Latest / Bloomberg Law / Can Democrats Change SCOTUS & Law Firm Collapse

Transcript

Can Democrats Change SCOTUS & Law Firm Collapse · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: With Democrats poised to hold a majority in the Senate
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: starting January 3rd, President Donald Trump has most likely appointed
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: his last U.S. Supreme Court justice. Democrats will have the
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: power and the motivation to stop Trump from filling any
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: vacancy that arises over the next two years. After all,
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: Democrats have watched Republicans play that game. In 2016, then-majority
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: leader Senator Mitch McConnell prevented a vote on President Obama's
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: nominee Merrick Garland, leaving the seat open for 14 months
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: until Trump ultimately filled it with Justice Neil Gorsuch. And
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: then in 2020, after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, rushing
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: to push through the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: just eight days before Trump lost the election. Joining me
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: is Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr. Greg, is there
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: going to be pressure on Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: Alito to retire now so perhaps a successor could be
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: confirmed during the lame duck congressional session?
• 1:21
  Speaker 3: There absolutely will be pressure, but there are zero signs
• 1:25
  Speaker 3: so far that either of.
• 1:27
  Speaker 4: Them is interested in doing that.
• 1:29
  Speaker 3: I had an interview with Justice Alito last month in
• 1:32
  Speaker 3: which I specifically asked him, if Democrats take over the Senate,
• 1:35
  Speaker 3: will you consider stepping down so that the lame duck
• 1:38
  Speaker 3: Republican-controlled Senate can confirm your successor?
• 1:41
  Speaker 4: And he said no.
• 1:43
  Speaker 3: Justice Thomas, people I've talked to who are close to him,
• 1:46
  Speaker 3: say he has no interest in retiring right now. And
• 1:49
  Speaker 3: even if either of them did, there is no guarantee
• 1:52
  Speaker 3: that Trump at this political moment would be able to
• 1:56
  Speaker 3: get a successor through the Senate, even though it will
• 1:59
  Speaker 3: stay in Republican hands for another two months.
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: Although Senate Majority Leader John Thune said in July that
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: it could be done if they wanted to.
• 2:08
  Speaker 3: He did say that. And, you know, he was being
• 2:11
  Speaker 3: a good Republican by saying that. But, you know, we
• 2:14
  Speaker 3: have this moment where Democrats are going to, the voters
• 2:18
  Speaker 3: have said, we want Democrats to control Congress, and it's
• 2:21
  Speaker 3: going to be a big Senate majority. And you have
• 2:24
  Speaker 3: a number of Republicans whose support, I'm not sure I
• 2:28
  Speaker 3: would take for granted if I were Donald Trump, or
• 2:30
  Speaker 3: for that matter, Sam Alito or Clarence Thomas thinking about retiring.
• 2:34
  Speaker 3: You have folks like Susan Collins, who's on her way
• 2:38
  Speaker 3: out having been defeated, Tom Tillis, who was sort of
• 2:40
  Speaker 3: pushed out by Donald Trump into retirement, Lisa Murkowski, who
• 2:44
  Speaker 3: was never a sure vote. And keep in mind that
• 2:48
  Speaker 3: one of those elections yesterday was a special election, Ohio.
• 2:52
  Speaker 3: So the Republican Senator John Husted is actually going to
• 2:55
  Speaker 3: be out of his seat on December 15th. So Republicans
• 2:58
  Speaker 3: are going to lose a vote at that moment. So
• 3:01
  Speaker 3: to the extent they have a majority now, it's not
• 3:04
  Speaker 3: the kind of majority where you can confidently say, oh,
• 3:06
  Speaker 3: they could absolutely confirm somebody before January 3rd.
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: Why would Republicans even want to push this? I mean,
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: they have this super majority right now. Isn't six enough?
• 3:18
  Speaker 3: Well, the question is extending that super majority over time.
• 3:21
  Speaker 3: So Justice Alito is 76.
• 3:24
  Speaker 4: Justice Thomas is 78.
• 3:25
  Speaker 3: They're not going to serve forever and if one of
• 3:29
  Speaker 3: them had retired say you know after the last term
• 3:33
  Speaker 3: and had a successor nominated and confirmed that person could
• 3:37
  Speaker 3: have served another you know 25 30 years and sort
• 3:40
  Speaker 3: of strengthening that republican majority over time now you have
• 3:45
  Speaker 3: the prospect that if democrats retain the senate say win
• 3:49
  Speaker 3: the white house in 2028 we're going to be wondering
• 3:52
  Speaker 3: will the conservative justices be able to stick around until
• 3:56
  Speaker 3: there's another moment like this? Or are they going to
• 3:59
  Speaker 3: leave the court one way or the other with Democrats
• 4:01
  Speaker 3: able to confirm a successor and potentially shift the court
• 4:04
  Speaker 3: back towards the middle?
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: Are people viewing that as a real possibility, moving the
• 4:09
  Speaker 2: court back to the middle?
• 4:11
  Speaker 3: People are absolutely talking about it. It's hard not to
• 4:14
  Speaker 3: think about it just when you look at the political
• 4:16
  Speaker 3: realities that we discovered are out there in this election.
• 4:21
  Speaker 3: With a majority of potentially four seats, five seats, six seats,
• 4:25
  Speaker 3: Democrats have a really good chance of maintaining control of
• 4:28
  Speaker 3: the Senate after the 2028 election, regardless of who wins
• 4:31
  Speaker 3: the White House. And so if Democrats win the White
• 4:34
  Speaker 3: House in 2028, there is this moment where they will
• 4:38
  Speaker 3: have the potential to change the composition of the Supreme
• 4:41
  Speaker 3: Court very likely. You know, look, we saw with Justice
• 4:45
  Speaker 3: Scalia dying, Justice Ginsburg dying, that justices can't always control
• 4:49
  Speaker 3: when they have to leave the court. Go back a
• 4:51
  Speaker 3: little further in time and you'll find justices who had
• 4:55
  Speaker 3: to leave because they were very, very ill, not necessarily
• 4:58
  Speaker 3: at a time of their choosing. Those things happen. That's
• 5:01
  Speaker 3: just the actuarial reality of the situation. So absolutely, people
• 5:06
  Speaker 3: on both sides are now confronting a world in which
• 5:09
  Speaker 3: This Republican supermajority or the conservative supermajority that we've imagined
• 5:14
  Speaker 3: might be there for a very, very long time now
• 5:17
  Speaker 3: might just be there for a few more years.
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: Explain how the conservative supermajority has made decisions that really
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: change the landscape in this country in many ways.
• 5:30
  Speaker 3: It's hard to overstate how important this conservative supermajority has been.
• 5:35
  Speaker 3: The most widely known decision, of course, was the Dobbs
• 5:38
  Speaker 3: abortion ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right
• 5:42
  Speaker 3: to abortion. But they have expanded gun rights. They have
• 5:45
  Speaker 3: expanded religious rights. They have backed Donald Trump's claims of
• 5:51
  Speaker 3: very broad presidential power and shielded the president to a
• 5:54
  Speaker 3: large degree from criminal prosecution for things that the president
• 5:59
  Speaker 3: does while in office. And the court has given every
• 6:02
  Speaker 3: sign that it wants to keep moving in that direction.
• 6:06
  Speaker 3: And this may be a moment where the court has
• 6:09
  Speaker 3: to take a little stock and say, where are we
• 6:12
  Speaker 3: going with this?
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: I'm wondering, will this sort of blue tsunami, I mean,
• 6:18
  Speaker 2: will it affect the justices in any way? The fact
• 6:22
  Speaker 2: that they see that President Trump is losing steam and power.
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: the next president may be a Democrat? So they've given
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: all these powers to a Republican president, but if the
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: next president's a Democrat?
• 6:36
  Speaker 3: That is a really good question, and it's really impossible
• 6:39
  Speaker 3: to answer at this point. You know, certainly these are
• 6:42
  Speaker 3: justices who believe they are applying constitutional principles and not
• 6:48
  Speaker 3: doing things because they necessarily like the person in the
• 6:52
  Speaker 3: White House or necessarily like the policies. They are believers in,
• 6:56
  Speaker 3: among other things, a strong president and a strong executive
• 7:00
  Speaker 3: branch of the government. Those decisions necessarily could cut the
• 7:05
  Speaker 3: other way if a Democrat is in the White House.
• 7:09
  Speaker 3: It will be fascinating to see the extent to which
• 7:13
  Speaker 3: we can sense that they are sort of looking ahead
• 7:16
  Speaker 3: to what the practical effect of their decisions might be
• 7:20
  Speaker 3: if and when a Democrat does go in the in
• 7:26
  Speaker 3: the cases they take up, the issues they choose to resolve.
• 7:30
  Speaker 3: They may ultimately come out the same way on these questions,
• 7:33
  Speaker 3: but they can slow down the pace at which they're
• 7:36
  Speaker 3: changing the law, recognizing that the implications of that at
• 7:40
  Speaker 3: this point seem pretty uncertain.
• 7:42
  Speaker 2: The Democrats are now going to control the House and
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: the Senate. A lot of these Democrats have talked about
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: reforming the court. Do you see a movement toward some
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: sort of reform on the court? Term limits seem the easiest.
• 7:54
  Speaker 3: Term limits are certainly easier than adding seats to the
• 7:57
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court. Undoubtedly, Democrats now have more votes to potentially
• 8:02
  Speaker 3: do that. There was already going to be more talk
• 8:05
  Speaker 3: of those sorts of structural changes on the Supreme Court
• 8:08
  Speaker 3: because Democrats were just vowing to make them more of
• 8:10
  Speaker 3: an issue. With that being said, if we end up
• 8:14
  Speaker 3: in a world where, let's say, Democrats do sweep the
• 8:18
  Speaker 3: 2028 elections and they end up getting a vacancy to
• 8:22
  Speaker 3: fill of a conservative justice. And we see the court
• 8:26
  Speaker 3: swing back a bit to the left. That might take
• 8:30
  Speaker 3: some wind out of the sails of the movement to
• 8:33
  Speaker 3: have these big structural reforms, at least the notion of
• 8:37
  Speaker 3: adding seats to the Supreme Court. So I think we're
• 8:40
  Speaker 3: going to be talking about this a lot in the
• 8:42
  Speaker 3: next few years. Term limits, especially if they're done in
• 8:46
  Speaker 3: a way that doesn't kind of obviously make the court
• 8:49
  Speaker 3: less conservative, say if it's not going into effect for
• 8:52
  Speaker 3: some time down the road, that may still be more
• 8:56
  Speaker 3: doable because there is some agreement across the ideological divide
• 9:02
  Speaker 3: that that might actually be a better way of appointing
• 9:04
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court justices to limit the amount of time and
• 9:07
  Speaker 3: to guarantee that each president will get at least a
• 9:09
  Speaker 3: couple of vacancies to fill.
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: As far as expanding the court, could that be done
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: by a president?
• 9:17
  Speaker 3: That would take an act of Congress to do it.
• 9:19
  Speaker 3: Congress absolutely has the power to add seats to the
• 9:22
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court. It has done it a number of times.
• 9:25
  Speaker 3: It just so happens that those number of times were
• 9:28
  Speaker 3: back in the 1700s and 1800s. It's not something that
• 9:32
  Speaker 3: has happened in the modern day. But no question, Congress
• 9:36
  Speaker 3: could do that with the president's signature or overriding a veto,
• 9:40
  Speaker 3: could do that on its own without a constitutional amendment.
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: By a simple majority?
• 9:44
  Speaker 4: Yes, it could do that by a simple majority.
• 9:47
  Speaker 2: And before I let you go, Greg, what's the next
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: big case coming up at the Supreme Court?
• 9:52
  Speaker 3: June, a very big case that people are going to
• 9:55
  Speaker 3: be watching closely is coming up in December when the
• 9:58
  Speaker 3: court hears the case of the challenges to state bans
• 10:01
  Speaker 3: on so-called assault weapons. There's a case out of Illinois
• 10:05
  Speaker 3: and a case out of Connecticut, which of course is
• 10:07
  Speaker 3: the place where the Sandy Hook, the horrific Sandy Hook
• 10:10
  Speaker 3: shooting took place. This is a court that has fairly
• 10:14
  Speaker 3: consistently bolstered gun rights. And so this could be a
• 10:17
  Speaker 3: significant change in the law if they say that states,
• 10:21
  Speaker 3: including Connecticut, cannot ban assault weapons.
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: Always great to talk to you, Greg. You have the
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: inside scoop at the court. That's Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: Greg Storr. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show,
• 10:35
  Speaker 2: how a nearly century-old storied law firm careened to a
• 10:40
  Speaker 2: close in just days. a stunning downfall for a firm
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: that was once a powerhouse for corporate litigation and Wall
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: Street deals. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: It was a stunning downfall for a 95-year-old storied law
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: firm that was once a powerhouse for corporate litigation and
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: Wall Street deals. While Gottschall is winding down after a
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: long erosion of its competitive position, departures of key lawyers,
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: and failed merger talks. Joining me is Bloomberg Law Senior
• 11:17
  Speaker 2: Correspondent Roy Strom. Tell us about Wild God Shaw's history
• 11:22
  Speaker 2: and its presence in the legal field.
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: Yeah, Wild God Shaw was founded about 95 years ago.
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: It was founded by Jewish lawyers at the time who
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: weren't able to get jobs at other law firms, and
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: it grew to become a prominent Wall Street White Shoe
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: Law Firm became in the 70s known as the preeminent
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: firm for corporate bankruptcies, thanks to the work of a
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: partner named Harvey Miller, who basically created that practice inside
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: of large law firms. The firm went on to have
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: incredible success in that practice during the great financial crisis,
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: handling bankruptcies, the likes of Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual.
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: And along the way, it built out a significant public
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: company M & A practice, as well as a private
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: equity practice that expanded into London. And at one point
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: in time, it was, I think, either the fifth or
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: the sixth largest law firm.
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: In the world. So what happened?
• 12:26
  Speaker 4: Well, we wrote a story.
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: In June that took a little bit of a broader
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: look at the firm. And I think the striking data
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: point that we pulled out was that Weil had grown
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: its revenue at half the annualized rate of its competitors
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: from 2008 to 2025, which is a really long time.
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: So I think that put pressure on firm leadership in
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: more recent years to be able to keep its highest
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: performing partners. And over the past two years, they began
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: to leave. And many of them were members of the
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: firm's management committee. They lost a vital bankruptcy partner. They
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: lost a big, I think, IP litigation group. They lost
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: private equity partners along the way. And they were still
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: very successful, very competitive law firm. And in the bankruptcy space,
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: they invented this, as lawyers would call it, technology of
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: liability management exercises and a deal called J.Crew. Those deals
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: went on to sort of almost completely reorient the bankruptcy practice.
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: And despite the fact Weil created them, there was another
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, that really commercialized those very successfully.
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: And that was kind of one example of how the
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: firm had sort of been in markets that could have
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: really powered growth, but for one reason or another, didn't
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: seem to catch on, didn't seem to become the dominant
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: player in those spaces. And that was part of the
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: strategic challenge, I think, that the firm faced over a
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: longer time frame before this more recent episode that, of course,
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: last week ultimately ended up in this partner-run psychological phenomenon
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: that led to the firm's decision to wind down.
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: As of last year, according to the American Lawyer, it
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: still had nearly $ 2. 1 billion in revenue among the country's
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: 30 largest firms. So, I mean, why were partners, equity partners,
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: leaving at such a rapid pace?
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: It is true that the firm was financially healthy and
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: it was successful on its own rights. The challenge in
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: the big law environment, and it is increasingly a challenge,
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: is that partners and firm success come on a comparative basis.
• 14:53
  Speaker 4: It comes on a.
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: Relative basis to the peers, to the firms who could
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: pay any other firm's partners more money. So as Weill's
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: profits per partner grew to $ 5 million, which of course,
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: by any measure is a lot, there's other firms that
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: are at eight or 10. And so those firms are
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: able to provide basically a better economic deal for partners.
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: And I think the leadership at Weill viewed the law
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: firm as a family. They had a sense of loyalty
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: to the firm. And I think that's the type of
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: thing that people today maybe bemoan has gone away or miss.
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: But at Weill, it ultimately sort of was not enough
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: to keep these people in the fold. And there was
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: some internal divisions and internal disputes over the direction of
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: the firm. And I think real people got caught up
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: in those disputes. And it became a challenge to figure
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: out what exactly the firm was going to look like
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: going forward.
• 15:51
  Speaker 2: And you wrote that Wall Street firms are operating more
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: like investment banks and private equity firms. I mean, tell
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: us about that. Because the old law firm thing was, yeah,
• 16:02
  Speaker 2: you go to a law firm. If you're lucky enough
• 16:04
  Speaker 2: to become a partner, you stay at that law firm.
• 16:06
  Speaker 2: That's all changed.
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: That has changed over the past decade or so, ever
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: since law firms started being able to offer larger paychecks
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: to hire from the vaunted lockstep firms like the Cravats
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: and more recently like the Wachtels. And That just seems
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: to continue. I don't think that that is somehow slowing down.
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: But in terms of investment banks, I guess that's the
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: mode of competition, compensation.
• 16:35
  Speaker 2: Was it the departure of Mike Aiello, who was viewed
• 16:39
  Speaker 2: as the firm's most powerful partner, was it his departure
• 16:43
  Speaker 2: that sort of sealed the deal?
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: It would be very difficult for me to say that
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: any one single departure sealed the deal. I think Mike
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: Aiello had True that he was the biggest revenue generator
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: at the firm. It is true that he had significant
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: influence with the chair of the firm, a guy by
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: the name of Barry Wolf. When we interviewed Barry Wolf
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: in June alongside his would-be successor, Ramona Nee, Barry told
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: me that Mike Aiello was his closest friend in the firm.
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: We found that Mike was fond of saying, that he
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: would only stay at the law firm as long as
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: Barry was there. He'd been saying that for quite a
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: long time. It was unclear what exactly he meant by
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: saying that. And I think as time came closer to
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: Barry Wolf's planned retirement, which was he was going to
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: step down and hand over the reins to Ramona Nee,
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: who was a private equity partner on January 1st, I
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: think it became more important for the people inside, in
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: particular Barry, to understand how serious Mike was about this
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: thing he'd always said, which was that he would only
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: be at the firm as long as Barry Wolf was
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: the chair. And I think it turned out ultimately that
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: he had perhaps meant what he said all along. That
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: was his intention. And I think the two spoke on
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: September 8th. Barry was asking him if he would stay
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: past his retirement to help the firm get past some
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: of these recent departures. We reported it as unclear if
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: the two came to an agreement. And then two days later,
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: Mike Aiello's team tendered their resignations to Barry Wolf in
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: his office. And those two men have not spoken, or
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: at least had not when we wrote our story.
• 18:35
  Speaker 2: And tell us what happened with Ramona Nee, who was
• 18:38
  Speaker 2: supposed to take over as the executive partner.
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: Apparently, Ramona Nee informed a small group of the firm's
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: leaders that in August that she did not intend to
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: take the job. There is still some question about what
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: exactly happened there. After Mike left, Ramona was issuing press releases,
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: you know, sounding as if she'd taken this all in
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: stride and the firm was going to invest in its
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: people and bring on more hires. And they did make
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: some hires, including a private equity partner from Cravath. And
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: they were sort of trying to weather that storm. Ultimately,
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: more people decided to leave in the wake of Mike
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: Aiello's exit. I think a lot of people there relied
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: on him. And after those exits, and then the firm
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: tried to engage in a merger discussion with Wilkie Farr
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: and Gallagher, which is a roughly similarly sized New York
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: law firm. Those talks ultimately ended. I think they were
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: fairly brief. So once those discussions ended, I think people
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: became increasingly concerned inside the firm. You can imagine it's
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: a fairly disruptive moment, perhaps. Obviously, it can impact confidence.
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: And that's the entire point here. The partners need confidence
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: that the person next to them will stay at the firm.
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: And that's what a partner run is. It's when those
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: people lose that confidence and ultimately That's what happened. And
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: that is why the firm's leadership sat in a conference
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: room for days, basically, discussing all options to go forward.
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: And they could not come to agreement that if they
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: stayed and tried to weather this storm, that enough people
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: would stay such that they could. And that's the decision
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: to wind down the firm that I think was Just
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: incredibly emotionally difficult for the people in that room. I'm
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: told virtually every single one of them was crying that day.
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: And you can imagine why. This is a place that
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: these people cared about.
• 20:41
  Speaker 2: John Morley at Yale said there are legal reasons to
• 20:45
  Speaker 2: quickly wind down the firm, even if it seems financially healthy.
• 20:48
  Speaker 2: I mean, can you explain some of the legal reasons why?
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a handful of legal reasons why it makes
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: sense to be proactive about this. And I'm not a lawyer.
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: But as I understand it, if you are paid by
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: a law firm as an owner, and that law firm
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: subsequently files bankruptcy, the trustee of that bankruptcy can claw
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: back your compensation for some period of time. And so
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: it's financially costly. And that's a risk. And that is
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: what also influences the psychology of the partner run. And
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: so law firms actually are more sophisticated about financial planning
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: for distress scenarios. And so I think John Morley is
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: the one who said it. Paradoxically, it incentivizes more collapses
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: and more wind downs.
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: Are partners scrambling, are associates scrambling to find jobs, I imagine?
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: Yeah, the scramble to find jobs is on. At the
• 21:43
  Speaker 1: same time, these lawyers who are at Weill Gottschall are
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: still working for clients. There's a Weill Gottschall lawyer in
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: a courtroom somewhere today, I'm sure. And they continue to
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: work for clients while this process goes. The firm continues
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: to pay its lawyers and its staff. They've committed, I think,
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: to pay for 90 days. People who are still there
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: by the time their year-end bonuses would normally be paid
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: will get those. Ultimately, the hope is you get everybody
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: off this ship you deal with the remaining finances and
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: then somehow it's dissolved.
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: So is there a date for when it will be dissolved?
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: No, I don't think anybody could give you a date
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: for when it'll be dissolved. There was another wind down, um,
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: struck and Struck and Levon. That was a handful of
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: years ago. And I think they might have only formally
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: dissolved earlier this year. So it can be a pretty
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: drawn out process. But the idea is to get the
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: people out of the law firm sort of as quickly
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: as orderly as possible. And I think the firm's committed
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: to try to help people find their way to new
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: places as best they can. And the only thing I've
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: heard so far is that there's been a tremendous outpouring
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: of support across the legal industry for these people who've
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: been affected. You can go on LinkedIn and find like,
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: you know, second year law students who had been intending
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: to go there saying, you know, this is the predicament
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: I'm in. I'm humbly, you know, looking for a new job.
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: And it's actually kind of heartening to see that in
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: the comments, I've seen some of them like offered jobs
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: just through LinkedIn. I really think that at the end
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: of the day, this is a human story. And the
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: impact of it is felt on its youngest people. And
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: the most vulnerable, of course, are the staff, not the lawyers,
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: because the lawyers go and they follow their clients and
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: they do the work their clients will still need. But
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: those other professionals, I think it's a little bit more
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: challenging to pick up the pieces from this.
• 23:40
  Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Roy. That's Roy Strom of Bloomberg Law.
• 23:44
  Speaker 2: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember,
• 23:47
  Speaker 2: you can always get the latest legal news on our
• 23:49
  Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
• 23:53
  Speaker 2: and at www.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law. And remember to
• 23:59
  Speaker 2: tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m.
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: Wall Street time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.