It used to be easy for big law firms to be "brave." Now, not so much.

For a few decades, big U.S. law firms have operated substantial pro bono programs whereby their attorneys provide large amounts of free legal services. Much of these services supports left-liberal causes. Almost none supports conservative ones. Indeed, it has become increasingly difficult for organizations I’m associated with to find lawyers at big firms who will take the conservative side in cases defending free speech and similar rights, even for money.

What bothers even more than the one-sidedness of big law’s pro bono efforts, is its smugness. The lawyers leading this charge consider themselves heroes who are “speaking truth to power,” or something. They fancy themselves the brave heirs of John Adams, who famously defended British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre.

Take big law’s defense of terrorists confined at Guantanamo Bay. You couldn’t have paid me ten times my hourly rate to defend any of those guys, but it didn’t bother me that lawyers at big firms wanted to. Different strokes, and all that.

There was no courage associated with these representations, though. The lawyers who tripped over each other to get in on this action were feted by their firms. The firms were often honored by bar associations and other left-liberal organizations. Corporate clients, almost as woke as their outside lawyers, were impressed.

No one paid a price for his or her “courage.” The only guy I can think of who paid a price was a Department of Defense lawyer who criticized big firm lawyers for representing Gitmo prisoners and suggested, very naively, that their firms might pay a price for joining the Gitmo defense bar.

That was then. Now, President Trump is threatening some firms with a price for their activism, and at least one has crumbled like a piece of halvah. (Hat tip to the great Allan Sherman.)

I’m referring to Paul Weiss — one of the top firms in America and about as liberal as a firm can get. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, Sonya Sotomayor, and Loretta Lynch all practiced there.

Of course, Paul Weiss represented Gitmo prisoners, as well as illegal immigrants. And Erick Erickson tells us that after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health ended Roe v. Wade, Paul Weiss famously founded a group to provide legal assistance to women seeking abortions.

John Adams would have been proud. Or so Paul Weiss lawyers would like to believe.

But Trump holds a different view. Irked that former Paul Weiss partner Mark Pomerantz joined the firm after leading the criminal investigation into his hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, Trump signed an executive order that, if upheld, would have truly injured the firm. The order revoked security clearances of its attorneys, limited their access to government buildings, and rescinded some government contracts with its clients.

Rather than challenge this order in court, Paul Weiss caved. It agreed to review its hiring practices and renounce any diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. It also agreed to provide $40 million dollars of pro bono services to “support causes including assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in the justice system, and combating anti-Semitism, and other similar initiatives.” And it acknowledged the “wrongdoing” of Pomerantz.

John Adams was unavailable for comment.

Here are my comments: .

First, the actions Paul Weiss agreed to are salutary. I’m glad the firm will review its hiring practices to ensure non-discrimination. I’m glad it will renounce DEI policies to the extent they conflict with the law.

It’s good that Paul Weiss will provide pro bono services to combat anti-Semitism and assist veterans. It’s also good that its pro bono practice will diversify, so that Paul Weiss lawyers won’t just be working to promote causes on one side of the political/ideological spectrum.

I wonder, though, what the Agreement means by promoting “fairness in the justice system.” In practice this likely means defending criminals and working for criminal justice reform — i.e., softer sentences, etc. These are traditional and respectable pro bono causes, but they won’t diversify the firm’s practice. Rather they will enhance its left-wing tilt. These are the matters that Paul Weiss attorneys will flock to. I’m betting that the bulk of the $40 million dollars worth of legal services goes there.

Second, despite the good the Executive Order will do, it was misguided. Punishing a firm for discriminatory hiring and promotion policies is fine. Punishing it because a former partner led an investigation (even a misguided one) into Trump’s activities is not. Using the president’s power to coerce a firm into representing certain interests (even noble ones) is improper.

Third, Paul Weiss is gutless. It has good legal arguments against Trump’s action. If it had the courage of its convictions, it would have asserted them. Because it folded, we can expect Trump to continue bending law firms to his will.

It’s wrong for the government to use coercion to dictate the policies and practices of law firms, except to the extent that their practices are illegal.

Doing so also sets a bad precedent. Some law firms do represent conservative interests, for example the firm that brought about the Supreme Court’s ruling that race-based admissions practices are unconstitutional. I wouldn’t want to see the next Democrat president coerce or punish firms like these — or, that matter, firms that might employ Trump administration lawyers

A part of me enjoys seeing big law take its lumps from Trump. But the more sober part of me balks.