at Manda Bay, Kenya.
     He was a civilian pilot working as a Defense Department contractor when between 30 and 40 extremists killed him and two other Americans. They also destroyed a half-dozen U.S. aircraft and vehicles.
     In addition to providing weapons and training, Iran and North Korea financed the terrorism and gave the operatives “incentive payments” to kill or maim Americans, according to the lawsuit.
     Some of the funding could allegedly be traced to Virginia.
     One example listed in the lawsuit was a cigarette smuggling scheme Hezbollah agents orchestrated by taking advantage of the low tax on cigarettes in Virginia but higher taxes in other states.
     They allegedly would buy as many as 20,000 cartons of cigarettes per week in Virginia and resell them in New Jersey and other states, eventually raising $65 million in profits that they used to fund terrorist activities.
     Hezbollah also is accused in the lawsuit of illegal narcotics dealing and money laundering. Its agents would coordinate multi-ton shipments of cocaine from Colombia to the Los Zetas Mexican drug cartel for eventual sales in the United States, the lawsuit says.
     Part of the money then would go back to the Colombians while Hezbollah kept the rest, the lawsuit says. The mastermind, Ayman Jourmaa, was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia but remains a fugitive.
     The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act has rarely resulted in an enforceable judgment against the perpetrators of terrorism since it was approved by Congress in 1976. The judgments against foreign governments or their proxies are normally considered symbolic denunciations of their tactics.
     They have included a judgment against Iran for the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen that killed 17 U.S. Navy sailors and injured dozens. A federal court in Washington, D.C., awarded the victims nearly $2 billion in compensation but the Iranians never paid it.
     The case is Alkhalili, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran and Democratic People's Republic of Korea, No. 1:25-cv-601 (E.D. Va.).
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.