Two top U.S. law firms—Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie—are taking sharply divergent approaches to President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders targeting legal practitioners and their clients, underscoring the complex political risks now facing elite legal institutions.

Paul Weiss last week reached a $40 million agreement with the Trump administration to rescind a March 14 executive order that had threatened the firm’s federal contracts and attorneys’ security clearances. As part of the deal, the firm pledged to suspend all DEI-related policies, conduct an internal employment audit, and dedicate pro bono resources to the administration’s initiatives, including the President’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism.

Chair Brad Karp defended the decision as a response to an “existential crisis” facing the firm, while acknowledging internal and external criticism. “Other firms tried to exploit our vulnerabilities,” Karp wrote in an internal message, referencing client poaching and lateral recruiting attempts in the wake of the order.

The White House later issued a statement referencing Karp’s acknowledgment of alleged “wrongdoing” by former partner Mark Pomerantz, who previously investigated Trump at the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. Pomerantz rejected the implication, telling Bloomberg Law on March 21, “I engaged in no wrongdoing by working as a prosecutor to uphold the rule of law.”

Meanwhile, Perkins Coie has chosen legal resistance. It retained Williams & Connolly to challenge a similar executive order in court. On March 12, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction against large parts of the order, allowing Perkins attorneys access to federal agencies. However, the Justice Department is seeking to disqualify the presiding judge, and the case remains active.

Perkins, long known for representing major tech companies and Democrats in election litigation, has characterized the executive action as political retaliation. Its court filings argue the order is rooted in its past representation of Hillary Clinton and challenges to Trump’s 2020 election claims—particularly the work of former partner Marc Elias and the firm's involvement with Fusion GPS.

In a March 22 statement, Elias said, “There will be no negotiation with this White House about the clients we represent or the lawsuits we bring on their behalf.”

The orders have put firm reputations, client relationships, and attorney morale under strain. Perkins partner declarations submitted to the court acknowledge business losses and mounting pressure. “The easy path would be to fold,” one partner said. Still, the firm has doubled down on its stance. “They are managing this the same way they always have—fact-based and out of the mud,” said Fred Rivera, former managing partner of Perkins' Seattle office.

Paul Weiss’ strategy, by contrast, has raised eyebrows in legal circles. “I thought if anybody would fight it, it would be Paul Weiss—that was their ethos,” said legal recruiter Alisa Levin. NYU Law’s Stephen Gillers offered a more tempered view, noting that while the firm conceded ground, “most of what the firm promises is conduct that has always reflected the values for which it is known.”

Yet critics see the settlement as a step backward. “Perkins Coie is noble and full of integrity,” said Washington lawyer Mark Zaid. “Paul Weiss is just, put your tail between your legs and scurry along a little.”