Since striking a controversial deal with Donald Trump, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP has constantly reassured the public and its own team that the firm's integrity and independence remain intact. However, recent revelations suggest that the reality might be more complicated and concerning than their statements imply.

A detailed report by the New York Times this weekend has unearthed troubling details about internal debates among Paul, Weiss partners. Notably, there was significant discussion about whether the firm should consult the White House before reinstating its website section dedicated to combating hate, which had been quietly removed around the time of the Trump deal. This section notably included information about the firm's legal actions against groups like the Proud Boys and organizers of the Charlottesville rally.

The debate highlighted a stark divide within the firm's leadership. Litigator Karen Dunn, known for her role in securing a $26 million judgment against Charlottesville rally organizers, advocated for restoring the website to its original state but proposed running it by Bill Burck, a Washington lawyer hired for the executive-order battle, to avoid provoking the administration. On the other hand, Partner Angelo Bonvino argued it was better to independently alter the content rather than risk White House interference, suggesting a more cautious approach to avoid political backlash.

Scott Barshay, the firm’s M&A rainmaker, appeared indifferent to internal or external criticisms, emphasizing the need to avoid further complications with the administration following their previous legal entanglements under the executive order.

This internal conflict is part of a broader pattern of the firm's cautious navigation of its relationship with Trump's administration. Before Trump’s inauguration, the firm withdrew from representing Chinese drone-maker DJI in a lawsuit against the Pentagon after the election results, despite having initiated the legal challenge under a Democratic administration. Moreover, the firm began removing content related to its family-reunification and LGBTQ advocacy work following speculative comments from Elon Musk about firms involved in "anti-democratic" cases.

This series of actions culminated in the firm's decision not to pursue any new lawsuits that might openly challenge or antagonize the Trump administration, despite Dunn's efforts to initiate legal action as a demonstration of the firm’s independence. This decision, among others, led to Dunn and several top litigators leaving Paul, Weiss to start their own firm where they could freely pursue their legal advocacy without such constraints.

These revelations raise significant questions about the extent to which Paul, Weiss has compromised its principles in the face of political pressure, marking a significant departure from its historical stance as a defender of the rule of law. As the legal industry watches, the integrity and independence of big law firms remain under scrutiny, highlighting a potential industry-wide trend of cautious, if not compromised, legal practice in politically charged environments.