PS According to Above the Law, Latham and Watkins has annual revenue of $5.69 billion and profits per equity partner of $5.5 million. They could have afforded to take a stand if they wanted to. They didn't want to.

Even more fundamentally, we are facing an unprecedented assault on the rule of law. As leaders in the profession (not to mention some of the richest and most powerful people in the country) L&W have a *special responsibility* to stand up against this illegality. Instead...they embraced it. 😠/thread

The DEI retreat is disgusting, cowardly, and dispiriting, but more fundamentally: how can anyone take this firm seriously ever again? Latham has a website tracking the Administration's first 100 days. What a joke. Why would anyone trust them to be forthright or accurate on the Trump Administration?

Hey Abid R. Qureshi, is strengthening DEI still a "strategic imperative" at Latham and Watkins? Don't answer that. We already know.

Hey Shreya Ramesh, is DEI still "embedded in" the "DNA" of your firm?

What happened to Latham's "distinct responsibility as legal advocates to combat ingrained, institutional racism and other inequities?" There is nothing wrong with "advancing racial equality, promoting equal opportunity, and supporting those most affected by systemic inequities." For LW? *poof* gone.

Here's what Latham and Watkins deleted from its website: just a stunning about-face and retreat from values they called "a distinguishing feature of our culture." They had a 42-person DEI committee. Gone now from the site. Does it still exist behind closed doors? What kind of message does that send?

Are you me?

By working for Trump, S&C aren't just cashing a very large check. They are currying favor with a wannabe dictator on behalf of their corporate clients who they think might be targeted, or rewarded, depending on Trump's lawless whims or even payoffs. That's just buying into fascism. And very not OK.

Trump doesn't need the "best," most highly pedigreed lawyers in the country to represent him. As @gshans.bsky.social has written, "power and resources are the fulcrum." S&C is not standing up for constitutional protections for vulnerable populations who cannot afford representation. (con't)

Why is it so gross? We have to spell it out? It's not OK to represent someone who cheated in an election; launched a coup against the US; is openly fascist and hostile to democracy; unrepentantly racist; clearly compromised and obsequious to hostile foreign interests; and—JUST as important—a rapist.

BOOM!

Dechert, Mintz Levin, and Mofo represented Mindgeek (Pornhub's parent company) and individual defendants. Quinn Emanuel was also involved. Kudos to Brown Rudnick, though, for representing the plaintiff.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

2/2

Our first example: a case with truly horrific facts (CW). A child porn victim claimed Visa knew Pornhub hosted a huge amount of child porn and the site's owner failed to police its sites for such content. Weil Gotshal argued she didn't have standing. The court disagreed. Fleites v. Mindgeek 1/