Latest news with #A&OShearman
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Big Law firm says its Trump deal is nothing more than a 364-word Truth Social post
A&O Shearman says its deal with Trump includes nothing beyond the president's brief Truth Social post. Trump's posts don't explain how his deals with Big Law firms are supposed to be enforced. For A&O Shearman, at least, the terms remain vague. For one of the Big Law firms that made a deal with President Donald Trump, it's the Truth Social, the whole Truth Social, and nothing but the Truth Social. In a letter to Congress, A&O Shearman said Trump's 364-word Truth Social post constituted "the complete terms" of the deal. A&O Shearman and three other firms pledged $125 million each in free legal work toward Trump's political priorities, according to the post. "The complete terms of the Agreement are as set forth in the four numbered paragraphs of the President's April 11, 2025 social media post," William E. White and William J.F. Roll III, the firm's co-general counsels, wrote in the May 8 letter. Prior to A&O Shearman's letter to Congress, it was unclear whether any law firm had a written agreement spelling out the terms of the deals. A Justice Department lawyer, in litigation related to Trump's executive orders targeting law firms that didn't strike deals with Trump, has said in court that he didn't know whether any such agreements existed. Several unresolved questions remain about the deals between the law firms and the White House, each of which Trump announced on his social media platform. Do they have any enforcement mechanisms? How much time do the law firms have to fulfill their pledges? Who would decide whether a particular case counted toward the pro bono hours? Which "outside counsel" would the firms be required to retain to advise on employment practices, as the agreements require? And do the deals actually constrain Trump from issuing an executive order targeting the firms? In the letter to Congress, A&O Shearman said that an underlying agreement spelling out these details does not exist. It said it also resolved separate inquiries from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, whose Trump-appointed acting chairman had asked 20 Big Law firms about their diversity initiatives. "Our Firm has no other agreements other than the EEOC settlement agreement," A&O Shearman's letter said. "Neither the Agreement nor the EEOC settlement agreement (which focuses only on employment law related matters) contains any limitations whatsoever on the Firm's ability to represent any existing or future client in any matter." Victor Chen, a spokesperson for the EEOC, declined to provide Business Insider with copies of the agency's agreements with the law firms. The nine law firms that made deals with Trump agreed to provide pro bono work for the administration, among other concessions. A&O Shearman's letter came alongside correspondence from the other eight firms in response to questions from lawmakers about whether those deals are legal and ethical. A&O Shearman jointly struck a deal with three other law firms — Kirkland & Ellis, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, and Latham & Watkins — to commit a total of $500 million in pro bono services, according to Trump's post. Trump's Truth Social post said the law firms were expected to devote pro bono work toward combating antisemitism; "ensuring fairness in our Justice System"; and helping law enforcement, veterans, relatives of military members who have died in combat, and first responders. "Our lawyers already do pro bono work in each of these areas — indeed, much of our lawyers' current and historical pro bono work centers on fairness in the justice system, and we have long represented veterans and victims of religious discrimination," A&O Shearman wrote in its letter. The firm added that "no lawyer is required or expected to work on a pro bono matter they do not believe in." Rep. David Min, a Democratic lawmaker who asked the Big Law firms about their deals with Trump, told Business Insider that such an agreement wouldn't be enforceable anyway. Because Trump seems to have a different impression of what the deals provide, "these firms are all basically claiming that there was no meeting of the minds," meaning they can't be enforced, said Min, a former law professor who has lectured on the limits of settlements. Spokespeople for each of the nine firms that made deals with Trump, which collectively pledged nearly $1 billion worth of free work, didn't respond to requests for comment. In a statement, a White House spokesperson said the deals "could usher in a new era of merit and fairness in our justice system." The spokesperson did not respond to questions about the terms of the deals. The May 8 letter from A&O Shearman came the same day a lawyer for the Justice Department said he wasn't aware of any written agreements between Trump and Big Law firms. "I know of nothing beyond the generally publicly available information," Richard Lawson told US District Judge Loren AliKhan in a hearing for a lawsuit the firm Susman Godfrey brought against the Trump administration. Susman Godfrey is among the four law firms that have not made a deal with Trump and were targeted by his executive orders that would strip employees of security clearances and ban them from federally owned buildings. Each of the four firms sued the administration and won court orders blocking the implementation of Trump's orders. Read the original article on Business Insider
Business Insider
22-05-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
Big Law firm says its Trump deal is nothing more than a 364-word Truth Social post
For one of the Big Law firms that made a deal with President Trump, it's the Truth Social, the whole Truth Social, and nothing but the Truth Social. In a letter to Congress, A&O Shearman said Trump's 364-word Truth Social post constituted the "the complete terms" of the deal. The firm pledged $125 million each in free legal work toward Trump's political priorities, according to the post. "The complete terms of the Agreement are as set forth in the four numbered paragraphs of the President's April ll, 2025 social media post," co-general counsels William E. White and William J.F. Roll, III, wrote in the May 8 letter. Until A&O Shearman's letter, it has not been clear whether any law firm had a written-out agreement spelling out the deal's terms. A Justice Department lawyer, in litigation related to Trump's executive orders targeting law firms that didn't strike deals with Trump, has said in court that he didn't know whether any such agreements exist. The deals between the law firms and the White House, each of which Trump announced on his social media platform, still have several unresolved questions. Do they have any enforcement mechanisms? How much time do the law firms have to fulfill their pledges? Who would decide whether a particular case counted toward the pro bono hours? Which "outside counsel" would the firms be required to retain to advise on employment practices, as the agreements require? And do the deals actually constrain Trump from issuing an executive order targeting the firms? In the letter to Congress, A&O Shearman said that an underlying agreement that would spell out these details does not exist. It also resolved separate inquiries from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where the Trump-appointed acting chairman had asked 20 Big Law firms about their diversity initiatives. "Our Firm has no other agreements other than the EEOC settlement agreement," A&O Shearman's letter said. "Neither the Agreement nor the EEOC settlement agreement (which focuses only on employment law related matters) contains any limitations whatsoever on the Firm's ability to represent any existing or future client in any matter." A spokesperson for the EEOC, Victor Chen, declined to provide Business Insider with copies of the agency's agreements with the law firms. A total of nine law firms have made deals with Trump, pledging pro bono work, among other things. A&O Shearman's letter came alongside correspondence from the other eight firms that responded to questions from lawmakers about whether those deals are legal and ethical. A&O Shearman jointly struck a deal with three other law firms — Kirkland & Ellis, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, and Latham & Watkins — where they committed a total of $500 million in pro bono services, according to Trump's post. According to Trump's Truth Social post, the law firms are expected to devote pro bono work toward combating antisemitism; "ensuring fairness in our Justice System;" and helping law enforcement, veterans, relatives of military members who have died in combat, and first responders. "Our lawyers already do pro bono work in each of these areas — indeed, much of our lawyers' current and historical pro bono work centers on fairness in the justice system, and we have long represented veterans and victims of religious discrimination," A&O Shearman wrote in its letter. The firm added that "no lawyer is required or expected to work on a pro bono matter they do not believe in." Rep. David Min, one of the lawmakers who asked the Big Law firms about their deals with Trump, told Business Insider that any such agreement wouldn't be enforceable anyway. Because Trump seems to have a different impression of what the deals provide, "these firms are all basically claiming that there was no meeting of the minds," meaning they can't be enforced, said Min, a former law professor who has lectured on the limits of settlements. Spokespeople for each of the nine firms that made deals with Trump, which collectively pledged nearly $1 billion worth of free work, didn't respond to requests for comment. In a statement, a White House spokesperson said the deals "could usher in a new era of merit and fairness in our justice system." The spokesperson did not respond to questions about the terms of the deals. The May 8 letter from A&O Shearman came the same day a lawyer for the Justice Department said he wasn't aware of any written agreements between Trump and Big Law firms. "I know of nothing beyond the generally publicly available information," Richard Lawson told US District Judge Loren AliKhan in a hearing for a lawsuit the law firm Susman Godfrey brought against the Trump administration. Susman Godfrey is among the four law firms that have not made a deal with Trump and were targeted by his executive orders that would strip employees of security clearances and ban them from federally owned buildings. Each of the four firms sued the administration and won court orders blocking the implementation of Trump's orders.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Democrats Warn Law Firms That Caved to Trump are Helping Him Break Law
A group of Democratic lawmakers are demanding answers from nine major law firms that struck deals with Donald Trump's administration to avoid being targeted by the president's fury. In a series of letters Thursday, 16 Democratic lawmakers warned the managing partners of several large law firms that the agreements they'd made with the Trump administration—offering millions of dollars in pro bono work on issues that support the president's agenda, among other concessions—were unenforceable and potentially violated federal and state laws. The 16 lawmakers that sent the letters included Representatives Dave Min of California, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, and Becca Balint of Vermont. They warned that by issuing executive orders targeting certain law firms, the Trump administration had used 'coercive and illegal measures to target certain law firms and threaten their ability to represent and retain their clients.' In total, the law firms had pledged a whopping $940 million in pro bono work to the Trump administration. The letters alleged that Trump's scheme to blackmail firms into abolishing their DEI practices and cough up millions in free work could potentially violate federal laws against bribery, defrauding the public, and even racketeering. The deals could also potentially violate the Hobbs Act, according to lawmakers, which 'prohibits obstruction, delay, or affecting commerce by extortion under color of official right.' The deals potentially violated state laws and rules of professional conduct too, the lawmakers said. Not every firm that struck a deal, or received a letter, had been openly targeted by the Trump administration. Several had preemptively approached the government to make concessions, according to statements from the firms. The lawmakers warned that the deals would have a 'chilling effect' on 'the availability of legal services for those clients and matters targeted by the Trump administration.' The nine law firms that received letters were Allen Overy Shearman Sterling LLP; Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP; A&O Shearman, Latham & Watkins LLP; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; Milbank LLP; Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; and Kirkland & Ellis LLP. In the letters, each firm was asked a series of questions about the details of their individual deals with the Trump administration, and how exactly they'd come about. For example, Paul Weiss, the first law firm to bow to Trump, had agreed to acknowledge that one of its attorneys, Mark Pomerantz, had committed wrongdoing, according to the White House. Trump had targeted Pomerantz for his efforts to build a case against the president when Pomerantz served at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office—not illegal in the slightest. The lawmakers asked Paul Weiss to explain specifically what alleged 'wrongdoing' Pomerantz had committed. Like many of the other firms, Paul Weiss had also offered millions in free legal services and revoked their hiring practices that promoted diversity, equity, and inclusion. Other questions were the same for every firm. 'Outside observers have also stated that these agreements represent a 'Sword of Damocles,' with a risk that the administration will again threaten to target firms with Executive Orders if they do not again yield to the President's demands,' one question read, asking what the firm planned to do to 'ensure that the administration will not be able to require more from the firm beyond the provisions currently in place?' Earlier this week, Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut penned letters to five major law firms that they accused of being 'complicit in efforts to undermine the rule of law.'
Business Times
22-04-2025
- Business
- Business Times
Applying blanket standard narrows pool of director candidates: Keppel DC Reit manager
We refer to the BT article 'Keppel DC Reit lead independent director Kenny Kwan fails to get re-elected at AGM', published on Apr 18, 2025. Kenny Kwan received 49.93 per cent of the votes, just 0.07 per cent short of the 50 per cent majority required for his re-endorsement. We understand that an important reason for this outcome is the recommendation by a proxy adviser made prior to the annual general meeting relating to Kwan's re-endorsement, based on their classification of Kwan as a non-independent director. This stems from Keppel DC Reit's disclosure that A&O Shearman, the law firm where Kwan is a partner, is one of the law firms providing legal services to Keppel. The board holds the view that Kwan can be regarded as an independent director because he does not hold a substantial partnership interest in A&O Shearman; A&O Shearman has not been engaged by Keppel DC Reit or the manager to provide any legal services since Kwan joined as a partner; and Kwan is not employed by Keppel or any of its entities. In addition, Kwan's relationship with Keppel has been fully disclosed in Keppel DC Reit's annual report, in line with best practices for corporate governance and transparency. Keppel DC Reit adheres to the framework set out in the Code of Corporate Governance as well as the Securities and Futures (Licensing and Conduct of Business) Regulations when evaluating independence. The rationale and consideration of the board for determining Kwan's independence is set forth in detail in the annual report. While Keppel DC Reit respects the outcome of the vote, we believe it is important to evaluate independence in context, especially within the framework of Singapore's regulatory guidelines. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up In a market where major law firms naturally serve large companies, such as Keppel, applying a blanket standard could significantly narrow the pool of qualified candidates. Such an approach may unintentionally limit board diversity and expertise, particularly among professionals with highly relevant skill sets. Kwan brought to the board of Keppel DC Reit two decades of legal and capital markets experience, with deep expertise in real estate investment structures, cross-border transactions and regulatory compliance. His expertise was extremely valuable to Keppel DC Reit in navigating complex transactions, enhancing compliance and strengthening investor protection. Kwan's insights contributed greatly to board deliberations, and to ensuring that management decisions are both commercially sound and legally robust. We also wish to highlight that Kwan's election resolutions in 2019 and 2022 were passed even though the underlying circumstances were materially unchanged. On behalf of the board and management of Keppel DC Reit, I would like to extend our appreciation to Kwan for his strategic guidance and invaluable contributions to Keppel DC Reit as lead independent director and chairman of the nominating and remuneration committee. The board and management remain committed to upholding high standards of corporate governance and transparency, as well as delivering strong returns to unitholders. Christina Tan, chairman of Keppel DC Reit Management, manager of Keppel DC Reit
Yahoo
18-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Young lawyers urged to quit City law firm after striking deal with Trump
Young lawyers have been urged to quit a major City law firm after it struck a controversial deal with Donald Trump. A former legal chief at London-based A&O Shearman, Olivier Fréget, has urged his ex-colleagues not to be an 'accomplice' in Trump's crackdown on the legal sector after the firm struck a deal with Mr Trump. The US President's administration is set to receive $125m (£94m) of free legal work from several firms including A&O Shearman in return for resolving an investigation related to their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. Mr Fréget, who was previously global co-head of competition law at the firm, took to social media to urge his former colleagues not to pick 'guaranteed money flows against integrity'. Arguing that he quit the firm eight years earlier due to 'internal poor management issues', he said the latest pro bono deal 'makes each partner potentially an accomplice of Trump's project' and so staff must act. 'If you cannot internally oppose it, you may run to join another law firm or build your own,' he said. 'In the long run, clients trust lawyers who behave according to a high standard.' His message came shortly after hundreds of lawyers at the firm had urged it not to settle with the president. The deal was announced shortly after the letter was sent, however, with the law firm telling staff the decision was made to resolve an inquiry into the DEI and ethics of top law firms 'without any admission of liability or wrongdoing on the firm's part'. It added that the deal was not done in response to an 'executive order or the threat of one related to the firm's representation of clients' but a business decision to resolve a potentially distracting and expensive investigation or litigation on terms that we consider reasonable under the circumstances'. Trump has been accused of 'bullying' the legal sector after signing a string of executive orders targeting American law firms over their work for political opponents and their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. The orders effectively ban firms from carrying out government work as their lawyers are not allowed to enter federal buildings. Junior lawyers have since hit back, with more than 1,600 associates last month signing an open letter to condemn law firms for not doing enough to stand up to him. An insider at A&O Shearman said that nobody has resigned from the firm over the decision. The staff memo added that the firm will be 'completely free to choose whether or not we wish to work on any particular pro bono matter' and that the decision does not compromise its values. Most law firms have stayed silent, prompting industry experts to warn of a 'chilling effect', while others have agreed to carry out pro-bono work for the administration in exchange for the president's executive order to be overturned. A&O Shearman was one of five law firms to reach an agreement with the president earlier this month, triggering a huge backlash amongst staff and a number of resignations. Washington DC-based lawyer Sam Wong, for example, sent his colleagues an email last week explaining that he had quit his employer Latham & Watkins because of the firm's 'decision to capitulate'. The firm also signed a $125m deal with Trump. 'I opt today to use my voice and my feet to move somewhere that at least tries to fight for what is right,' he said. In Britain, experts have been sounding a warning about the implications of Trump's actions on the legal sector. Richard Atkinson, the head of the 200-year-old professional body the Law Society of England and Wales, said last month that the US government's decision to investigate law firms on the basis of their DEI programmes represented 'a flagrant disregard for the fundamental principle of the rule of law', which serves as the 'bedrock of freedom and justice worldwide'. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
