Appreciate you engaging on this. A few points in response:
"If Davis Polk is now representing a precious Trump interest (his crypto ventures have made $57 million so far), why would Powers think the firm would allow him to shoot his mouth off on anything remotely critical of Trump?"
- Because Trump Media (private business entity) and President Trump (elected official) are, ostensibly, different entities. I think there’s a litany of ethical issues we should be discussing if we accept the premise that they are, in fact, the same. My goal was to press on that point.
"What’s more, Powers was writing about the dangers of government surveillance and how companies like Peter Thiel’s Palantir Technologies, whose financial advisors Davis Polk had represented, are helping to erode individual liberty."
- Correct - to the best of my knowledge, we represented Palantir 5 years ago. If a former client is participating in activity that you now find troubling, particularly more so than when representation occurred - I’m curious if you believe that means they should be immune to criticism. I see this being a slippery slope.
"It’s not like Davis Polk has been subtle about its pivot towards Trump."
- Actually, speaking as a former employee, none of this (Trump Media deal, subtle DEI rollbacks, etc.) was ever openly addressed. Since the firm advertises its commitment to socially progressive causes - found on multiple firm-wide webpages - I thought this was a tension that warranted conversation.
"Powers’s decision to keep publishing articles critical of Trump world under his real name…"
- I had asked several publications if I could ghostwrite, and that was swiftly shut down. Many publications won’t let you do this if you come as a new author.
"Which is why I found it a bit disingenuous when he suggested that he was caught off-guard by his firing."
- Apologies for lack of clarity here - wasn’t caught off-guard, and they certainly should have fired me for violating their policy. I totally accept employers have their own interests, which are separate from mine.
"I’m put off by Powers’s grandstanding. His après-firing post on Instagram shows how his ego has taken over… Didn’t we already know that many of the muckety-mucks of the most profitable firms in the nation will sell their own mothers to keep the money machine flowing?"
- I think these two points are worth addressing together, because really, the answer is simple: it wasn’t written for you. I think Big Law is, by design, opaque. I think any grandstanding or stylistic choices (such as language or the inclusion of a headshot) were designed to engage non-lawyers on issues that affect their lives. That was the point of my initial op-ed writing, and that was the point of this current moment.
Thanks again for engaging, and looking forward to continuing the dialogue.
Sorry, but I’m with the kid. Did he do everything the right way? No. But he made a scene, and it’s been picked up by you and others online. He drew attention to the problem. Far worse than his so-called grandiosity is the capitulation of the firm to Trump’s threats and demands. And, one might argue, the capitulation of the young lawyers who continue to work there. I reserve my harsher judgments for the firm, not the young kid who kicked some dust onto their white shoes.
I seriously doubt that anyone would have him a hero if he published or wrote articles or essays that leaned in a conservative direction, for example against affirmative action if working for a firm that strongly supported it.
If Powers was unhappy with Davis Polk's representation of Trump he should have discreetly aired his grievance internally through appropriate channels and quit if they weren't addressed to his satisfaction. Then he could've written whatever he wanted to, as long as he didn't breach any duties owed to the firm's clients. Instead, he chose the coward's way out. The firm wisely showed him the door.
Maybe this was his (grandiose) way of quitting. He wouldn't have gotten as much attention if he would have quit. His method seems analogous to suicide by cop.
I share your ambivalence though I also recognize Hitler would not have succeeded without lawyer help. Additionally I recognize attacking/undermining institutions, including but not limited to the legal profession is part of the fascist playbook 100 years running…
I think you ate being too hard. I know when I was a young associate in Big Law I would have been afraid to speak up read my posts to what I have gone through. I think he is a hero be the spoke up knowing he would lose his job.
I think I come out exactly where you do, Vivia. While I don't think people should give up free-speech rights when they join a workplace, I do think commentary that relates to (or possibly threatens) your employer's business can be reasonably restricted.
Be brave. Speak your mind. And be prepared for consequences. And yes his post firing social media does feel grandiose. We have generations of civil rights activists who spoke their minds and experienced consequences. They went into it know this was a likely outcome. So to should he. Vivia take a look at BTIs report on the reaction of in house to the ways firms responded to Trump. It is illuminating.
Hey @Vivia Chen, @David Lat, and others -
Appreciate you engaging on this. A few points in response:
"If Davis Polk is now representing a precious Trump interest (his crypto ventures have made $57 million so far), why would Powers think the firm would allow him to shoot his mouth off on anything remotely critical of Trump?"
- Because Trump Media (private business entity) and President Trump (elected official) are, ostensibly, different entities. I think there’s a litany of ethical issues we should be discussing if we accept the premise that they are, in fact, the same. My goal was to press on that point.
"What’s more, Powers was writing about the dangers of government surveillance and how companies like Peter Thiel’s Palantir Technologies, whose financial advisors Davis Polk had represented, are helping to erode individual liberty."
- Correct - to the best of my knowledge, we represented Palantir 5 years ago. If a former client is participating in activity that you now find troubling, particularly more so than when representation occurred - I’m curious if you believe that means they should be immune to criticism. I see this being a slippery slope.
"It’s not like Davis Polk has been subtle about its pivot towards Trump."
- Actually, speaking as a former employee, none of this (Trump Media deal, subtle DEI rollbacks, etc.) was ever openly addressed. Since the firm advertises its commitment to socially progressive causes - found on multiple firm-wide webpages - I thought this was a tension that warranted conversation.
"Powers’s decision to keep publishing articles critical of Trump world under his real name…"
- I had asked several publications if I could ghostwrite, and that was swiftly shut down. Many publications won’t let you do this if you come as a new author.
"Which is why I found it a bit disingenuous when he suggested that he was caught off-guard by his firing."
- Apologies for lack of clarity here - wasn’t caught off-guard, and they certainly should have fired me for violating their policy. I totally accept employers have their own interests, which are separate from mine.
"I’m put off by Powers’s grandstanding. His après-firing post on Instagram shows how his ego has taken over… Didn’t we already know that many of the muckety-mucks of the most profitable firms in the nation will sell their own mothers to keep the money machine flowing?"
- I think these two points are worth addressing together, because really, the answer is simple: it wasn’t written for you. I think Big Law is, by design, opaque. I think any grandstanding or stylistic choices (such as language or the inclusion of a headshot) were designed to engage non-lawyers on issues that affect their lives. That was the point of my initial op-ed writing, and that was the point of this current moment.
Thanks again for engaging, and looking forward to continuing the dialogue.
Edited for formatting!
Sorry, but I’m with the kid. Did he do everything the right way? No. But he made a scene, and it’s been picked up by you and others online. He drew attention to the problem. Far worse than his so-called grandiosity is the capitulation of the firm to Trump’s threats and demands. And, one might argue, the capitulation of the young lawyers who continue to work there. I reserve my harsher judgments for the firm, not the young kid who kicked some dust onto their white shoes.
I seriously doubt that anyone would have him a hero if he published or wrote articles or essays that leaned in a conservative direction, for example against affirmative action if working for a firm that strongly supported it.
If Powers was unhappy with Davis Polk's representation of Trump he should have discreetly aired his grievance internally through appropriate channels and quit if they weren't addressed to his satisfaction. Then he could've written whatever he wanted to, as long as he didn't breach any duties owed to the firm's clients. Instead, he chose the coward's way out. The firm wisely showed him the door.
Maybe this was his (grandiose) way of quitting. He wouldn't have gotten as much attention if he would have quit. His method seems analogous to suicide by cop.
I share your ambivalence though I also recognize Hitler would not have succeeded without lawyer help. Additionally I recognize attacking/undermining institutions, including but not limited to the legal profession is part of the fascist playbook 100 years running…
I think you ate being too hard. I know when I was a young associate in Big Law I would have been afraid to speak up read my posts to what I have gone through. I think he is a hero be the spoke up knowing he would lose his job.
I think I come out exactly where you do, Vivia. While I don't think people should give up free-speech rights when they join a workplace, I do think commentary that relates to (or possibly threatens) your employer's business can be reasonably restricted.
Be brave. Speak your mind. And be prepared for consequences. And yes his post firing social media does feel grandiose. We have generations of civil rights activists who spoke their minds and experienced consequences. They went into it know this was a likely outcome. So to should he. Vivia take a look at BTIs report on the reaction of in house to the ways firms responded to Trump. It is illuminating.
Sorry to be thick, but what’s BTI?
BTI Consulting. https://bticonsulting.com/category/themadclientistThe Mad Clientist Archives - The BTI Consulting Group
I could find the archives. Can you resend the link? Thanks.
Sorry about that. Here it is. https://bticonsulting.com/themadclientist/clients-weigh-in-on-law-firm-responses-to-trump-executive-orders