{"id":120544,"date":"2025-05-27T16:03:12","date_gmt":"2025-05-28T00:03:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/05\/27\/the-biglaw-executive-orders-get-the-fedsoc-echo-chamber-treatment\/"},"modified":"2025-05-27T16:03:12","modified_gmt":"2025-05-28T00:03:12","slug":"the-biglaw-executive-orders-get-the-fedsoc-echo-chamber-treatment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/05\/27\/the-biglaw-executive-orders-get-the-fedsoc-echo-chamber-treatment\/","title":{"rendered":"The Biglaw Executive Orders Get The FedSoc Echo Chamber Treatment"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last week I did something I never imagined I would. I went to a Federalist Society event. The New York chapter held<\/a> an event on The Law Firm Executive Orders: Law, Process, and Controversy<\/em>, something I\u2019ve spent a fair amount of time <\/a>covering. The law firms challenging the EOs (Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey) have had tremendous success<\/a> in court, and I was curious what the conservative legal movement really thought about the EOs.<\/p>\n

The panelists were George Conway<\/a> \u2014 the former Wachtell partner known for both his conservative politics and his break with the right-wing\u2019s (and his now ex-wife\u2019s) obsession with MAGA and is a founder of the Lincoln Project.<\/a> Throughout the evening he stridently opposed the EOs as unconstitutional under the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, saying \u201cThese orders are about retribution.\u201d The other panelist was Will Chamberlain<\/a>, Senior Counsel at the Article3Project and The Internet Accountability Project but when asked to describe himself said his job was to \u201cbully people on Twitter\u201d \u2014 an auspicious beginning to be sure. Chamberlain was a quintessential MAGA representative \u2014 low on facts, high on blind loyalty to whatever position Trump currently takes.<\/p>\n

Conway began his opening statement with a recitation of his FedSoc bona fides. As it was happening I had the distinct impression it was overkill \u2014 like, sure, he\u2019s come out fast and furious<\/a> about a number of Trump policies, and was instrumental in making Never Trump happen, but I mean, the NY lawyer community *knows* who this man is, right? Conway has worked on a number of conservatives causes<\/a> and was even under consideration<\/a> for a role in the Trump I administration \u2014 all of which makes his criticism of Trump more poignant. But shortly after the biographical info it became clear that whatever water carrying Conway has done for Republicans, the memory is short. Because the man was heckled \u2014 think Alito during Obama\u2019s SOTU<\/a> heckled \u2014 all because Conway had the audacity to mention the fact that Trump is a convicted felon. Bizarre behavior at an event hosted by a so-called non-partisan debating society<\/a>, and it really puts into perspective how far the sense of decorum has come in the Trump era. And, at least to my outsider perspective, had the impact of positioning Conway\u2019s mainstream positions (shared by all the federal judges<\/a> who have heard arguments in the EO challenges) as out of sync with FedSoc.<\/p>\n

The conversation turned to Biglaw\u2019s DEI efforts, which were cited as a key justification from Trump for the EOs. But don\u2019t worry, there was no actual conversation about the diversity problem in the legal industry \u2014 white lawyers are still overrepresented in the profession as compared to the general population \u2014 or what the profession has, can or should do about it. The profession, based largely on DEI programs, has slowly but steadily made improvements<\/a> \u2014 in 2014, lawyers of color were 12% of the profession, by 2024, they were 23%. Instead the vibe in the room presumed that reverse discrimination happens, but how do we know the firms subjected to the EOs were participating in the reverse discrimination?<\/p>\n

The strangest moment of which was Chamberlain claiming that \u2014 having gone to law school in the 2010s \u2014 he was told that as a straight, white man he \u201cneed not apply\u201d to Biglaw summer associateships. While there are a handful of diversity <\/a>fellowships (or at least there used to be), white people have fared just fine when it comes to the meat and potatoes of Biglaw opportunities: 2L summer associateships. Indeed, in 2015 \u2014 the year Chamberlain graduated \u2014 the big story in DEI was that 92% of Biglaw partners<\/a> were white. When you realize Chamberlain BEGAN HIS CAREER IN BIGLAW, Quinn Emanuel to be specific (though according to his LinkedIn<\/a>, he was only in Biglaw for a few months), his anecdote reads a lot more as playing to the current political moment than any actual inequity he experienced.<\/p>\n

Fundamentally the evening was about the Executive Orders that Trump has issued against Biglaw firms. When challenged in court, they have been met with overwhelming negativity<\/a> from judges \u2014 yes, those appointed by both <\/a>Republicans and Dems. But, in his comments Chamberlain continually came back to the notion that the president should get nearly unlimited power to revoke security clearances, leaning heavily on presidential discretion on matters of national security<\/a>. Regardless of the nuances or the other aspects of the EOs, Chamberlain would retreat to the broad principles of national security. That chest pounding was taken to an almost absurd place when, during the Q&A section of the evening, someone asked specifically about other provisions of the EOs. Chamberlain admitted he was not aware of the specifics of the other provisions\u2026. Which led to an awkward moment when he had to pause to take a reading break to even KNOW WHAT WAS IN THE EOs.<\/p>\n

Friends, these are not hundred page treatises. They\u2019re brief, pointed documents<\/a> with limited provisions. In fact, all 4 of the TROs that have been issued to date in every case have dealt with the other \u2014 incredibly problematic aspects of the EOs and not the security clearance aspect that Chamberlain continually used like a cudgel. (It\u2019s only been the permanent injections that have dealt with security clearances<\/a>.) And to not even know what was in the EOs, while coming to an event to debate ABOUT the EOs, gave off a tremendous waft of disrespect. Like he felt certain the audience would be sufficiently sympathetic and he could scream loud enough that BUT THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO and NATIONAL SECURITY and that would moot the opposing arguments so much so that he couldn\u2019t even be bothered to read the EOs ahead of time. Just a stunning lack of preparation. Which\u2026 actually might have a lot more to do with the way he washed out in Biglaw than the myth of reverse discrimination.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her<\/a> with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post The Biglaw Executive Orders Get The FedSoc Echo Chamber Treatment<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

Last week I did something I never imagined I would. I went to a Federalist Society event. The New York chapter held<\/a> an event on The Law Firm Executive Orders: Law, Process, and Controversy<\/em>, something I\u2019ve spent a fair amount of time <\/a>covering. The law firms challenging the EOs (Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey) have had tremendous success<\/a> in court, and I was curious what the conservative legal movement really thought about the EOs.<\/p>\n

The panelists were George Conway<\/a> \u2014 the former Wachtell partner known for both his conservative politics and his break with the right-wing\u2019s (and his now ex-wife\u2019s) obsession with MAGA and is a founder of the Lincoln Project.<\/a> Throughout the evening he stridently opposed the EOs as unconstitutional under the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, saying \u201cThese orders are about retribution.\u201d The other panelist was Will Chamberlain<\/a>, Senior Counsel at the Article3Project and The Internet Accountability Project but when asked to describe himself said his job was to \u201cbully people on Twitter\u201d \u2014 an auspicious beginning to be sure. Chamberlain was a quintessential MAGA representative \u2014 low on facts, high on blind loyalty to whatever position Trump currently takes.<\/p>\n

Conway began his opening statement with a recitation of his FedSoc bona fides. As it was happening I had the distinct impression it was overkill \u2014 like, sure, he\u2019s come out fast and furious<\/a> about a number of Trump policies, and was instrumental in making Never Trump happen, but I mean, the NY lawyer community *knows* who this man is, right? Conway has worked on a number of conservatives causes<\/a> and was even under consideration<\/a> for a role in the Trump I administration \u2014 all of which makes his criticism of Trump more poignant. But shortly after the biographical info it became clear that whatever water carrying Conway has done for Republicans, the memory is short. Because the man was heckled \u2014 think Alito during Obama\u2019s SOTU<\/a> heckled \u2014 all because Conway had the audacity to mention the fact that Trump is a convicted felon. Bizarre behavior at an event hosted by a so-called non-partisan debating society<\/a>, and it really puts into perspective how far the sense of decorum has come in the Trump era. And, at least to my outsider perspective, had the impact of positioning Conway\u2019s mainstream positions (shared by all the federal judges<\/a> who have heard arguments in the EO challenges) as out of sync with FedSoc.<\/p>\n

The conversation turned to Biglaw\u2019s DEI efforts, which were cited as a key justification from Trump for the EOs. But don\u2019t worry, there was no actual conversation about the diversity problem in the legal industry \u2014 white lawyers are still overrepresented in the profession as compared to the general population \u2014 or what the profession has, can or should do about it. The profession, based largely on DEI programs, has slowly but steadily made improvements<\/a> \u2014 in 2014, lawyers of color were 12% of the profession, by 2024, they were 23%. Instead the vibe in the room presumed that reverse discrimination happens, but how do we know the firms subjected to the EOs were participating in the reverse discrimination?<\/p>\n

The strangest moment of which was Chamberlain claiming that \u2014 having gone to law school in the 2010s \u2014 he was told that as a straight, white man he \u201cneed not apply\u201d to Biglaw summer associateships. While there are a handful of diversity <\/a>fellowships (or at least there used to be), white people have fared just fine when it comes to the meat and potatoes of Biglaw opportunities: 2L summer associateships. Indeed, in 2015 \u2014 the year Chamberlain graduated \u2014 the big story in DEI was that 92% of Biglaw partners<\/a> were white. When you realize Chamberlain BEGAN HIS CAREER IN BIGLAW, Quinn Emanuel to be specific (though according to his LinkedIn<\/a>, he was only in Biglaw for a few months), his anecdote reads a lot more as playing to the current political moment than any actual inequity he experienced.<\/p>\n

Fundamentally the evening was about the Executive Orders that Trump has issued against Biglaw firms. When challenged in court, they have been met with overwhelming negativity<\/a> from judges \u2014 yes, those appointed by both <\/a>Republicans and Dems. But, in his comments Chamberlain continually came back to the notion that the president should get nearly unlimited power to revoke security clearances, leaning heavily on presidential discretion on matters of national security<\/a>. Regardless of the nuances or the other aspects of the EOs, Chamberlain would retreat to the broad principles of national security. That chest pounding was taken to an almost absurd place when, during the Q&A section of the evening, someone asked specifically about other provisions of the EOs. Chamberlain admitted he was not aware of the specifics of the other provisions\u2026. Which led to an awkward moment when he had to pause to take a reading break to even KNOW WHAT WAS IN THE EOs.<\/p>\n

Friends, these are not hundred page treatises. They\u2019re brief, pointed documents<\/a> with limited provisions. In fact, all 4 of the TROs that have been issued to date in every case have dealt with the other \u2014 incredibly problematic aspects of the EOs and not the security clearance aspect that Chamberlain continually used like a cudgel. (It\u2019s only been the permanent injections that have dealt with security clearances<\/a>.) And to not even know what was in the EOs, while coming to an event to debate ABOUT the EOs, gave off a tremendous waft of disrespect. Like he felt certain the audience would be sufficiently sympathetic and he could scream loud enough that BUT THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO and NATIONAL SECURITY and that would moot the opposing arguments so much so that he couldn\u2019t even be bothered to read the EOs ahead of time. Just a stunning lack of preparation. Which\u2026 actually might have a lot more to do with the way he washed out in Biglaw than the myth of reverse discrimination.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her<\/a> with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Mastodon @[email\u00a0protected].<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last week I did something I never imagined I would. I went to a Federalist Society event. The New York chapter held an event on The Law Firm Executive Orders: Law, Process, and Controversy, something I\u2019ve spent a fair amount of time covering. The law firms challenging the EOs (Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":120545,"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-120544","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\/05\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568-zm6TYP.jpeg?fit=620%2C568&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120544","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=120544"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120544\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/120545"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120544"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120544"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120544"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}