Jeremy and colleagues,
Many deals I work on have concepts of conditional notice. This is mine.
Please consider this email my two week notice, revocable if the firm comes up with a satisfactory response to the current moment, which should include at minimum
(i) signing on to the firm amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie in its litigation fighting the Trump administration’s executive order against it,
(ii) committing to broad future representation, regardless of whether powerful people view it as adverse to them,
(iii) refusal to cooperate with the EEOC’s request for personal information of our colleagues clearly targeted at intimidating non-white employees,
(iv) public refusal to fire or otherwise force out employees at the Trump administration’s directive or implied directive and
(v) public commitment to maintenance of affinity groups and related initiatives.
This is not what I saw for my career or for my evening, but Paul Weiss’ decision to cave to the Trump administration on DEI, representation and staffing has forced my hand. We do not have time. It is now or it is never, and if it is never, I will not continue to work here.
When I went to law school and to Skadden, I did so in pursuit of agency. I was driven by a desire to be in rooms where decision-makers were, to get to play a role in things that mattered, because things felt so needlessly terrible. It never occurred to me that the people in those rooms might feel that they were powerless. I am forced to hope that our lack of response to the Trump administration’s attacks on our peers, both those at other large firms and the many people in this country with far fewer resources, is rooted in feelings of fear and powerlessness, as opposed to tacit agreement or desire to maximize profit. I still hope that is true. But it has not yet been borne out.
It feels mortifying to say “I suspect you know who I am,” but I suspect you know who I am. Over the last few weeks, I have devoted an inordinate amount of time trying to leverage various relationships and privileges to get our firm and broader industry to admit that we are in the throes of early-stage authoritarianism and that we are uniquely positioned to halt it. There is an open letter (now signed by over 600 other AmLaw 200 associates, many of them at this firm), mainstream media coverage and an oped explaining why I feel this way.
To anyone who feels sympathetic to the views I’ve espoused but wonders why I have taken the path I have: on Thursday, March 6, after the issuance of the Perkins Executive Order, I sent emails to multiple trusted partners in management asking to help with whatever response we coordinated. One of them went unanswered. One of them replied, “Thanks, Rachel. Always appreciate your perspective.” One of them replied offering to talk and then failed to reply to my email asking for a time until a week later, significantly after I had begun speaking publicly. Know that I attended internal meetings about this topic, sent emails to decision makers, avoided commenting on the EEOC investigation publicly or airing any internal firm discourse publicly. I did all of these things out of hope that we would do the right thing if given time and opportunity.
The firm has been given time and opportunity to do the right thing. Thus far, we have not. This is a moment that demands urgency. Whether we are failing to meet it because we are unprepared or because we don’t wish to is irrelevant to me—and to the world—where the outcome is the same. If we were going to resist, we would have done so already. If we were not going to respond to the EEOC (a refusal that would be fully legal), the firm would have already told us.
This is the first firmwide email that has been sent on this topic. What. Are. We. Doing.
Colleagues, if you question if it is as bad as you think it is, it is ten times worse. Whether what we measure is the cowardice in face of lost profits, or the proximity to authoritarianism, or the trauma inflicted on our colleagues who are nonwhite, or the disappointment that I feel in this moment, take what you suspect and multiply it by a factor of ten. Act accordingly. I recognize not everyone is positioned as I am, and cannot act the same way. But do not recruit for this firm if they cannot protect their employees. Do not pretend that what is happening is normal or excusable. It isn’t.
To the many superiors, support staff and friends that I know I disappoint by making this announcement firmwide instead of talking to you first, I sincerely apologize. There are so many thank yous that I have for so many people at this firm. Please know that if you suspect that you have helped me or taught me or cared for me, that I agree and am eternally grateful. In the coming days, I will make every effort to reach out to you separately, but there is urgency here that makes it impossible to go to each of you first. I will do everything in my power to mitigate difficulties caused by my unexpected departure.
Like any self-important adolescent, I spent most of my high school history classes wondering what I would do in the moments before true horror or chaos or where my values were tested and demanded great sacrifice. I do not wonder anymore. I know who I am. I thought I knew who we all were.
Thank you for the opportunity. My personal email is cc’d. I wish each of you the best, and that you use the privileges you hold to work for the best for others.
Today the executive partner of my former firm sent us all an “update” that attempted to convince some of the best minds in the legal profession that he did us a solid by capitulating to the Trump administration’s demands for fealty and protection money. Fellow Skadden attorneys: If you agree with Jeremy London’s position that the firm should not engage in “illegal DEI discrimination,” should devote prestigious Skadden Fellows to the Trump administration’s pet projects, and should help “politically disenfranchised groups who have not historically received legal representation from major national law firms,” (taking into account the robust pro bono work that major national law firms already do), then by all means continue working there. But if that email struck you as a craven attempt to sacrifice the rule of law for self-preservation, I hope you do some soul-searching over the weekend and join me in sending a message that this is unacceptable (in whatever way you can). As one of my more eloquent former colleagues put it: “Do not pretend that what is happening is normal or excusable. It isn’t.”
There is only one acceptable response from attorneys to the Trump administration’s demands: The rule of law matters.
The rule of law matters. As an attorney, if my employer cannot stand up for the rule of law, then I cannot ethically continue to work for them.
Dear colleagues and friends,
I just spoke to many of you. Thank you for listening. I am writing to let you know that I am leaving this firm.
There was a time when my employment here was so unlikely. For much of my early childhood, I was not a good student. I struggled to focus in class and take anything (other than my friendships) seriously. But even then, there was one subject I loved: history. I thought it was so wonderful to learn about all that came before me, about the triumphs and tragedies, about the moments of individual bravery and collective complacency. And I loved recognizing the patterns in the stories across time and space. This rhyming nature of history informed and continues to inform my deeply held belief—that self-evident truth—that all humans are created equal. And that our individual differences are the product of our times and circumstances, and that who we are is shaped by what we choose to do.
While learning about these stories, many of them avoidable tragedies, I would often imagine myself faced with the same dilemmas. What would I do if I was there? Would I do the right thing? It always felt like there was no way to know.
I believe, as I know many of you do, that what the current presidential administration is doing is wrong. That we are sliding into an autocracy where those in power are above the rule of law. Skadden’s agreement with the Trump administration sent our country deeper down this descent.
I am sure some of you will question my decision and chalk it up to me being a young attorney too eager to throw his career away. I am sure there will also be those of you who will think of me as naïve. But there was a time when I sincerely believed that this place was committed to its true pro bono causes and diversity initiatives, even though these things may not always be lucrative, because it believed these things would make the world, and this firm, a better place. Having held itself out as a champion for these values, for this firm to turn its back on them so suddenly and so easily was shameful. I am embarrassed to work here. How can Skadden represent others when it can’t even stand up for itself?
It has also become clear to me that this firm no longer tolerates open discourse. Ahead of Friday’s announcement, the firm took preemptive action to silence critics by covertly limiting our access to firmwide distribution lists. This was a clear effort to silence criticism of the firm’s decision.
The consequences of Skadden’s agreement with the Trump administration go beyond our own firm. It legitimized behavior that threatens our democracy. As lawyers, we have an obligation to uphold the rule of law. This responsibility does not end when profits are threatened by a burgeoning autocracy.
I am making this decision to leave even though I was happy here. I have made so many great friends at this firm and learned from many great mentors. Thank you so much, I will miss you all dearly. And I am making this decision knowing that not everyone can leave as readily as I can, that many of you have families who depend on the income you earn here—I do not mean to shame you into leaving, only to explain my decision.
Skadden is on the wrong side of history. I could no longer stay knowing that someday I would have to explain why I stayed.
Dear Colleagues,
I write to express my vehement opposition to Simpson Thacher’s decision to capitulate to the Trump administration’s threat of flagrantly unlawful executive orders and continued assault on the legitimacy of the American legal system.
The Trump administration’s continued targeting of law firms for their past representation clearly violates the First Amendment freedom of association and, if successful, forever cripples the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Furthermore, the Trump administration’s success in deterring those most well-equipped to litigate laws—as they’ve been understood and settled for decades—establishes a precedent more dangerous and important than “the best interests of the Firm.”
By capitulating today, Simpson Thacher joins several other historic, powerful, influential and well-resourced law firms in bending the knee and kissing the ring of authoritarianism and unequivocally telling the Trump administration, and by extension the American people, that even those most well-equipped to uphold fundamental rights will not do so. We, as lawyers, should not need a reminder that rights are not self-enforcing. If even lawyers won’t fight unlawful governmental weaponization of the courts, who will?
Simpson Thacher’s decision today fundamentally changes “who we are as a Firm.” I make a different choice. I will not sleepwalk toward authoritarianism, and I will not be deterred from exercising my First Amendment rights for so long as I may have them. I am not “unwaveringly dedicated to the Firm.” I am unwaveringly dedicated to upholding the integrity of legal principles that are predicates to the legitimacy of our practice.
For these reasons, I have made the difficult decision that I must take my legal career in a different direction.
Hi all,
Willkie Farr & Gallagher stated in its announcement on Tuesday that its decision to acquiesce to the Trump administration’s unprecedented demands was “incredibly difficult.”
The more difficult, and moral, decision would have been to stand with Perkins Coie and other such courageous firms. The rule of law is clearly under threat. They have come for us, and we did not speak out. Who is next?
I am only a cog in this machine, the gears of which will churn on mechanistically no matter my decision to leave, as they would have churned on with me loyally and passionately had Willkie Farr & Gallagher stood in defense of the rule of law. This proud and distinguished century & a half old institution comprised of 1200 brilliant legal minds, of more than $1 billion in revenue a year. If this institution cannot fight, then who? There are moments in a life of becoming & unbecoming and what we have here is the menace of both. Where is our courage?
My four plus years here were marked with good fortune: hardworking, intelligent colleagues, participation in the type of voting rights trial that our new benefactor surely took into consideration when he weighed whether our principles were worth their cost. I take a different firm today. The principles this firm purportedly valued over the years I’ve worked here are now so deeply compromised. We signed them away when we made this deal. What will Willkie say when it faces the next set of demands. Is there a line in the sand?
Importantly, for those of you who cannot afford to leave or are unsure, I do not judge you, nor do I urge you to do so. It is your own decision. Yours is a more immense sacrifice than mine and every other act of moral courage must not be forgotten: the import of truth and principle. But I know that to be false. Our words and actions mean everything. Every day someone chooses to stay is a vote for this. Might. Must we carry their place all in this. It is only in the aggregate we can truly be saved.
I’ve given my notice and am signing off. To all the people I’ve worked with over the years, I really do count my blessings and wish you well. Thank you.
Hi all,
I’d like to take this time to notify my various teams and colleagues that I have provided my official notice of resignation to the firm. I’ve enjoyed working with and getting to know each of you but, in light of this afternoon’s announcement, cannot continue at Kirkland in good conscience. While I had hoped to stay and grow at K&E, I can no longer be complacent or ignore the truth of what’s happening for the sake of temporary comfort.
I know that many of you feel similarly after today’s announcement. As a gentle reminder, we are all uniquely positioned as lawyers to advocate for others, and individual voices hold weight even in the most powerful spaces. You are a group of adept critical thinkers that confront difficult situations each day. I’d encourage everyone to pause and leverage these same skills to audit your own decisions in the coming days.
I will be around over the next two weeks before my last day on April 25 to assist with transitioning any matters. Please reach out with any concerns about specific workstreams.
Colleagues,
In light of Latham’s disappointing decision to capitulate to the administration, I am hereby providing my two-week notice to finish out my responsibilities to the matters I’ve been handling. Words fail me in fully expressing my gratitude to the mentors and friends who have supported me here. I thank you all so much.
I fear jumping into the unknown. But I fear more staying and being complicit or participating in this administration’s consolidation of power. The biggest victims of which are not and would never have been us—the most fortunate and privileged—but those who cannot protect themselves from actual harm.
Freedom and democracy have always come at a cost; if this is in part mine, I am willing to pay it.
I did not have a say in Friday’s decision. But I have a say for myself. Though not everyone can make this choice as freely, I cannot criticize Latham with one breath and rationalize staying with the next. Instead, I opt today to use my voice and my feet to move somewhere that at least tries to fight for what is right. A place that respects that it means something to be a lawyer, that lets me stand up proud to uphold the rule of law and that does not bend to lawless threats.
I do not know yet where that place is for me. I know it is no longer here.
As of April 18, 2025.
Big Law Anonymous 