A significant shakeup is underway at elite law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison following the firm’s decision to represent Donald Trump in his business dealings. Multiple senior partners have resigned in protest, highlighting deepening divisions within America’s legal establishment as Trump prepares to return to the White House.
Karen Dunn, who previously served as an associate White House counsel under President Obama, became the latest high-profile departure yesterday. Her exit follows the resignation of Jeh Johnson, former Homeland Security Secretary under Obama, who stepped down from the firm’s partnership earlier this week.
“These departures reflect something more profound than typical law firm turnover,” notes Richard Painter, former White House ethics counsel under President George W. Bush. “We’re seeing a real crisis of conscience playing out in real-time at one of America’s most prestigious firms.”
The controversy erupted after Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp announced the firm would represent Trump in certain business matters. According to sources familiar with the situation speaking on condition of anonymity, the decision has sparked intense internal debate about professional obligations versus personal values.
The firm’s client roster already includes many Fortune 500 companies, making the addition of Trump’s business interests particularly contentious. Paul Weiss has historically been known for its progressive stance on social issues, including significant pro bono work on civil rights cases.
Karp attempted to address internal concerns in a firm-wide memo obtained by Epochedge. “While we understand this representation may cause discomfort for some, our profession’s foundation rests on the principle that even controversial clients deserve legal representation,” the memo stated.
The departing partners represent substantial client relationships and institutional knowledge. Dunn, particularly notable for her tech industry connections, had represented Apple and other major Silicon Valley clients. Her departure could potentially trigger client defections as well.
The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct emphasize that representing a client doesn’t constitute endorsement of their views. However, the highly polarized political climate has increasingly challenged this traditional separation.
“Law firms increasingly find themselves caught between professional obligations and the personal values of their partners and associates,” explains Amanda Frost, professor of law at American University. “This tension isn’t entirely new, but the intensity around Trump-related matters has amplified these conflicts dramatically.”
This isn’t the first time Trump representation has caused turmoil at major law firms. During his presidency, several firms faced similar internal rebellions when taking on Trump-related matters.
A junior associate at Paul Weiss who requested anonymity expressed concerns shared by many at the firm: “There’s widespread worry about recruitment impacts and whether this signals a shift in the firm’s values.”
Data from a recent American Bar Foundation survey indicates approximately 62% of lawyers at major firms reported increased discomfort with certain client representations in politically sensitive matters, up from 37% a decade ago.
Financial implications loom large as well. Trump’s business dealings represent lucrative legal work, but must be balanced against potential reputation damage. According to AmLaw 100 data, Paul Weiss generated over $1.8 billion in revenue last year, placing it among the nation’s most profitable law firms.
The controversy extends beyond just Paul Weiss. The legal profession as a whole continues to grapple with questions about when representation crosses ethical boundaries. The American Bar Association maintains that lawyers should generally remain available to represent unpopular clients, but individual attorneys retain discretion in client selection.
I’ve covered legal industry developments for nearly fifteen years, and this level of partner exodus over a client representation is virtually unprecedented. The situation underscores how deeply Trump’s polarizing presence continues to challenge institutional norms.
As one departing partner reportedly told colleagues, “Some decisions require us to follow our conscience, even at professional cost.” This sentiment appears to be driving the current exodus.
For Paul Weiss, the challenge ahead involves balancing professional obligations with maintaining firm culture and values. For the legal profession broadly, these developments may signal a shifting landscape where traditional representational principles increasingly collide with personal and institutional values.
The firm declined to comment specifically on partner departures when contacted for this story. Trump representatives have not responded to requests for comment.
