Keep your finger on the legal world's pulse

A new memorandum issued by President Donald Trump threatens to use government power to punish any law firms that, in his view, unfairly challenge his administration. The memo directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms that file what Trump characterized as “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious” lawsuits against the federal government. The memo states: “Far too many attorneys and law firms have long ignored [ Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1 ] when litigating against the federal government or in pursuing baseless partisan attacks.” The memo also cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which prohibits lawyers from filing claims with improper motivations, lacking evidentiary support, or not grounded in existing law. Vanita Gupta, a civil rights lawyer and a former Justice Department official, said Trump’s memo “attacks the very foundations of our legal system by threatening and intimidating litigants who aim to hold our government accountable to the law and the Constitution.” A White House spokeswoman, Taylor Rogers, said: “President Trump is delivering on his promise to ensure the judicial system is no longer weaponized against the American people. President Trump’s only retribution is success and historic achievements for the American people.”

 

Jurist

New York Times

Washington Post

Brad Karp, chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Garrison & Wharton, says he agreed to significant concessions to the Trump administration to avoid an "existential crisis" for the firm. An executive order threatened to suspend security clearances for the firm's attorneys and terminate federal contracts, which Karp said "could easily have destroyed our firm." Following negotiations, the firm committed to providing $40m worth of free legal services to support the administration. The decision has drawn criticism from the legal community, with many lawyers expressing concern that the firm did not challenge the President. Karp acknowledged the issue, saying: "It is very easy for commentators to judge our actions from the sidelines," adding "Disappointingly, far from support, we learned that certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys."

 

Law

Bloomberg Tax

U.S. News

DLA Piper has announced the disbandment of its minority organizations and affinity groups, following inquiries from the Trump administration regarding other law firms' diversity initiatives. In an email, Americas chair Frank Ryan said that the firm “will evolve from our previous diversity and inclusion initiatives” and will cease participation in certain external surveys. The decision comes amid an investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) into 20 law firms, including Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins, for potential discrimination in their diversity programs. The EEOC is examining whether participation in affinity groups influenced partnership eligibility. DLA Piper was not among the firms under investigation.

 

Bloomberg Law

Hogan Lovells and Latham & Watkins, who were among 20 law firms recently contacted by a U.S. federal agency regarding their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) employment practices, have discreetly removed significant amounts of DEI content from their websites, including references to disability, LGBTQ+, and “institutional racism.”

 

Above the Law

Bloomberg Tax

The Baltimore Sun

Law

U.S. News

Top Democrats, including Rep. Jamie Raskin and Rep. Gerald Connolly, have filed a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency Service (DOGE). They are questioning whether DOGE is operating "outside the bounds of federal law" and are seeking information on its authority, access to sensitive data, and the qualifications of its staff. The Democrats said: “The American people deserve answers,” as they emphasized the need for transparency amid concerns over potential conflicts of interest involving billionaire Elon Musk. The request aims for a response within 20 days and highlights the ongoing tension between Congress and the executive branch as the Trump administration continues to dismantle federal agencies and services.

 

Los Angeles Times

U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander has temporarily blocked Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing sensitive Social Security data, labeling its actions a “fishing expedition.” The judge mandated the deletion of any personally identifiable information held by the team, which had gained broad access to the Social Security Administration (SSA) systems with minimal justification. Hollander said: “Rooting out possible fraud . . . is in the public interest. But, that does not mean that the government can flout the law to do so.” The lawsuit, initiated by labor unions and advocacy groups, has raised concerns about privacy violations and information security risks. Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, hailed the ruling as a “major win for working people and retirees across the country.”

 

Los Angeles Times

The family of John Barnett, a Boeing whistleblower who took his own life, have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the aerospace firm. The lawsuit alleges that the company’s conduct was the “clear, foreseeable cause" of Barnett's death, and claims that he was subjected to a campaign of harassment, abuse and humiliation after he raised concerns about safety issues. Barnett, who was employed as a quality manager at a Boeing factory, raised a number of concerns with management about violations of safety procedures, as well highlighting defects in aircraft on the production line. A 2017 review by the Federal Aviation Administration upheld some of these concerns. In a 2021 email included in the complaint, Barnett described himself as once “a very happy go lucky guy that loved his job, his company and the products they built.” But over time, he wrote, Boeing's resistance to his safety critiques changed his outlook. “Each time I do an interview, a deposition or other stressful discussion on what happened with me and Boeing, I re-live [sic] those years all over again. It puts me in a deep depression for a week or two.”

 

BBC News

The Columbian

JPMorgan Chase is facing a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging mismanagement of employee health benefits. The lawsuit accuses the bank of failing its employees by agreeing to overcharges in prescription drugs by the company's pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), CVS Caremark, which sets the drug prices for JPMorgan Chase's employee health plans. For instance, the multiple sclerosis drug teriflunomide was allegedly bought for $6,229, while it can be purchased for around $30 at retail pharmacies. The lawsuit argues that JPMorgan Chase has abandoned its "fiduciary responsibility" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by allowing these overcharges. "No prudent fiduciary would agree or allow for its plan and participants/beneficiaries pay a price that is more than two hundred times higher than the price available to any individual who just walks into a pharmacy and pays out-of-pocket, and five hundred sixty times higher than the price available with just a few clicks online," the lawsuit states. JPMorgan Chase has declined to comment on the matter.

 

The Columbus Dispatch

More states are passing or weighing laws that require employers to offer paid medical or sick leave. Voters in Missouri, Nebraska and Alaska approved paid sick leave laws in November, and at least seven states are considering paid family and medical leave laws this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Advocates say such laws can lessen financial anxiety and increase employee productivity - although some measures can place stress on smaller employers, which often don’t have a separate human resources department to monitor compliance with mandated leave policies, observes Beth Milito of the National Federation for Independent Business. Meanwhile, experts say the patchwork nature of the laws can be an additional frustration for multi-state employers.

 

The Columbian

Project finance expert Alexander Malahias has joined Akin from White & Case to co-lead the firm's new office in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which is set to launch later this year. Abid Qureshi, Akin's co-chair elect, described the Riyadh launch as a "critical piece" of the firm's growth strategy, and highlighted the sustained demand for local insight in the region. Malahias brings nearly two decades of experience, advising on significant project finance transactions across various sectors, including energy and infrastructure. His connections with key players like Red Sea Global and NEOM will enhance Akin's capabilities. The Saudi legal landscape has recently evolved, allowing foreign firms to establish practices without local partners, prompting a surge of interest from major law firms. Akin's Riyadh office will be its third in the Middle East, following Abu Dhabi and Dubai.

 

The Global Legal Post

A report by the Joint California Policy Working Group on Frontier AI Models, co-led by artificial intelligence pioneer Fei-Fei Li, has emphasized the need for lawmakers to consider unobserved AI risks when developing regulatory policies. The 41-page interim report, released following California Gov. Gavin Newsom's veto of the AI safety bill SB 1047, advocates for increased transparency from AI developers like OpenAI. Li and her co-authors, including Jennifer Chayes and Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, argue for laws mandating public reporting of safety tests and data practices. They highlight what they say is the “inconclusive level of evidence” regarding AI's potential for extreme threats, arguing that “If those who speculate about the most extreme risks are right . . . the stakes and costs for inaction on frontier AI at this current moment are extremely high.” The report, due for final release in June 2025, has garnered support from various experts, and marks a significant step in AI safety regulation discussions.

 

Techcrunch

China has said a new IP rule will fight discrimination against its citizens or organizations in international intellectual property disputes. South China Morning Post observes that although the regulation does not identify any country, it would appear to target the U.S. and European Union, which have accused China of IP rights infringement and forced technology transfer in trade disputes. Beijing denies such accusations. According to the regulation, in cases where a foreign government “uses intellectual property disputes as an excuse to contain and suppress China, takes discriminatory restrictive measures against Chinese citizens and organizations, and interferes in internal affairs,” Beijing may act according to the Foreign Relations Law and Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law.

 

Chinadaily US Edition