When the great law firms attacked by President Trump decided to make an agreement instead of fighting, many did it because their leaders feared that customers leave a signature trapped by the bad side of the administration.
Now that logic can be less convincing. An important company, Microsoft, has dropped a law firm that was established with the administration in favor of one that is fighting against him.
Large companies such as Microsoft often cultivate legal work for boxes or even hundreds of companies and can move businesses depending on circumstances, such as prices, experience or possible conflicts. Microsoft refused to comment why law firms changed in a significant case last week, but the change suggests that a company that chose to fight the Trump administration could attack an important client.
On April 22, several lawyers in the law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett informed the Chanmanery Delaware Court that would no longer represent Microsoft in a case related to the 2023 acquisition storm of the company to the presentation of the counts.
Simpson Thacher reached an agreement with the White House last month in which the company promised to the performance of $ 125 million in free legal work for acceptable causes for the Trump administration. In a joint statement with other companies that make similar agreements, Simpson Tacher said the pro bono work would be in the name of “a wide range of unattended populations.”
The same day that Simpson Thacher’s lawyers presented documents retired from the Microsoft case, at least three members of the Jenner & Block firm informed the court that Microsoft would be in the case. Jenner is fighting in the Court to permanently block an executive order of the Trump administration aimed at her business.
Jenner declined to comment on the change, and Simpson Thachher did not respond to a request for comments.
Since the Trump administration begins to press great law firms with executive orders and investigations on their hiring and diversity practices, law firm leaders have cited the risk of losing customers in their decisions to seek agreements. They worried that fighting in the White House scares customers, even if the fights were ultimately successful.
Many lawyers have argued that the executive orders of Mr. Trump, who have restricted the contact of law firms with federal agencies and officials, They are unconstitutional, and the courts seem to be reception of that argument so far.
Microsoft’s case in Delaware is an early indication that can be a risk in the opposite direction.
In some cases, a client may have a law firm that has reached an agreement with the White House has a conflict of interest that prevents it from aggressively representing the client. For example, the client can be accused in a lawsuit filed by the federal government and worry that a settlement law firm is reluctant to face the administration.
Other clients may have broader concerns. A main partner of another company that does not have an agreement with the White House said that his company was beginning to attract clients of companies that had been established with the administration. The partner, who was not authorized to publicly discuss customer issues, said that potential clients had indicated that they lost confidence in the solution of companies for not defending an attack on the rule of law.
Some companies that challenge the administration have tried to capitalize on this frustration, a suggestion that their rejection reflects the commitment to also fight in customers of what customers.
On a website established to advertise his case against the president’s executive order, Jenner wrote that making an agreement with the administration “would mean compromising our ability to jealously advocate all our clients.”
Other companies that challenge executive orders, such as Wilmerhale and Suman Godfrey, have configured websites or web pages that communicate similar messages.
The case of Microsoft, which does not directly involve the federal government, arose from a lawsuit from an institutional activation shareholder that opposed how the company’s board had approved the merger. The shareholder argued that the merger approval process had violated the law, and a Delaware court greatly denied the company’s efforts to dismiss the demand in a ruling last year.
Around the last decades, Microsoft has built solid relations with government officials of both parties, and the company has generally avoided open partisan loyalty or openly political statements. While Microsoft donated $ 1 million to Mr. Trump inaugural, such as some of her technology partners, its executive director, Satya Nadella, did not attend the swear and has generally maintained a low profile in her interactions with the Trump administration. The company also donated to the opening committee of President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Karen Weise and Michael S. Schmidt Contributed reports. Susan C. Beachy Contributed research.
