California Attorney General Rob Bonta has launched a scathing critique of several top law firms, particularly Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, for their dealings with the Trump administration. In a revealing interview with Bloomberg News, Bonta condemned the firms for their readiness to engage in what he termed "deals" that involved offering pro bono services to conservative causes in exchange for leniency on contentious executive orders.

This strategy, according to Bonta, represents not just a capitulation but a betrayal of legal principles. "It was weak, it was cowardly, it was craven for Paul Weiss to do it at the beginning and sort of send a signal to the other firms that this is what we’re doing," Bonta stated, expressing his dismay over the firm's decision to yield to pressure rather than challenge potentially unlawful government actions.

Paul, Weiss was the first among nine major law firms to opt for a quieter life, agreeing to provide free legal services to preferred clients and causes of Donald Trump as a trade-off for avoiding conflict over executive orders that several federal judges found unconstitutional. This move, Bonta suggested, set a precedent that other firms were quick to follow, undermining the integrity of the legal profession.

While these firms opted for compromise, the state of California, under Bonta's leadership, chose litigation as its response, filing approximately 50 lawsuits against the Trump administration. Supported by a $25 million allocation from the state legislature, Bonta's office continued to confront what it viewed as unconstitutional actions head-on. "We have the luxury of being able to do the work ourselves, because we’re so well resourced and so large," Bonta added, highlighting the state's robust legal capabilities.

Despite the controversy surrounding their agreement, Paul, Weiss appears to remain unshaken. The firm recently saw a leadership change, with Brad Karp stepping down and Scott Barshay, an internal advocate for the Trump deal, taking up the reins. This leadership shift indicates a possible continuation of the firm's current strategies, which seem to prioritize client relations over constitutional concerns, according to Bonta's critique.

Bonta's pointed comments shed light on the broader implications of Biglaw's decisions during the Trump era, questioning the commitment of top law firms to uphold the rule of law when faced with high-stakes challenges. This situation presents an ongoing debate about the role and responsibilities of lawyers and their firms in maintaining ethical standards and defending constitutional governance.