Next Story
Newszop

Microsoft replaces 'Trump-friendly' lawyers to fight company's 'biggest gaming' deal case

Send Push
Microsoft has replaced Simpson Thacher & Bartlett with Jenner & Block in its Delaware Court of Chancery lawsuit concerning the 2023 Activision Blizzard acquisition, according to a report. The change was reportedly filed in April when Simpson Thacher attorneys withdrew and Jenner partners took over to represent the tech giant. This essentially means that Microsoft is moving from a legal team that prioritised avoiding conflict with the government to one that is willing to challenge the government in court.

Large corporations like Microsoft routinely engage multiple law firms, shifting work based on factors such as fees, expertise, and conflicts. While Microsoft declined to explain this particular switch, it suggests that even law firms willing to challenge the Trump administration can retain major clients, the New York Times reported.

Last month, Simpson Thacher agreed to provide $125 million in pro bono legal services for causes approved by the Trump administration, the NYT report claims. In a joint statement with other firms, it stated that the work would benefit “a wide range of underserved populations.” On the same day Simpson Thacher exited, at least three Jenner & Block partners informed the court of their new role, the report adds. Jenner is currently opposing a Trump administration executive order that targets its business interests.

A lawsuit by an institutional Activision shareholder, which is unrelated to any federal governmental action, initiated this Microsoft case. The plaintiff claimed that Activision’s board violated legal requirements when approving the merger, and last year, a Delaware court largely rejected the company’s bid to have the suit dismissed.


What are the concerns of the law firms opposing the Trump administration

Since the Trump administration began scrutinising major law firms with executive orders and investigations into their hiring and diversity practices, firm leaders have cited the prospect of losing clients as a key reason to negotiate agreements rather than fight. They feared that even a successful legal challenge against the White House could drive clients away.

Many attorneys argue that these executive orders, which limit these firms’ interactions with federal agencies and officials, are unconstitutional, and thus far, the courts have appeared sympathetic. The recent Microsoft switch in Delaware suggests there may also be drawbacks to settling.

Some clients worry that a firm aligned with the White House could face a conflict of interest and hesitate to advocate vigorously on their behalf, particularly if they’re defending against a government lawsuit.

Others expressed broader concerns, including a senior partner at a firm without a White House deal who reported attracting former clients of settling firms, stating they had lost confidence in firms that didn’t challenge what they perceived as an assault on the rule of law.

For instance, on the website promoting its fight against Trump’s executive order, Jenner & Block contended that making a deal “would mean compromising our ability to zealously advocate for all of our clients.” Similarly, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey have created web pages to emphasise their commitment to pushing back on those orders, the report adds.
Loving Newspoint? Download the app now