Ed.
note:
Please
welcome
Vivia
Chen
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
“The
Ex-Careerist,” here.
THEY
MIGHT
BE
LAUGHING
their
way
to
the
bank
but
they
aren’t
crowing
about
it.
Not
openly,
at
least.
And
who
can
blame
them?
It’s
embarrassing
to
talk
about
selling
your
soul
for
profit.
I’m
referring
to
the Capitulating
Nine —
Paul
Weiss,
Skadden,
Latham
&
Watkins,
Kirkland
&
Ellis,
Milbank,
Simpson
Thacher,
Willkie,
A&O
Shearman,
and
Cadwalader
—
law
firms
that
pledged
nearly
$1
billion
in
“pro
bono”
work
for
Trump-approved
causes
to
escape
his
wrath.
They’re
not
talking
about
what
kind
of
free
services
they’re
offering
Trump
or
how
their
client
base
has
changed
—
and
certainly
not
a
word
about morale at
their
firms.
They’re
not
talking,
but Republican
lobbyist
Brian
Ballard,
who
brokered
some
of
those
deals,
is.
Recently,
he
sat
down
with
reporters
and
editors
at
Bloomberg
Law
(my
former
employer)
to
offer
“a rare
full-throated
defense of
firms
that
pledged
$940
million
in
free
legal
services
to
President
Donald
Trump.”
What
was
touted
as
an
“exclusive”
boiled
down
to
a
puff
piece
for
Ballard’s
lobbying
business.
You’d
expect
tough
questions
for
Ballard
in
a
room
full
of
journalists.
But
that’s
not
what
came
across.
Sadly,
it’s
another
example
of
how
toothless
the
media
has
become
in
the
age
of
Trump.
Ballard
was
quoted
at
length
about
the
unique
service
he
offers
law
firms
and
how
the
really
smart
ones
(he
cited
Kirkland
&
Ellis
and
Simpson
Thacher
as
clients)
hired
him
to
smooth
the
path:
If
you
are
in
the
business
in
Washington,
DC,
of
working
for
clients
that
have
issues
before
the
government,
it’s
better
to
be
someone
who
can
work
with
the
government
than
someone
who
just
says
screw
you.
I
think
it’s
pretty
smart
for
those
guys
to
have
done
what
they’ve
done
—
the
guys
we
represented
and
others.
The
self-promotion
was
shameless,
but
where
was
the
follow-up? Where
were
the
questions
about
how
these
“smart”
deals
damage
a
firm’s
brand,
compromise
its
integrity,
or
threaten
the
independence
of
the
profession
writ
large?
Isn’t
there
a
moral
component
to
these
deals
that
merits
discussion?
Puzzling,
too,
is
why
this
statement
by
Ballard
was
left
to
stand
without
a
rejoinder:
This
administration
wants
to
resolve
things.
They’re
looking
to
address
the
issues
that
they’ve
raised,
but
they’re
not
looking
for
battles.
They’re
looking
for
more
friends
than
enemies
Really,
the
administration
is
just
looking
to
make
“friends”?
And
everyone
in
that
room
just
let
it
go?
Ballard
also
slammed
four
firms
— Perkins
Coie,
Jenner
&
Block,
WilmerHale,
and
Susman
Godfrey —
that
did
not
capitulate
but
instead
sued
the
administration
over
executive
orders.
“Some
of
these
law
firms
like
the
idea
of
having
an
enemy,”
Ballard
blithely
told
his
audience,
as
if
he
had
deep
insights
into
the
psychology
of
each
firm.
“Either
for
business
reasons
or
political
reasons,
that’s
why
they
do
it.”
And
was
there
a
raised
eyebrow
to
that
statement?
Well,
it
certainly
wasn’t
detectable
from
my
reading.
The
reporting
only
noted,
rather
perfunctorily,
that
Bloomberg
contacted
the
four
firms
but
got
no
reply.
The
article
is
chock
full
of
Ballard’s
self-serving
comments,
like
how
Kirkland
got
rewarded
with
trade
work
for
the
US
government
after
making
the
deal
with
Trump.
Though
there
was
a
passing
nod
or
two
to
how
controversial
these
deals
are
—
“the
firms
since
have
faced
a
backlash
in
the
legal
community
and
among
Democratic
lawmakers”
—
the
overall
impression
is
that
Ballard
is
the
indispensable
fixer
for
law
firms
in
the
Trump
era.
It’s
possible
that
some
journalists
in
that
room
did
ask
him
probing
questions
but
that
his
responses
were
off-the-record.
But
if
that’s
the
agreement,
shouldn’t
that
be
disclosed?
Because
as
written,
it
appears
as
if
the
audience
was
so
cowed
by
his
remarks,
so
pleased
that
a
Trump
insider
would
regale
them
with
his
tales,
that
everyone
stayed
quiet
like
well-behaved
children
at
a
school
assembly.
The
real
question
is
why
Ballard
was
given
this
platform
at
all. If
the
hope
was
that
he
would
cast
a
bright
light
onto
the
sausage-making
process,
he
didn’t
deliver.
We
learned
nothing
about
the
actual
negotiations,
how
the
firms
and
the
Trump
administration
arrived
at
the
price
tag,
or
how
much
Ballard
charges
for
his
services.
Instead,
he
controlled
the
narrative,
driving
home
the
point
—
ad
nauseum
—
that
he’s
The
Man.
To
put
it
bluntly,
this
was
an
infomercial.
Journalists
are
supposed
to
be
hellraisers.
Not
docile
listeners.
Guess
I’m
hopelessly
old
fashioned.
Subscribe
to
read
more
at
The
Ex-Careerist….
Vivia
Chen writes “The
Ex-Careerist” column
on
Substack
where
she
unleashes
her
unvarnished
views
about
the
intersection
of
work,
life,
and
politics.
A
former
lawyer,
she
was
an
opinion
columnist
at
Bloomberg
Law
and
The
American
Lawyer.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack
by
clicking
here:
