Katie Couric and Mitch Jackson

I was going to share some highlights from my interview with Gavin Newsom, but now you're here, Mitch. Very nice to meet you.

It's good to see you. And I would like to hear those updates from Gavin Newsom. But listen, what Nancy and you were talking about, I mean, how do you juggle so many things happening at once?

It's not— I have an incredible team of producers who prep all this for me because honestly, it's really difficult to kind of go from one subject to another. And I was explaining to Mitch, to the people watching, that when you posted your Substack yesterday about the DOJ dropping the investigation into the law firms that wouldn't capitulate to the Trump administration, I thought that was so interesting because I was saying, as you were getting on, I believe my late husband Jay's law firm, Williams Connolly, was working and helping defend the law firms that said to the Trump administration, or told them to pound sand, that we weren't gonna get rid of our clients, that, uh, you know, that you didn't like, etc., etc.

So, right, right.

Can you, can you explain basically from the get-go what happened at the very beginning of this new Trump administration with a number of these law firms being threatened by the administration and then what they did? Hit it, Mitch.

Absolutely, Katie. And, you know, it's interesting right now with the war in Iran and everything that's going on, right? And, uh, for this to happen yesterday, it's a small bit of news news, but for lawyers, for people that are interested in protecting democracy, it was big news. Okay? But things have changed as of this morning. So a year ago— and then we're going to talk about that. This is like, we're going to wing it today, right? Because I still haven't read today's filings, but I know what's going on. So after Trump came into office, he signed a bunch of executive orders. One of the executive orders was an order that basically singled out several law firms saying you can't practice in certain courthouses, you don't have access in the courthouses, you can't represent certain governmental entities, you can't enter into contracts with certain governmental projects. And it was for retribution of different law firms and different lawyers that were representing people like Robert Mueller, a lot of other well-known people that Trump did not like and had publicly said he was going to go after. And so what What happened was all of a sudden these law firms that were representing clients, protecting their First Amendment rights, protecting their Fourth Amendment rights, Fifth Amendment rights, were told that they would not be able to do so anymore. Some law firms filed lawsuits and fought the executive orders, and I was, uh, amicus signatory on two of those successful lawsuits. Uh, nine firms ended up caving in paying money to the Trump administration, donating funds to different charitable organizations, and volunteering their time, pro bono work, free work, to basically represent Trump or the Trump administration on projects that they felt they needed legal representation on. So it rubbed a lot of people in the legal industry the wrong way because it's really important that people have access to justice. And the last thing—

I was— no, go on, go on.

I was just going to say, the last thing that is appropriate under any set of circumstances is the President of the United States telling a particular profession, in this case lawyers, who they can or cannot represent. And frankly, instructing his Department of Justice to go after these lawyers, to go after these law firms, and make it as difficult as possible for them to do business and represent really good people with meritorious claims. What then happened though, Katie, and I'll just open this back up to you, is that tribal lawsuits immediately filed lawsuits, right, with the courts.

And— But before we get to them, before we get to them, let's just talk about the ones that caved. You know, like Paul Weiss, $40 million in pro bono work. Skadden Arps, $100 million in pro bono work to avoid sanctions. Milbank, $100 million. Wilkie Farr, $100 million. That was the firm that included Doug Emhoff, who's married to Kamala Harris. Kirkland Ellis, $125 million in pro bono work. Latham Watkins, $125 million. Simpson Thatcher, $125 million in pro bono work. And one of the reasons they did this, correct me if I'm wrong, Mitch, is that the Trump administration said, if you don't do this, We're not gonna give you any government work. In other words, we're gonna cut out any kind of government legal work. And many of these firms, at least I know, like Paul Weiss, they depend on these government cases, right? So, I— Anyway, it was sort of disgusting, but a lot of them said it was an existential issue, that they would've gone out of business if they hadn't done this. I'm not sure if that's true. But then, as you said, there were these other firms, and they're kind of the heroes in this story, They really were. Who basically told them, you know, F you. We are not going to pay you off.

I'm glad you said that. So we can—

and we're, and we're gonna represent who we want to represent. And that was what, Perkins Coie, is that right? Jenner Block, Wilmer Cutler Pickering, Hale Dorr. That's a famous firm in DC, as I know. Sussman Godfrey. So tell us what happened with those firms and how they ended up on Trump's shit list, so to speak.

Well, with Perkins and the last one you mentioned, those were the two that I was amicus signatory on, along with something that Carolyn Elefant, who's a friend of mine— I don't know if you know Carolyn, but she does a lot of practicing appellate work for small and medium-sized firms— and they all filed actions for injunctive relief, basically asking the court to find that the Department of Justice, the Trump administration, other defendants didn't have the constitutional right to do these things, to shut them down, to extort them, to tell them who they can or cannot represent, right?

Right.

Which courthouses they have access to, what contracts they can enter into. And by the way, that number you were talking about earlier, it totals to over a billion dollars when you combine those 9 law firms together.

So, and it wasn't only pro bono work, Mitch, wasn't it also like donations to the Trump Library and stuff?

It may be, I'm not really sure.

Okay.

Right? But either way, there are a lot of zeros behind that. And so what happened was the judges that got involved issued immediate injunctions prohibiting this from happening. The judges immediately, all 4, came into an alignment and said, this violates the constitutional rights of these law firms on multiple levels. And when I tried to hop in earlier, Katie, I was over at my desk and I've got lists of all the details, which I can walk over and get if you want them. But suffice it to say, the judges said, you can't do this. It's not even a close call. One of the judges cited Shakespeare, you know, kill all the lawyers, or something to the tune of, I'm going to grant this, the enforcement of these executive orders, which is basically going to do the same thing. That doesn't fly in my courtroom. So what happened was, is at the trial court level, all the injunctions were granted, which meant that these executive orders were put on hold and/or found illegal. And went up on appeal. And so that's what's been happening for the last year. When I came home from depositions yesterday, I saw Mark Elias on the news talking about what led to my article last night. And the article was, and the news was, that the Department of Justice basically told the court, and I did read this request, in a single paragraph, we want to drop the 4 appeals. They were combined into 1 appeal. We're done with this. We don't want to fight the appropriateness of these executive orders anymore. We're done. We want to wash our hands of it.

And it was a huge vic— it was a huge victory in your view for the rule of law, which you wrote about very eloquently. I recommend that everybody read Mitch's article about what happened and why it was such a huge moment for the legal profession.

It really is, because a lot of us became lawyers to help other people. We became lawyers to make sure that people's constitutional rights are protected. And when you have somebody in power, whoever it may be, and/or large law firms, the Department of Justice in their back pocket telling you you can't do your job, Katie, you don't have the right to be a journalist. Nancy, we don't want to allow you in the Pentagon to do fair and adequate, reasonable reporting on what's going on in the Iranian war. That's a problem. And so what happened was, is they all went up on appeal. Yesterday, the Department of Justice filed a motion to basically stop, pause, or dismiss the appellate process. We're done. We're going to wash our hands of this. And that's where Mark went on. And that's when I wrote, this is amazing. I mean, in the scheme of the news that's going on in today's world, there's a lot of important things we need to talk about. And you and Nancy did cover a lot of those things. But for the legal profession, I think for everyday Moms and dads for everyday companies doing business in the United States and around the world. This is a huge outcome that happened yesterday. It's a huge win. And by the way, it was a surprising win. Who expected the Department of Justice to walk away from this?

Well, I think Nancy Baum said congratulations, but wait, then something happened. But wait, there's more. Because I was getting ready to interview Gavin Newsom, and I'm kind of going through my New York Times headlines, and I see that the Department of Justice announced it was withdrawing its motion to withdraw. So what the hell is happening now, Mitch?

Well, we can only guess. I've talked to some friends of mine. I've given it some thought. I've done a little research. And there's an issue as to the 9 law firms that bent a knee to Trump and the Department of Justice and settled their cases and basically are doing what Trump and the Department of Justice wants them to do. There's a question whether or not that would render the contracts and agreements they entered into as being illegal. And if the settlement agreements that these 9 firms entered into are considered illegal, then do these firms have to continue moving forward with the terms and conditions of those agreements?

So suddenly the Trump administration is like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. We want this over $1 billion in free legal services pledged by these law firms. So we're not dropping it.

That would be one possible argument, which I think does come into play, but it gets better than that, Katie. And when you know the personalities of the people that are involved, somebody very persuasively told me earlier today, it's actually simpler than that. Because here's the thing, I feel, and a lot of experienced lawyers feel, that these appeals are going to be lost anyway. In other words, whether they're dismissed yesterday or they're ruled against 6 months from now, The Department of Justice, the Trump administration is going to lose those appeals in most of our opinions. So the outcome's the same 6 months from now as it would be yesterday. It's more than that. They're talking about Donald Trump and Stephen Miller were pissed, were upset, were really concerned with how yesterday went down. That's not the way we roll. That's not the way we want to do things. I totally get that. Like, if I had a client, and this went down yesterday, I know a lot of clients that would feel the same way. Like, you just don't give up like that when you've been pushing these issues. You're trying to make a statement. You're trying to, to present a certain impression or image, right, across the country and across the world, especially with law firms. And then you just punt. You just give up. So there's another train of thought that this is personal, right? And maybe it is, because when you look at the law firms that gave in and caved in. When you look at the lawsuits that are, that are knuckling down and fighting these things, it is personal. Every single law firm has a player, like you mentioned, that got under Trump's skin. And so, in fact, if it was personal a year ago, and that's why these executive orders were issued, why wouldn't it be personal today? Miller and Trump are extremely upset with what the DOJ did yesterday.

Oh.

—gave them marching orders to go back in, go back in today and fix this thing. Fix this thing and let's continue to litigate it and make the lives of these 4 law firms, their partners, their lawyers, their team members as miserable as possible. Does that cost them more money? It does. It absolutely does. And the caveat to all of this, Katie, that a lot of people don't take into consideration, these 9 law firms that caved in, I think there's a strong argument that could be made that Moving forward over the past year and maybe over the next 3, 4, 5 years, that decision that they made, assuming Trump stays in office, assuming things stay the way they are, it's going to result in much more revenue to those 9 firms having done what they did in the long run than the short-term decision that they made. You know, as Marc Elias will tell you, you know, who would hire these firms? Who would hire a law firm or a partner that doesn't even stand up to protect themselves? Why would you trust them to protect your client? Right? That— those are his words. I thought that was brilliant. And so from a business standpoint, I'm not really sure any of those 9 law firms are going to end up, you know, at the, at the losing end of the deal. But from a branding, a marketing, from a position of respect, integrity, I think that's where a lot of us are doing all that we can to support the 4 law firms that are going to continue to fight, as they said today after this announcement was made. "That's fine. We'll see you in court. Just, that's where we've been since day one. We're not going anywhere, and we're going to win these appeals." So it's an interesting time as a lawyer to try to stay on top of these developing facts and issues because it's happening so darn fast.

Well, thanks for covering it, and thanks for writing what you wrote yesterday, and thanks for kind of updating everybody. It's hard to follow all these stories, and— I thought it was an important enough story to have you on to explain kind of what was happening. Um, you know, as somebody who has lots of, lots of friends who are lawyers and someone who actually likes lawyers, um, I actually—

Katie, Katie, we spoke a few years ago on another platform and we were talking about colonoscopies and roses and my wife and I going in together. And the story with your, with your late husband and the type of practice we do here in Southern California. And it was— it's so important, I think, for the everyday consumer to just remember when it all comes down, if you want to protect democracy, if you want to fix the problems that we're seeing right now, you know, support your local lawyer, because right now the lawyers and the judges are the ones that are stepping into court and holding wrongdoers accountable. And we're going to keep doing it until we get this fixed.

We don't want to kill the lawyers, Mitch. We want to say, we want to, we want to, um, support the lawyers. Anyway, listen, thanks so much. I'd forgotten about that conversation. I have so many of these, so it's nice to see you again, Mitch. Thank you. Good to see you too. Thanks, thanks so much for taking the time and keep up the great work on Substack. I highly recommend, I, I, I agree, Monica, the ACLU does incredible work. All right, Mitch, thank you. I've got my final interview coming up. Thanks again. Thank you, Katie. Bye-bye. Okay, bye.