Maugham: Politics of hate
The Good Law Project (GLP) is threatening US law firm Morrison Foerster (MoFo) with legal action over its London office “reneging” on an agreement to represent a trans man.
They were “understandably concerned” that, in the light of the anti-diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) agenda in the US under President Trump, “pressure has been placed on solicitors in the UK to act in a way that is unlawful and promotes transphobia”.
Meanwhile, the president has withdrawn one of the executive orders he had targeted at a prominent US law firm after it agreed to dedicate $40m worth of pro bono legal services over the course of his term “to support the Administration’s initiatives”.
GLP has released the pre-action protocol letter sent by London law firm Brett Wilson on behalf of it and the man, known only as RJW, although parts are redacted to ensure he cannot be identified.
The letter said GLP approached the London office of MoFo last month to ask whether it would be willing to help it and RJW on a matter where he was seeking to assert his transgender rights.
Though originally MoFo said it had approval to do so, a week later it said it could not take on the matter.
MoFo was one of 20 prominent law firms that earlier this week received letters from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission demanding information on their DEI policies on the basis that they may “entail unlawful disparate treatment in terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, or unlawful limiting, segregating, and classifying based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics”.
The pre-action letter said “the only reasonable conclusion to draw… is that MoFoUK declined to assist RJW and GLP because RJW was a transgender individual seeking to assert transgender rights. The nature of RJW/GLP’s instruction was inextricably linked to RJW’s protected characteristic”.
It continued: “Our clients are very mindful of recent political developments in the US regarding transgender rights and the pressure being placed on large law firms by the new Trump administration, including MoFoUS.
“They are understandably concerned that pressure has been placed on solicitors in the UK to act in a way that is unlawful and promotes transphobia.”
Brett Wilson said that its clients would ask the court to make a finding of discrimination pursuant to section 136(2) of the Equality Act 2010, which provides that if there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person contravened the provision concerned, it must hold that the contravention occurred.
The letter suggested providing another explanation “seems to be an impossible task” for MoFo.
The remedy sought would be a declaration of unfair discrimination, an injunction prohibiting MoFo from discriminating against transgender people in a similar manner in future, and damages for the distress/injury to feelings, as well as aggravated damages “because MoFoUK’s discrimination was a deliberate and calculated act and an affront to UK equality legislation”.
Its clients would settle if MoFo publicly apologised to RJW and undertook not to discriminate against transgender individuals in future, and pays both compensation and costs.
Jo Maugham KC, executive director of GLP, said: “What really matters here is that we do whatever we can to stop President Trump and Elon Musk’s politics of hate from poisoning Britain.”
As GLP noted, MoFo has had a strong record on LGBTQ+ rights. In 2001, it appointed as its chair the first openly gay man to lead a large law firm. Keith Wetmore quickly made an impression by sporting a baseball cap embroidered with the slogan ‘homo@mofo’.
Last Friday, US firm Paul Weiss was made subject to an executive order that sought to isolate it from any contact or work with the federal government, including on behalf of clients.
President Trump said that, in 2021, a Paul Weiss partner brought a pro bono suit against individuals alleged to have taken part in the January 6 riot, and the following year the firm rehired a former partner, Mark Pomerantz, who had worked at the Manhattan District Attorney’s office “solely to manufacture a prosecution against me”.
He withdrew it yesterday after reaching a deal in which Paul Weiss agreed that law firms should not act in a politically partisan manner and that it would not deny representation to clients “because of the personal political views of individual lawyers”.
Paul Weiss would further take on “a wide range of pro bono matters that represent the full spectrum of political viewpoints of our society, whether ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’”. It also committed to not “adopt, use or pursue” any DEI policies, and to be audited to that effect.
Further, it would “dedicate the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services over the course of President Trump’s term to support the Administration’s initiatives, including: assisting our nation’s veterans, fairness in the justice system, the President’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and other mutually agreed projects”.
A White House statement said: “The President is agreeing to this action in light of a meeting with Paul Weiss chairman, Brad Karp, during which Mr. Karp acknowledged the wrongdoing of former Paul Weiss partner, Mark Pomerantz, the grave dangers of Weaponization (sic), and the vital need to restore our system of justice.”
Mr Karp said: “We are gratified that the President has agreed to withdraw the executive order concerning Paul, Weiss. We look forward to an engaged and constructive relationship with the President and his Administration.”
So, apart from the general assault on justice and promotion of corruption on display here, why is ‘combating Antisemitism’ not regarded as part of the DEI that Trump wants to abolish? Anti racism is ‘woke’ – apart from one particular facet? Hmm….