Law Associate Gives The Middle Finger to Trump Order
The legal industry’s spine seems to be made of jello these days. While most associates quietly update their résumés behind closed doors, one Skadden associate decided to set her career ablaze in spectacular fashion – and she’s taking receipts public.
Rachel Cohen, a Harvard Law grad barely two years into her Biglaw journey, publicly posted her resignation letter on LinkedIn Thursday, calling out her firm’s failure to stand against what she describes as Trump’s authoritarian power play over the law profession.
The timing wasn’t random – it came just as Paul Weiss executed what many view as a stunning capitulation to the Trump administration.
The Paul Weiss Pivot That Broke the Camel’s Back
Cohen didn’t mince words about what pushed her over the edge: “Paul Weiss’ decision to cave to the Trump administration on DEI, representation, and staffing has forced my hand,” she wrote in her firm-wide resignation email. The prestigious firm reportedly pledged $40 million in pro bono work toward Trump-endorsed initiatives in exchange for having an executive order against them rescinded.
What exactly did Paul Weiss agree to? That’s where things get murky. Trump boasted on Truth Social that the firm “will not adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies,” yet the internal agreement circulated to Paul Weiss employees contains no such language. Both versions do confirm the firm “affirms its commitment to merit-based hiring” and will undergo a “comprehensive audit” of employment practices.
The Expanding Battleground
Cohen’s dramatic exit highlights the increasingly precarious position elite law firms find themselves in. Trump has targeted multiple firms with executive orders revoking security clearances and threatening government contracts – Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie remain under such orders. Meanwhile, the EEOC has requested DEI information from 20 top firms, including Skadden, with Acting Chair Andrea Lucas ominously warning they’re “prepared to root out discrimination… including in our nation’s elite law firms”.
Cohen didn’t just quit – she issued demands. Her resignation came with conditions: Skadden must sign a brief supporting Perkins Coie’s lawsuit against the administration, refuse to cooperate with the EEOC’s information request, and commit to diversity programs. Bold move for someone who graduated law school in 2022.
The Swift Response
How did Skadden respond to this public ultimatum? With the corporate equivalent of “new phone, who dis?” According to Cohen’s LinkedIn update, her firm email access was cut within an hour of posting her resignation letter. “They owe me a payout for 24 accrued vacation days,” she noted dryly. “Thank you and good night.”
In a subsequent TikTok post, Cohen revealed the industry’s open secret: “Everyone in Big Law realized that Trump was trying to get them to stop working with clients he didn’t like. No one disputes it.” The problem, she argues, is that despite private acknowledgment, “almost no one in the industry has actually been fighting the Trump administration on this.”
Cohen’s parting warning to her now-former colleagues was stark: “If you question if it is as bad as you think it is, it is ten times worse.” Whether her dramatic stand inspires others or simply becomes a cautionary tale remains to be seen.
Quick on the draw with that email cutoff, huh? Seems Skadden’s IT department works faster than their HR. Wonder if they had a prepared response for scenarios like this or if it’s just the standard panic button protocol.
Has anyone thought about what led her to take such a drastic step? I mean, burning bridges in such a public way has got to have a big backstory. What’s the tea, as they say? LawFuel Editors, any insights?
Considering the legal implications, doesn’t this resignation highlight potential internal issues that could be legally problematic for Skadden? Also, cutting off firm email access so quickly is quite a drastic move. Would love to dig deeper into the employment law precedents here.
Isn’t it ironic how the legal industry, built on the premise of justice and right to speech, shuts down its own so swiftly? The metaphorical ‘cutting of the tongue’ by disabling access speaks volumes of the illusion of free speech within corporate giants.
While I get your point, isn’t it also about protecting the firm’s clients and confidential info? There’s a difference between suppression and precaution, though the line can get really blurry.
So, when law firms say ‘swift justice,’ they mean cutting off your email in under an hour? Talk about efficiency! Makes you wonder if their internet is as fast as their decision-making.