Free Speech For People, a national nonpartisan legal advocacy organization, today filed an ethics complaint in New York against Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Weiss), former firm Chairman Brad Karp and other members of the firm’s management committee requesting an investigation into whether the firm and its lead attorneys violated the New York Rules of Professional Conduct by entering into and taking steps to satisfy an illegal agreement with President Donald Trump and his associates. The complaint was filed with the Attorney Grievance Committee of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. 

Early in 2025, Trump issued a series of illegal executive orders against various law firms, subjecting them to punishing sanctions in a clear violation of their First Amendment rights, in retaliation for the law firms taking on cases, clients, and employees that Trump disfavored, and to push them into self-censorship. Several law firms immediately sued to block these unconstitutional orders, and won prompt federal court victories, ensuring that these law firms retained necessary authority over their own employment, hiring, and case selection practices. 

Paul Weiss–one of the largest, most well-resourced law firms in the United States and renowned for its litigation prowess–did not. Instead, Paul Weiss’s management committee, led by Brad Karp, chose to quickly strike a deal with Trump. As part of this deal, Paul Weiss agreed to mute its previously full-throated support of diversity and equity and provide $40 million in pro bono services to clients and causes selected by Trump or his representatives, in exchange for a specific government act, namely, rescission of the executive order. Since then, the firm has taken steps to satisfy the agreement, editing its websites and marketing to cater to Trump’s preferences and providing free legal work to the Commerce Department. 

Trump used Paul Weiss’s deal with Trump as a template to pressure eight other firms into agreements, ultimately obtaining nearly $1 billion in legal services pledged to Trump’s preferred causes in return for safe harbor against the unconstitutional punitive measures that other firms continued to face. None of these payments were disbursed to the government—they were not fines or formal remedies and indeed they could not be; none of the firms’ disfavored conduct warranted sanction, and the orders themselves were blatantly unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, the four firms that challenged the unconstitutional executive orders–Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey–were universally successful in obtaining quick temporary restraining orders blocking those actions and went on to win permanent injunctions against the orders in federal court. In the Perkins Coie case, Judge Beryl Howell issued a sharp rebuke to the administration: “The importance of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system’s fair and impartial administration of justice has been recognized in this country since its founding era. . .. The instant case presents an unprecedented attack on these foundational principles . . .. Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints . . . is contrary to the Constitution.”  Despite the unanimous and clear rulings from the federal judiciary, Paul Weiss has, to date, still not challenged and continues to abide by its illegal agreement with Trump. 

The complaint alleges that Paul Weiss’s deal with Trump violated several of New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 8.4(b) prohibits law firms from engaging in illegal conduct. The complaint states that Paul Weiss violated prohibitions against bribery and extortion by entering an illegal agreement with President Trump, and that the firm violated the Antideficiency Act by providing free services to the federal government in fulfilling their illegal agreement. The deal also compromises the professional judgment of its lawyers and creates grave potential for conflicts of interest that cannot be consented to by its clients, in violation of Rule 1.7. Furthermore, because the firm’s lawyers will have to carry out the process of satisfying the deal–made with Trump solely to induce government action–the complaint states that the firm violated Rule 8.4(a), which prohibits the firm from violating the rules and inducing other attorneys into violating the Rules. 

Free Speech For People is requesting the Attorney Grievance Committee to open an investigation into Paul Weiss’s violation of the rules and take appropriate action, including but not limited to ordering Paul Weiss to cease and desist its satisfaction of the commitments it made to Trump. 

There is no doubt that Trump abused his power and position to subject firms to retaliatory and unconstitutional orders. But this does not and cannot justify Paul Weiss’s decision to enter into a private deal with Trump in order to rescind a government action or avoid future government actions. There have been far reaching consequences both to Trump’s attack and to Paul Weiss’s deal. Firms are avoiding pro bono issues, clients, or advocacy positions they might have otherwise taken, for fear of retribution from Trump. Large law firms are representing plaintiffs in only 15 percent of cases challenging Trump’s executive orders in his second term, compared to 75 percent of similar cases during a comparable time period in President Trump’s first term.

“Our adversarial legal system is one of the most powerful methods that the people have to hold our government accountable for its policies, mistakes, and attempts to undermine the Constitution. It is, in other words, a powerful tool for defending our Constitution and our democracy,” said Courtney Hostetler, Legal Director of Free Speech For People “But it cannot function if advocates are afraid of taking positions, causes, clients, or employees disfavored by the ruling party; and if the most formidable law firms censor themselves to avoid political retribution, leave politically disfavored clients without reasonable access to attorneys and the courts, and undertake unethical deals to obtain government action.”

As expressed in the New York State Bar Association’s Preamble to the New York Rules of Professional Conduct:

As an officer of the legal system, each lawyer has a duty to uphold the legal process; to demonstrate respect for the legal system; to seek improvement of the law; and to promote access to the legal system and the administration of justice. In addition, a lawyer should further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because, in a constitutional democracy, legal institutions depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority.

As one of the most powerful law firms in the country, Paul Weiss’s decision to enter into an unethical deal and to satisfy the terms of that deal not only violated the Rules themselves, but betrayed the fundamental democratic values underpinning the Rules. 

“Paul Weiss cannot bargain away its professional responsibilities,” said Suparna Reddy, Senior Counsel at Free Speech For People. “Even in the face of an unconstitutional and unconscionable attack on its independence by the government–indeed, especially in the face of such an attack–powerful law firms must remain scrupulously adherent to their ethical obligations.” 

When they do not, the Attorney Grievance Committee of the Supreme Court of the State of New York can and must investigate and issue the appropriate sanctions. 

Read the ethics complaint against Paul Weiss here.