The center begins to hold.

Robert H. Hubbell: “Five law professors come to the aid of law firms targeted by Trump. Five preeminent law professors from Boston University, Cornell, and Georgetown, all of whom are experts in ethics, have filed a brief in support of Wilmer Hale (one of the Trump targets that refused to capitulate). All I can say is, “Shut the front door! Do not provoke ethics experts.” Joyce Vance (of Civil Discourse on Substack) ably summarizes the arguments made by the five law professors. In short, the capitulating law firms face ethical conflicts whenever they represent a client in a case involving the government. Worse, as summarized by Joyce Vance, “Those firms may have violated federal anti-bribery laws. “[T]he law firms may fall within what counts as bribery under federal law: offering or promising something of value to a federal official in hopes of influencing an official act—here, withdrawing the executive orders against the firms.” It appears the Capitulating Firms did not carefully consider the ramifications (or legality) of giving Trump a political victory in exchange for forestalling official government action…The “agreements” between the Capitulating Firms and Trump have been a mystery. Who were the parties to the agreements? What were the terms of the agreements? Are they enforceable? Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo appears to have discovered the answers to the above questions—and they aren’t pretty. It appears that the “agreements” are little more than the press releases by the firms and Trump’s posts on Truth Social (descriptions that do not always match). Worse, it appears that the agreements were negotiated by Boris Epshteyn—who does not represent the US government. Rather, Epshteyn is Trump’s personal attorney. So, if Epshteyn is Trump’s personal attorney, then Trump (rather than the government) is the counterparty to the agreement. It appears that Trump’s personal lawyer was convincing the firms to give up hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono services to benefit Trump’s political standing in exchange for the cancellation of an official government action, i.e., the executive orders. If true, such a corrupt exchange is why the five ethics experts suggest that the deals may violate federal anti-bribery statutes. See Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo, For Big Law: Is That Your Final Answer? At some point in the future, representatives of the law firms will be called to explain the nature, terms, and intent of the agreements. Those firms should already be preparing those answers with the assistance of high-powered criminal defense lawyers. I am not suggesting that there was a criminal violation, but as cautious attorneys, the Capitulating Firms know that you don’t want to get close to that line. But that is where the amateurish, reckless deals placed once-proud and respected firms—too close to a line that could end careers and personal liberties…”