Thomas Sipp

With regard to the pro bono programs, Skadden had a rule basically that said that you can count an unlimited number of your pro bono hours towards your billable hours requirement.

And it's a big deal that Skadden does that because not many other firms do.

So on March 17th, when the EEOC, which stands for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, basically published this letter listing 20 law firms, including my own, saying that these law firms are essentially under investigation for their practices related to diversity issues.

Right, yeah.

And one of my friends from the firm sends me an article that the New York Times published, basically stating that Skadden was in talks with the administration to avert an executive order.

And this was after Paul Weiss, which is essentially a peer firm, made a deal, including for $40 million pro bono commitment to causes that the president agrees with.

And during that preceding week, there had been pockets of the law firm trying to organize some sort of request from a response, nothing publicly, but at least internally seeking clarity and hoping to provide at least some input into what the attorneys who actually worked there feel about what's going on and how so many of us believe that it's unconstitutional.

Right.

Like, this is not a difficult legal question.

There's no legal basis for what the president's doing.

It's complete abuse of power.

And so we want our firm to stand up for that.

But we're feeling like things are moving really fast and we felt voiceless.

So there's this email thread that got around to parts of the firm.

And so when I see that,

I realized at that point that it's pretty likely that there's going to be a deal and that it's going to be one that the attorneys don't like.

And, you know, within hours, I think, we again find out from the news that there is this agreement.

And then we hear from the firm.

Yeah.

Personally, I felt ashamed to work at Skadden.