Large corporate law firms have faced unprecedented actions, including presidential executive orders targeting them and more.
The response from Big Law and in-house corporate legal departments has been near silence.
With 16,000 paid subscribers, including more than 2,800 corporate in-house counsel, The Texas Lawbook established an open forum for lawyers, general counsel, law professors and judges to provide thoughtful, substantive responses to seven questions in an online survey. The questions address how firms should handle governmental inquiries into law firms’ handling of such matters, including pro bono immigration defense, diversity and inclusion and alleged government overreach in other areas.
The Lawbook seeks your insight and commentary regarding how law firms and the legal profession should respond. To participate, click here or email your responses to mark.curriden@texaslawbook.net.
The following response was submitted by Sally Helppie, a veteran entertainment attorney and commercial litigator at Waddell Serafino Geary Rechner Jenevein. Helppie, who also owns and operates her production company, Advocate Pictures, often serves as counsel on productions with budgets ranging from $100,000 to $100 million, according to Waddell Serafino’s website. She has advised and worked on contracts for programs and various series for television and streaming.
A 1985 graduate of UCLA’s School of Law, Helppie has also served as an adjunct professor at SMU for the Meadows School of Arts and the Dedman School of Law.
She has been with Waddell Serafino since 2010. Here are her answers to our online forum questions:
Texas Lawbook: What should be the response of lawyers and law firms to President Trump’s memorandum directing the attorney general to “review conduct” by lawyers and firms who engage in “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation” against the U.S. government?
Sally Helppie: Ignore it? Point out what a waste of taxpayer money it is? Ask that the AG first define what falls into the investigative category? List other things the AG should be investigating instead, such as the use of Signal by high level national security officials?
Lawbook: What are the factors that lawyers and law firms should weigh when determining whether totackle highly politicized issues such as asylum, DEI and other matters that may draw the ire of President Trump or other powerful government officials?
Helppie: The same as they were prior to this administration. Firms should not be changing their policies and approaches because they are afraid of government officials targeting them. Fight it out in court. That is what our legal system is designed to do. Unite to stand up for our legal system.
Lawbook: Do the EEOC’s threats against law firms regarding their DEI policies and practices have legal legitimacy? Why or why not?
Helppie: No. If the EEOC can allege specific facts against a particular law firm, then it can do so and the firm can respond as appropriate. Fishing expeditions are a waste of taxpayer money and citizens’ time. They also undermine our legal system.
Lawbook: How should law firms respond to the EEOC’s demands for information about their DEI policies and practices and those of their clients?
Helppie: Fight back. If the EEOC has a specific inquiry (with allegations of specific facts), then address it. But no firm should be bullied into broad “audits” or vague demands to turn over information.
Lawbook: What are the specific parts of DEI policies that determine whether they are legal or potentially illegally discriminatory?
Helppie: There is no single definition for DEI. To some, it is what has allowed non-typical learners to be admitted to classrooms with more typical learners. Should that get swept up into this anti-DEI nonsense?
Lawbook: Some firms have decided to fight the Trump administration’s EOs, while others have reached settlement agreements with the White House. What are the proper responses and actions that lawyers and law firms should take when challenged by the administration for representing highly politicized clients in matters against the federal government?
Helppie: It’s astonishing that this question is even being asked. We all took oaths when we got our law licenses and we need to live up to those oaths. Fight it out in court. It’s outrageous that the current administration wants to strip citizens of the right to the legal counsel of their choice. It’s appalling that some of the biggest and richest law firms in the world are enabling this behavior.
Lawbook: Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, two members of the Bush administration suggested
targeting corporate law firms that stepped forward to represent accused terrorists detained at Guantánamo Bay. In response, several high-profile corporate general counsel took public stands supporting the law firms that were doing the pro bono work. No one at the senior levels of the Bush administration ever took such actions. Do you believe that today’s corporate GCs should take similar positions, and do you believe that they will or will not?
Helppie: Yes, they absolutely should take public stands to support the firms who stand up to these clearly unconstitutional EOs. Short term profits are not worth destroying our form of government over the longer term. Texas lawyers boast about being courageous; it is disheartening to see those with voices that could make a difference cowering in a corner.
Kevin Colby, GC (Houston)
Kevin Colby is the general counsel and global head of human resources for GOWell International, a Houston-based private company that specializes in providing equipment and technology solutions for the oil and gas industry.
GOWell manufactures and supplies wireline logging tools and systems, which are used to evaluate underground rock formations, ensure the structural integrity of wells and help O&G companies make better decisions about drilling, maintaining wells and optimizing production.
A 2003 graduate of Fordham University School of Law, Colby has been with GOWell for nearly a dozen years, joining the company in August 2013. Before that, he worked at Houston litigation boutique Camara & Sibley for a little more than two years. He also has worked as a staff attorney for Paul Weiss, as well as an associate at Dewey Ballantine and Fulbright & Jaworski. Prior to receiving his J.D. from Fordham, Colby spent six years in business development at Clifford Chance.
Here are his answers to our online forum questions:
Texas Lawbook: What should be the response of lawyers and law firms to President Trump’s memorandum directing the attorney general to “review conduct” by lawyers and firms who engage in “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation” against the U.S. government?
Kevin Colby: This is not the job of the AG but of the bar associations. They can always raise the issue during the litigation to the judge.
The Lawbook: What are the factors that lawyers and law firms should weigh when determining whether to tackle highly politicized issues such as asylum, DEI and other matters that may draw the ire of President Trump or other powerful government officials?
Colby: Any in-house counsel needs to protect the interest of their client, i.e., their company. It becomes a different issue with law firms since they are weighing the ability to get clients.
The Lawbook: Do the EEOC’s threats against law firms regarding their DEI policies and practices have legal legitimacy? Why or why not?
Colby: Nope. Law firms are private institutions bound to their own policies. The government does not have such authority. It’s beyond their scope.
The Lawbook: How should law firms respond to the EEOC’s demands for information about their DEI policies and practices and those of their clients?
Colby: I believe this should be fought. I don’t see how the government can demand this.
The Lawbook: What are the specific parts of DEI policies that determine whether they are legal or potentially illegally discriminatory?
Colby: I think we need to call this what it is. DEI policies are not illegal or discriminatory. Law firms and companies cannot be told who to hire.
The Lawbook: Some firms have decided to fight the Trump administration’s EOs, while others have reached settlement agreements with the White House. What are the proper responses and actions that lawyers and law firms should take when challenged by the administration for representing highly politicized clients in matters against the federal government?
Colby: As Paul Weiss alum, I am quite ashamed of Paul Weiss’ attitude. Perkins Coie has the right idea and this needs to be challenged. These are personal vendettas and should be defeated. Nip it in the bud.
The Lawbook: Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, two members of the Bush administration suggested targeting corporate law firms that stepped forward to represent accused terrorists detained at Guantánamo Bay. In response, several high-profile corporate general counsel took public stands supporting the law firms that were doing the pro bono work. No one at the senior levels of the Bush administration ever took such actions. Do you believe that today’s corporate GCs should take similar positions, and do you believe that they will or will not?
Colby: If it gets to that point, sure. It needs to be massive. If a minority responds it would be easier to target those. However, if a large amount of GCs take a stand, especially from large companies, then it would have a lot more weight.
Reminder: To submit your answers via the forum portal, click here or email them to mark.curriden@texaslawbook.net.