{"id":115908,"date":"2025-04-21T13:03:19","date_gmt":"2025-04-21T21:03:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/04\/21\/an-apologist-for-law-firm-capitulation\/"},"modified":"2025-04-21T13:03:19","modified_gmt":"2025-04-21T21:03:19","slug":"an-apologist-for-law-firm-capitulation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/04\/21\/an-apologist-for-law-firm-capitulation\/","title":{"rendered":"An Apologist For Law Firm Capitulation?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
(Photo by Michael M. Santiago\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Stop foaming at the mouth.<\/p>\n

I know that many of the country\u2019s largest and most prestigious law firms have capitulated in the face of President Donald Trump\u2019s executive orders (or threats of executive orders) punishing the firms for having taken action against the administration\u2019s interests.<\/p>\n

But I\u2019m here to tell you that capitulation is not crazy.<\/p>\n

Exhale.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Think about this.\u00a0<\/p>\n

You\u2019re the managing partner of a fancy-pants law firm.\u00a0Trump\u2019s executive order threatens to revoke the security clearances of your lawyers, deny your lawyers access to federal courthouses, and cancel your clients\u2019 government contracts.\u00a0Security clearances may not matter to your firm, depending on your firm\u2019s work, but access to federal courthouses is vitally important to litigators, and the ability of clients to contract with the government is a big-ticket item for fancy-pants law firms.<\/p>\n

Thus:\u00a0If the government\u2019s executive order is upheld, your law firm is out of business.<\/p>\n

Should you fight the executive order, or should you settle?<\/p>\n

Remember that this calculus changes over time. For Paul Weiss, the first firm to settle with Trump, the future was a blank slate.\u00a0Paul Weiss couldn\u2019t be certain that the executive order, if challenged, would be struck down.\u00a0Paul Weiss also didn\u2019t know whether later firms would settle with Trump \u2014 thus spreading the shame of capitulation \u2014 or fight the government and win \u2014 making Paul Weiss\u2019s decision to settle look terribly weak.<\/p>\n

For Paul Weiss, what were the chances that the executive order would be upheld?\u00a0I, at least, would have viewed it as very unlikely that Trump\u2019s executive order could withstand judicial scrutiny.\u00a0The odds of victory in a case challenging an executive order attacking a law firm change over time, as courts create precedents when early challengers win or lose their cases.\u00a0But let\u2019s say that your firm was one of the early ones to be attacked by Trump, and the odds that you would win a lawsuit, and have the order struck down, are as good as the strongest case that I ever saw in private practice:\u00a0You have a 90% chance of winning.<\/p>\n

There are of course no 100% cases; there\u2019s always a chance that you lose.\u00a0In a case challenging the executive order, your case might be assigned to Aileen Cannon or some other Trump-appointed judge looking to be elevated to the Supreme Court. If so, you lose.\u00a0Your judge might have an entirely different view of the Constitution than the conventional wisdom.\u00a0If so, you lose.\u00a0Your judge might have a bad day.\u00a0If so, you lose.<\/p>\n

But, as I said, suppose your chances of winning are extraordinarily good:\u00a090%.<\/p>\n

You could settle with the Trump administration and eliminate the 10% chance that your firm will be out of business.\u00a0Against that, however, you must weigh three drawbacks to settling.<\/p>\n

First, there\u2019s the matter of principle: Law firms shouldn\u2019t capitulate to an over-reaching government!\u00a0But it\u2019s fiendishly difficult to put a dollar value on matters of principle.<\/p>\n

Second, you\u2019ll have to agree to devote $40 million, or $100 million, or $125 million (depending on when you settled) of pro bono hours to causes endorsed by the Trump administration. I\u2019m just guessing here, but I\u2019d bet that, for many big American law firms, $100 million in pro bono hours is not that much more than the firm is currently contributing to pro bono causes.\u00a0The amount that firms commit to pro bono varies by the size of the law firm, the firm\u2019s commitment to pro bono, the press of paying work, and a bunch of other things. But big firms might commit close to $100 million to pro bono whether the firms settle with Trump or not.\u00a0If you settle, you probably don\u2019t have to substantially increase the amount of pro bono work that you provide, so you\u2019re not taking a big financial hit.<\/p>\n

If you settle, the government will influence your selection of pro bono cases.\u00a0You can, of course, continue to represent indigent criminal defendants, and outfits advocating for affirmative action, and the like, with your pro bono hours above the $100 million subject to your settlement.\u00a0You might have to reduce the help you give to preexisting causes, but you need not abandon them entirely.<\/p>\n

As to the hours subject to government approval, I bet the conversation with the government goes something like this:<\/p>\n

Firm:\u00a0We\u2019d like to advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion.<\/p>\n

Trump administration:\u00a0Screw that!\u00a0You\u2019re going to advocate on behalf of coal companies that want to spew more pollution into the air!<\/p>\n

Firm:\u00a0Why don\u2019t we compromise?\u00a0We\u2019ll represent veterans who were improperly denied veterans\u2019 benefits.<\/p>\n

Trump administration:\u00a0Okay.<\/p>\n

That wasn\u2019t so hard, was it?<\/p>\n

What else do you lose by settling?<\/p>\n

The third big disadvantage of capitulation is that your firm will take a short-term reputational hit.\u00a0George Conway, and Andrew Weissmann, and columnists at Above the Law, and the rest will scream that you\u2019re a wimp \u2014 you\u2019ve capitulated!\u00a0 Those screams will probably last for a month or two, and then we\u2019ll be on to the next Trump administration outrage.\u00a0You can surely survive that.<\/p>\n

Clients might leave your firm because you\u2019ve capitulated to the government.\u00a0That could hurt, but it\u2019s pretty unlikely to happen.\u00a0Clients work with individual lawyers, and clients probably don\u2019t blame those lawyers for the firm\u2019s decision to settle.\u00a0Moreover, the firm settled in part to protect clients \u2014 to permit clients to contract with the federal government.\u00a0Why would you fire a law firm that acted to help you? Beyond that, if you fire your existing counsel \u2014 fancy-pants law firm No. 1 \u2014 where would you go for legal services?\u00a0It\u2019s true that Paul Weiss capitulated to the government, but so did Kirkland, and Latham, and a bunch of others.\u00a0The more firms that capitulate, the harder it is to find alternative representation. (And the more sensible it looks for firms to have capitulated in the first place.\u00a0There\u2019s safety in numbers:\u00a0Everyone\u2019s capitulating; we\u2019re just one of the crowd.)<\/p>\n

Your law school recruiting efforts might be hurt because you capitulated to Trump.\u00a0Law students are noble; perhaps they won\u2019t take jobs at firms that do ignoble things.\u00a0\u2018<\/p>\n

But what\u2019s the effect of this?\u00a0Even if some law students will now refuse to go to, say, Paul Weiss, plenty of other law students will take those jobs.\u00a0Endless streams of law students itch to work at fancy firms, with great reputations, high pay, and sophisticated work. Maybe the replacement students won\u2019t be as good as the folks Paul Weiss wanted to recruit, but how long will it take the world to notice that the quality of a law firm\u2019s work is now a little bit worse than it was 10 years ago?\u00a0Most firms probably lost quality as they expanded through the early 2000s \u2014 greater size means less quality control \u2014 and I don\u2019t think anyone ever noticed the change.<\/p>\n

Lawyers may leave your firm because they\u2019re outraged by your capitulation. Maybe \u2014 but not that many.\u00a0The lawyer has to be truly outraged by your decision to settle, and most lawyers won\u2019t be.\u00a0The 10% chance that the executive order would be upheld, and your firm forced out of business, makes the settlement decision rational.\u00a0The outraged lawyer must also make a financial difference to your firm.\u00a0It\u2019s true that some associates and senior counsel have left law firms in recent weeks.\u00a0Those departures make for good press, but they don\u2019t injure the firm.\u00a0A partner with $30 million in portable business might matter, and I haven\u2019t yet seen any of them move.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Part of the reason for partner inertia is institutional:\u00a0If a client works with many lawyers at a firm, and only one lawyer is outraged by the settlement with Trump, then the outraged lawyer could change firms, but the client might not.\u00a0The partner\u2019s business was thus not truly \u201cportable.\u201d\u00a0Changing firms would hurt the lawyer who changed jobs but wouldn\u2019t matter to the original law firm.<\/p>\n

Part of the reason for partner inertia is the fluidity of the situation:\u00a0Many big firms other than yours \u2014 firms with good reputations and the ability to support your clients \u2014 have also settled with Trump.\u00a0Yet more firms might settle in the future.\u00a0If you\u2019re a partner about to jump ship from your current employer, you\u2019d better find a good alternative ship on which to land.<\/p>\n

But part of the reason you haven\u2019t yet seen partner moves is that transitioning laterally between law firms takes time:\u00a0Folks transitioning laterally must interview with the new firm.\u00a0They must clear conflicts.\u00a0They must otherwise assess whether they fit with the new place.\u00a0I wouldn\u2019t expect those moves to occur within a week or two of a firm\u2019s settlement with the Trump administration.\u00a0Give this time, and perhaps a few significant partners will choose to leave their current law firms.\u00a0Perhaps firms will pay some price for having capitulated.\u00a0But you don\u2019t know that in advance.\u00a0We\u2019ll see what happens.<\/p>\n

There are other aspects of the reputational risk caused by having settled with Trump.\u00a0There is, for example, Trump himself.\u00a0Trump loves to boast that important people, or institutions, or countries, kissed his ass.\u00a0Trump may say that about your firm.<\/p>\n

You can live with that.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not yet done with the forms of humiliation you\u2019ll suffer.\u00a0In the past, you always liked to bray about courage at your firm\u2019s partners\u2019 meetings.\u00a0You\u2019d puff up your chest and explain how fierce and courageous your law firm was.\u00a0But now, when push came to shove, you folded like a cheap suit.\u00a0Of course:\u00a0A principle isn\u2019t a principle until it hurts.\u00a0Now we know your true principles.\u00a0But you\u2019ll get over that humiliation, too.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, put everything in the balance:\u00a0Weigh a 10% chance of your firm going out of business against a small tilt in a portion of your pro bono commitment and some short-term public relations problems.<\/p>\n

Does capitulation prove that you, the professed lion, is in fact a pussy cat?\u00a0Sure.<\/p>\n

But it would look a whole lot worse if the 10% chance of loss came through and your firm went out of business. You\u2019d look like a complete idiot, and a lot of people would be out of work.<\/p>\n

Is it easier to fight the government today than it was a month ago?\u00a0Yes.\u00a0More firms are fighting (there\u2019s safety in numbers), and several firms have won decisions striking down part or all of the executive orders.<\/p>\n

Am I terribly disappointed in the firms that have capitulated?\u00a0I am.\u00a0Shame on them.\u00a0I wish them ill.<\/p>\n

But do I understand the decision?<\/p>\n

Absolutely.\u00a0Leaders at Biglaw firms may be cowards, but they\u2019re generally not stupid.<\/p>\n

\n

Mark\u00a0Herrmann\u00a0spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Curmudgeon\u2019s Guide to Practicing Law<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(affiliate links). You can reach him by email at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>inhouse@abovethelaw.com<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The post An Apologist For Law Firm Capitulation?<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
(Photo by Michael M. Santiago\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Stop foaming at the mouth.<\/p>\n

I know that many of the country\u2019s largest and most prestigious law firms have capitulated in the face of President Donald Trump\u2019s executive orders (or threats of executive orders) punishing the firms for having taken action against the administration\u2019s interests.<\/p>\n

But I\u2019m here to tell you that capitulation is not crazy.<\/p>\n

Exhale.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Think about this.\u00a0<\/p>\n

You\u2019re the managing partner of a fancy-pants law firm.\u00a0Trump\u2019s executive order threatens to revoke the security clearances of your lawyers, deny your lawyers access to federal courthouses, and cancel your clients\u2019 government contracts.\u00a0Security clearances may not matter to your firm, depending on your firm\u2019s work, but access to federal courthouses is vitally important to litigators, and the ability of clients to contract with the government is a big-ticket item for fancy-pants law firms.<\/p>\n

Thus:\u00a0If the government\u2019s executive order is upheld, your law firm is out of business.<\/p>\n

Should you fight the executive order, or should you settle?<\/p>\n

Remember that this calculus changes over time. For Paul Weiss, the first firm to settle with Trump, the future was a blank slate.\u00a0Paul Weiss couldn\u2019t be certain that the executive order, if challenged, would be struck down.\u00a0Paul Weiss also didn\u2019t know whether later firms would settle with Trump \u2014 thus spreading the shame of capitulation \u2014 or fight the government and win \u2014 making Paul Weiss\u2019s decision to settle look terribly weak.<\/p>\n

For Paul Weiss, what were the chances that the executive order would be upheld?\u00a0I, at least, would have viewed it as very unlikely that Trump\u2019s executive order could withstand judicial scrutiny.\u00a0The odds of victory in a case challenging an executive order attacking a law firm change over time, as courts create precedents when early challengers win or lose their cases.\u00a0But let\u2019s say that your firm was one of the early ones to be attacked by Trump, and the odds that you would win a lawsuit, and have the order struck down, are as good as the strongest case that I ever saw in private practice:\u00a0You have a 90% chance of winning.<\/p>\n

There are of course no 100% cases; there\u2019s always a chance that you lose.\u00a0In a case challenging the executive order, your case might be assigned to Aileen Cannon or some other Trump-appointed judge looking to be elevated to the Supreme Court. If so, you lose.\u00a0Your judge might have an entirely different view of the Constitution than the conventional wisdom.\u00a0If so, you lose.\u00a0Your judge might have a bad day.\u00a0If so, you lose.<\/p>\n

But, as I said, suppose your chances of winning are extraordinarily good:\u00a090%.<\/p>\n

You could settle with the Trump administration and eliminate the 10% chance that your firm will be out of business.\u00a0Against that, however, you must weigh three drawbacks to settling.<\/p>\n

First, there\u2019s the matter of principle: Law firms shouldn\u2019t capitulate to an over-reaching government!\u00a0But it\u2019s fiendishly difficult to put a dollar value on matters of principle.<\/p>\n

Second, you\u2019ll have to agree to devote $40 million, or $100 million, or $125 million (depending on when you settled) of pro bono hours to causes endorsed by the Trump administration. I\u2019m just guessing here, but I\u2019d bet that, for many big American law firms, $100 million in pro bono hours is not that much more than the firm is currently contributing to pro bono causes.\u00a0The amount that firms commit to pro bono varies by the size of the law firm, the firm\u2019s commitment to pro bono, the press of paying work, and a bunch of other things. But big firms might commit close to $100 million to pro bono whether the firms settle with Trump or not.\u00a0If you settle, you probably don\u2019t have to substantially increase the amount of pro bono work that you provide, so you\u2019re not taking a big financial hit.<\/p>\n

If you settle, the government will influence your selection of pro bono cases.\u00a0You can, of course, continue to represent indigent criminal defendants, and outfits advocating for affirmative action, and the like, with your pro bono hours above the $100 million subject to your settlement.\u00a0You might have to reduce the help you give to preexisting causes, but you need not abandon them entirely.<\/p>\n

As to the hours subject to government approval, I bet the conversation with the government goes something like this:<\/p>\n

Firm:\u00a0We\u2019d like to advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion.<\/p>\n

Trump administration:\u00a0Screw that!\u00a0You\u2019re going to advocate on behalf of coal companies that want to spew more pollution into the air!<\/p>\n

Firm:\u00a0Why don\u2019t we compromise?\u00a0We\u2019ll represent veterans who were improperly denied veterans\u2019 benefits.<\/p>\n

Trump administration:\u00a0Okay.<\/p>\n

That wasn\u2019t so hard, was it?<\/p>\n

What else do you lose by settling?<\/p>\n

The third big disadvantage of capitulation is that your firm will take a short-term reputational hit.\u00a0George Conway, and Andrew Weissmann, and columnists at Above the Law, and the rest will scream that you\u2019re a wimp \u2014 you\u2019ve capitulated!\u00a0 Those screams will probably last for a month or two, and then we\u2019ll be on to the next Trump administration outrage.\u00a0You can surely survive that.<\/p>\n

Clients might leave your firm because you\u2019ve capitulated to the government.\u00a0That could hurt, but it\u2019s pretty unlikely to happen.\u00a0Clients work with individual lawyers, and clients probably don\u2019t blame those lawyers for the firm\u2019s decision to settle.\u00a0Moreover, the firm settled in part to protect clients \u2014 to permit clients to contract with the federal government.\u00a0Why would you fire a law firm that acted to help you? Beyond that, if you fire your existing counsel \u2014 fancy-pants law firm No. 1 \u2014 where would you go for legal services?\u00a0It\u2019s true that Paul Weiss capitulated to the government, but so did Kirkland, and Latham, and a bunch of others.\u00a0The more firms that capitulate, the harder it is to find alternative representation. (And the more sensible it looks for firms to have capitulated in the first place.\u00a0There\u2019s safety in numbers:\u00a0Everyone\u2019s capitulating; we\u2019re just one of the crowd.)<\/p>\n

Your law school recruiting efforts might be hurt because you capitulated to Trump.\u00a0Law students are noble; perhaps they won\u2019t take jobs at firms that do ignoble things.\u00a0\u2018<\/p>\n

But what\u2019s the effect of this?\u00a0Even if some law students will now refuse to go to, say, Paul Weiss, plenty of other law students will take those jobs.\u00a0Endless streams of law students itch to work at fancy firms, with great reputations, high pay, and sophisticated work. Maybe the replacement students won\u2019t be as good as the folks Paul Weiss wanted to recruit, but how long will it take the world to notice that the quality of a law firm\u2019s work is now a little bit worse than it was 10 years ago?\u00a0Most firms probably lost quality as they expanded through the early 2000s \u2014 greater size means less quality control \u2014 and I don\u2019t think anyone ever noticed the change.<\/p>\n

Lawyers may leave your firm because they\u2019re outraged by your capitulation. Maybe \u2014 but not that many.\u00a0The lawyer has to be truly outraged by your decision to settle, and most lawyers won\u2019t be.\u00a0The 10% chance that the executive order would be upheld, and your firm forced out of business, makes the settlement decision rational.\u00a0The outraged lawyer must also make a financial difference to your firm.\u00a0It\u2019s true that some associates and senior counsel have left law firms in recent weeks.\u00a0Those departures make for good press, but they don\u2019t injure the firm.\u00a0A partner with $30 million in portable business might matter, and I haven\u2019t yet seen any of them move.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Part of the reason for partner inertia is institutional:\u00a0If a client works with many lawyers at a firm, and only one lawyer is outraged by the settlement with Trump, then the outraged lawyer could change firms, but the client might not.\u00a0The partner\u2019s business was thus not truly \u201cportable.\u201d\u00a0Changing firms would hurt the lawyer who changed jobs but wouldn\u2019t matter to the original law firm.<\/p>\n

Part of the reason for partner inertia is the fluidity of the situation:\u00a0Many big firms other than yours \u2014 firms with good reputations and the ability to support your clients \u2014 have also settled with Trump.\u00a0Yet more firms might settle in the future.\u00a0If you\u2019re a partner about to jump ship from your current employer, you\u2019d better find a good alternative ship on which to land.<\/p>\n

But part of the reason you haven\u2019t yet seen partner moves is that transitioning laterally between law firms takes time:\u00a0Folks transitioning laterally must interview with the new firm.\u00a0They must clear conflicts.\u00a0They must otherwise assess whether they fit with the new place.\u00a0I wouldn\u2019t expect those moves to occur within a week or two of a firm\u2019s settlement with the Trump administration.\u00a0Give this time, and perhaps a few significant partners will choose to leave their current law firms.\u00a0Perhaps firms will pay some price for having capitulated.\u00a0But you don\u2019t know that in advance.\u00a0We\u2019ll see what happens.<\/p>\n

There are other aspects of the reputational risk caused by having settled with Trump.\u00a0There is, for example, Trump himself.\u00a0Trump loves to boast that important people, or institutions, or countries, kissed his ass.\u00a0Trump may say that about your firm.<\/p>\n

You can live with that.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not yet done with the forms of humiliation you\u2019ll suffer.\u00a0In the past, you always liked to bray about courage at your firm\u2019s partners\u2019 meetings.\u00a0You\u2019d puff up your chest and explain how fierce and courageous your law firm was.\u00a0But now, when push came to shove, you folded like a cheap suit.\u00a0Of course:\u00a0A principle isn\u2019t a principle until it hurts.\u00a0Now we know your true principles.\u00a0But you\u2019ll get over that humiliation, too.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, put everything in the balance:\u00a0Weigh a 10% chance of your firm going out of business against a small tilt in a portion of your pro bono commitment and some short-term public relations problems.<\/p>\n

Does capitulation prove that you, the professed lion, is in fact a pussy cat?\u00a0Sure.<\/p>\n

But it would look a whole lot worse if the 10% chance of loss came through and your firm went out of business. You\u2019d look like a complete idiot, and a lot of people would be out of work.<\/p>\n

Is it easier to fight the government today than it was a month ago?\u00a0Yes.\u00a0More firms are fighting (there\u2019s safety in numbers), and several firms have won decisions striking down part or all of the executive orders.<\/p>\n

Am I terribly disappointed in the firms that have capitulated?\u00a0I am.\u00a0Shame on them.\u00a0I wish them ill.<\/p>\n

But do I understand the decision?<\/p>\n

Absolutely.\u00a0Leaders at Biglaw firms may be cowards, but they\u2019re generally not stupid.<\/p>\n

\n

Mark\u00a0Herrmann\u00a0spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Curmudgeon\u2019s Guide to Practicing Law<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(affiliate links). You can reach him by email at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>[email\u00a0protected]<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Photo by Michael M. Santiago\/Getty Images) Stop foaming at the mouth. I know that many of the country\u2019s largest and most prestigious law firms have capitulated in the face of President Donald Trump\u2019s executive orders (or threats of executive orders) punishing the firms for having taken action against the administration\u2019s interests. But I\u2019m here to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":115849,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115908","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/GettyImages-2206882576-scaled-2FlMH0.jpeg?fit=2560%2C1707&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115908","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=115908"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115908\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/115849"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115908"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115908"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115908"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}