Show Notes
What happens when the President of the United States declares war on specific law firms? In a move described as "literally without precedent" , the Trump administration unleashed executive orders targeting major firms like Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie—not for illegal activity, but for perceived political offenses. The sanctions threatened to revoke security clearances, bar lawyers from federal buildings, and cancel government contracts for the firms' clients.
In this episode of New Law Order, hosts Joel Cohen and John Morley sit down with legal analyst and author Jeffrey Toobin to dissect this constitutional crisis and the industry’s fractured response. While some firms litigated and won, others "capitulated," agreeing to multi-million dollar settlements to make the problem go away. Was this a necessary move to save their firms from an "existential threat" resembling a run on the bank? Or was it, as Toobin suggests, a sacrifice of principle to protect partner profits?
Guest: Jeffrey Toobin is a staff writer for The New Yorker, a senior legal analyst for CNN, and the author of several best-selling books, including The Nine and The Oath.
Premium subscribers on Apple Podcasts get early access to upcoming episodes and occasional subscriber-only content. For more conversations with the titans changing the legal business, subscribe to New Law Order. For a lawyer CLE version of this interview and other legal insights, visit www.talksonlaw.com.
More from New Law Order
Big Law has spent decades and a fortune on diversity, and the numbers barely moved at the partnership level. The usual explanation is that somewhere in the building (or somewhere in your head) there's racism and misogyny. David Wilkins, Harvard Law professor and possibly the most important scholar on the legal profession, has a less satisfying answer: you don't need bigots to get this result. You just need busy partners.
In this episode of New Law Order, Joel Cohen and Yale Law Professor John Morley speak with CJ Mahoney, Chief Legal Officer of Meta, about one of the hardest legal questions facing modern technology companies: when a product becomes deeply woven into daily life, how should the law think about harm, responsibility, and regulation? Drawing on a career that has taken him from Williams & Connolly to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Microsoft, and now Meta, Mahoney offers an unusually candid look at what it means to serve as the top lawyer inside a company operating at the center of law, politics, and technological change.
Richard Sander, UCLA law professor and economist, has spent decades advancing one of the most controversial arguments in legal education: that large racial preferences in law school admissions may frequently harm the students they are intended to help. In this episode of New Law Order, Joel Cohen and Yale Law Professor John Morley speak with Sander about affirmative action, the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, and what new data may reveal about the future of law school admissions.
Michael A. Gerstenzang, the longtime managing partner and now senior partner of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, explains how he positioned one of the world's most established law firms to lead in AI adoption — not by outsourcing innovation, but by building it from the inside. The conversation traces a series of structural bets that began before generative AI entered the mainstream, starting with ClearyX, a wholly owned technology subsidiary launched in 2021 to reinvent M&A due diligence. Gerstenzang describes the venture's founding provocation — imagine the business that puts Cleary Gottlieb out of business, and build it — and how A/B testing against traditional associate-led diligence demonstrated equal or superior quality at roughly half the cost.
This week, we’re sharing a timely episode from a related TalksOnLaw podcast, AI Lawyer. In this episode, host Joel Cohen is joined by Judge Paul Grimm for a conversation about one of the most unsettling problems facing the legal system: what happens when audio, video, and other forms of evidence can be generated, manipulated, or challenged by artificial intelligence?